Room-temperature superconductivity?

[johanfprins]

So do you have an ETA on your patent process? You've given this to your lawyers and they don't see a way to get your old substrates back from those you sent them to, nor think it's worth pursuing them in any way?

You do not read what I am writing. Those substrates were for extracting electrons which form a superconducting phase between a diamond substrate and an anode in high vacuum before a plasma can form. It is already in the public domain that it is possible. Although I do not want them to distributte any knowledge about what they find before informing me (hence NDA) these substrates are not important enough to fight about as far as my invention of superconducting wafers is concerned. So please GIThruster, let us just stop raising the same arguments and answers endlessly!

[GIThruster]

Johan, forgive me that I'm not cognizant of the distinctions you're drawing here. This isn't my job, nor my primary investment of time. So let's be direct and plain and obvious and true.

Did you send out a couple samples of diamond substrate you treated to superconduct on their surface, and then never receive them back? If not, what did you do that resembles this?

[vankirkc]

It should be obvious by now that Johan will keep this 'misundertanding' going ad-infinitum. It's good publicity for his book and he has no incentive whatsoever to admit he's selling snake oil.

The only way to approach this is to operate on the assumption that there's absolutely no truth whatsoever to his claims until and unless he can demonstrate physical evidence otherwise. These words are just bits in the ether, signifying nothing.

Sort of reminds me of the whole Polywell debate in a way.

[chrismb]

Sort of reminds me of the whole Polywell debate in a way.

Agreed!

I just think this is all good 'practice' for trying to work out what positions/arguments work, and what doesn't. Like, a trial-run for when things get 'real'. It is unclear if JFP will gain from this thread in this way, though.

[johanfprins]

Johan, forgive me that I'm not cognizant of the distinctions you're drawing here. This isn't my job, nor my primary investment of time. So let's be direct and plain and obvious and true.

Did you send out a couple samples of diamond substrate you treated to superconduct on their surface, and then never receive them back? If not, what did you do that resembles this?

I told you time and again that the substrates I have sent out were those from which one can extract electrons in a high vacuum without generating a plasma so that superconduction becomes possible between the diamond and the anode THROUGH the gap between them. These substrates have been been patented and the full experiment has been published in Semiconductor Science and Technology in 2003. No subsequent IP will be shared to obtain any outside measurements until my patent lawyers allow it.

[johanfprins]

Johan, forgive me that I'm not cognizant of the distinctions you're drawing here. This isn't my job, nor my primary investment of time. So let's be direct and plain and obvious and true.

Did you send out a couple samples of diamond substrate you treated to superconduct on their surface, and then never receive them back? If not, what did you do that resembles this?

I told you time and again that the substrates I have sent out were those from which one can extract electrons in a high vacuum without generating a plasma so that superconduction becomes possible between the diamond and the anode THROUGH the gap between them. These substrates have been been patented and the full experiment has been published in Semiconductor Science and Technology in 2003. No subsequent IP will be shared to obtain any outside measurements until my patent lawyers allow it. Why should I if I cannot even get somebody who is willing to verify my first patent.

As far as the two clowns who posted after you are concerned: I take it as a serious insult to be called a snake oil seller. Especially by two cowards who hide behind anonymity. They should know about snake oil since they are both lower than a snake's asshole.

[GIThruster]

Johan, forgive me that I'm not cognizant of the distinctions you're drawing here. This isn't my job, nor my primary investment of time. So let's be direct and plain and obvious and true.

Did you send out a couple samples of diamond substrate you treated to superconduct on their surface, and then never receive them back? If not, what did you do that resembles this?

I told you time and again that the substrates I have sent out were those from which one can extract electrons in a high vacuum without generating a plasma so that superconduction becomes possible between the diamond and the anode THROUGH the gap between them. These substrates have been been patented and the full experiment has been published in Semiconductor Science and Technology in 2003. No subsequent IP will be shared to obtain any outside measurements until my patent lawyers allow it.

So the substrates themselves do not superconduct, even along the surface. There needs to be a vacuum gap between the substrate and anode. . ?

Not for nothing Johan, but there are a handful of lexical ambiguities and other critical reference failures in your writing every time you try to say what you try to say--that often make it appear you're trying to be vague rather than clear. Of course we need to remember that English is not your first language, but on the other hand, you did do your PhD in English--did you not?

I'm just amazed that even in the answer above, I cannot make out just precisely what you're trying--and failing--to say.

Do the substrates you sent out, superconduct on their own, or do they have to be provided with vacuum and an anode to superconduct? If the latter, how can these be tested? How is this a useful technology? IC's are not assembled with vacuum inside them.

Please try to be as simple, direct and clear with no opportunity for reference failure.

[GIThruster]

It should be obvious by now that Johan will keep this 'misundertanding' going ad-infinitum. It's good publicity for his book and he has no incentive whatsoever to admit he's selling snake oil.

The only way to approach this is to operate on the assumption that there's absolutely no truth whatsoever to his claims until and unless he can demonstrate physical evidence otherwise. These words are just bits in the ether, signifying nothing.

Yes well, such skepticism is common, and flies in the face of reason.

Both wide-eyed, youthful optimism, and grumpy, taciturn pessimism, fall off the fence when it comes to adjudicating warrant for belief. It's because people get this so wrong, almost all of the time, that they need epistemologists to remind them the dictates of reason.

It is never reasonable, to assume anything about anyone--not that they're a victim of circumstance, nor that they're a snake oil salesman. I will say however, that Johan is obviously a smart guy, and I find it very difficult to believe if he's a con man, how he is such a terribly ungifted con man. My 8 year old nephew can run a better con than this.

I think your pessimism has made you somewhat silly in this regard.

[chrismb]

As far as the two clowns who posted after you are concerned: I take it as a serious insult to be called a snake oil seller. Especially by two cowards who hide behind anonymity. They should know about snake oil since they are both lower than a snake's asshole.

I beg your pardon!! What possible thing have I said that has prompted that ad hominem outburst.

Print what I have said that justifies such a disgusting outburst from you. All I have done so far is to seek to support your struggle with 'conventional researchers'. All you have done is insult me.

You have done nothing other than reject and insult everything I have said and now you dare to attack me personally. Shame on you. I am left in no doubt as to why your attempts to gain credence have been totally rejected. You have no ability to contain yourself. You are out of control and seek only to blame others for the worthless state of your ideas.

[chrismb]

Moderators... if you please....

[KitemanSA]

...lower than a snake's a...

I beg your pardon!! What possible thing have I said that has prompted that ad hominem outburst.

Chris,

It should be obvious by now that Johan will keep this 'misundertanding' going ad-infinitum. It's good publicity for his book and he has no incentive whatsoever to admit he's selling snake oil {bold face added, ed}.
...
Sort of reminds me of the whole Polywell debate in a way.

To which

Agreed!

. You did extract a only a part of Vankirkc's posting but I am not sure Johan noticed that. I suspect he was under the impression that you agreed with the 'shake oil" statement too. Miscommunication in a heated topic.

[johanfprins]

So the substrates themselves do not superconduct, even along the surface. There needs to be a vacuum gap between the substrate and anode. . ?

You are trying to obtain information by asking me to answer questions based on assumptions. You should know that by confirming or rejecting an assumption you are giving away information. Only a fool will do this. So why do YOU not come clean and stop with being devious.

Not for nothing Johan, but there are a handful of lexical ambiguities and other critical reference failures in your writing every time you try to say what you try to say--that often make it appear you're trying to be vague rather than clear.

I have not been vague on any IP that is in the public domain. Neither have I been vague on what is discussed in my book which does NOT relate to my present IP at all; but to the fact that for 100 years the leading physicists have made elementary mistakes which led physics into cloud-cuckoo land. As far as my present IP is concerned I have not been "vague" by stating that I refuse to discuss it on an open forum. So according to you any person who refuses to answer your assumptions is dodging the facts? Please grow up.

I'm just amazed that even in the answer above, I cannot make out just precisely what you're trying--and failing--to say.

At least I have an excuse that English is not my first language: What excuse do you have for not being willing to understand that no sane person will answer ANY questions on IP which is NOT YET in the public domain. If you cannot understand it, go to a patent lawyer so that he/she can explain this simple-elementary fact to you in terms of the English you are able to understand.

[johanfprins]

...lower than a snake's a...

I beg your pardon!! What possible thing have I said that has prompted that ad hominem outburst.

Chris,

It should be obvious by now that Johan will keep this 'misundertanding' going ad-infinitum. It's good publicity for his book and he has no incentive whatsoever to admit he's selling snake oil {bold face added, ed}.
...
Sort of reminds me of the whole Polywell debate in a way.

To which

Agreed!

. You did extract a only a part of Vankirkc's posting but I am not sure Johan noticed that. I suspect he was under the impression that you agreed with the 'shake oil" statement too. Miscommunication in a heated topic.

Thank you Kiteman: This is how I interpreted it. If my interpretation is wrong than I obviously apologize to Chris.

[ladajo]

Johan,
GIThruster is not your enemy. He is just trying to understand nature of the samples that you sent off.
He brought out a point that I had missed as well, that of the substrate being treated to produce electrons to an anode in a high vacuum ACROSS A GAP without creating a plasma. Until you typed that this last go round, it had not clicked in my head.
He is not trying to pick a fight with you or pry secrets. On the contrary he is merely trying to understand the situation better in an effort to assist.
I think you know at this point he is one of the few here with actual connections and resources that could assit or provide insight for an assist.
If your current position is as in cards, "pat" and you are ok with how things are progressing, that is fine. However, many pages ago, it seemed that you were exploring input on avenues to move things along better outside of your books and patents.
I personnally enjoy your thoughts on the fundamentals of physics, and the alternatives of understanding that you bring to the table. I think it is valuable in any scientific or educational environment to explore critically all avenues, and seek conclusions based on evidence, and less so evidence based on conclusions.
You have a strong argument, acidic at times, but strong none-the-less, and I personally have really enjoyed your ongoing exchange with Carter, as I also was with your exchanges with Giorgio.
It has been very educational, and for that I am greatful.

[GIThruster]

At least I have an excuse that English is not my first language: What excuse do you have for not being willing to understand that no sane person will answer ANY questions on IP which is NOT YET in the public domain.

No, Dr, Prins. If you have something to say, say it. Don't dick people around here constantly causing trouble. If all you have is some whining, complaining and acting like a six year-old, then spare us all.

In all these many dozens of posts, you have not "come clean". Either make a simple statement, a claim concerning factual matters, or stop wasting everyone's time.

To date, you have not done anything other than waste people's time. I understand you're very impressed with your theory, but science isn't satisfied with just theory. Science requires observation. If you can't be honest and open about the observations you've supposedly offered to others, you don't belong on this form.

Fess up, and stop acting like a six year-old. This emotional trouble you suffer is after all why we're not working together--because you don't ACT LIKE AN ADULT.