Room-temperature superconductivity?

[BenTC]

Furthermore there are other materials than diamond which present possibilities. Suffice to say that not one of the ceramic materials being studied at present has the required characteristics. Maybe one will be discovered in future but the present materials are all restricted to be at, and below about 200 K.

Just a few wild ideas...

How accurate can your theory predict?

Any chance of you predict a ceramic compound performing just slightly better than current materials? Perhaps more "believable" and someone else will pick it up independently to test.

Or a web site where anyone can define the structure of a compound, and it returns some prediction of transition temperature. After it confirms existing compounds, some researchers, treating it as pure curiousity, might test the substance they "have in mind" before conducting experiments - and then when experiment matches prediction - whammo! - what a buzz that would generate. This service could be provided anonymously, so as to not be discounted out of hand, with all your IP locked up in a black box. You would be leaveraging inate human curiousity in an environment where the user feels in control.

[BenTC]

I bumped into a good overview of superconductor terminology on Joe Eck's site.
http://www.superconductors.org/terms.htm

Some things I found particularly interesting...

BCS Theory: The first widely-accepted theory to explain superconductivity put forth in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper, and John Schreiffer. The theory asserts that, as electrons pass through a crystal lattice, the lattice deforms inward towards the electrons generating sound packets known as "phonons". These phonons produce a trough of positive charge in the area of deformation that assists subsequent electrons in passing through the same region in a process known as phonon-mediated coupling. This is analogous to rolling a bowling ball up the middle of a bed. 2 people, one lying on each side of the bed, will tend to roll toward the center of the bed, once the ball has created a depression in the mattress. And, a 2nd bowling ball, placed at the foot of the bed, will now, quite easily, roll toward the middle. For a more technical explanation click here.

Ultraconductor: Materials known as ultraconductors™ display room-temperature resistance many orders of magnitude lower than the best metallic conductors. Examples of these materials include oxidized atactic polypropylene (OAPP) and other polymers. Since ultraconductor™ is a colloquial term, these materials might better be described as "hyperconductors". The Meissner effect cannot be confirmed in them, but strong (giant) diamagnetism is in evidence. Some of them may actually find acceptance in high-current applications ahead of superconductors as a result of their low losses at ambient temperatures and pressures.

Josephson Junction: A thin layer of insulating material sandwiched between 2 superconducting layers. Electrons "tunnel" through this non-superconducting region in what is known as the "Josephson effect" (see above). Sidebar: The standard volt is now defined as the voltage required to produce a frequency of 483,597.9 GHz in a Josephson Junction.

[BenTC]

Johan,

What do you think of the following, which echos some of your ideas...
Hole Superconductivity

Superconductivity occurs due to pairing of hole carriers, and is driven by the fact that paired holes can propagate more easily (have a smaller effective mass) than single holes. As a consequence, their kinetic energy is lowered. In contrast, single electrons can move easily and so they don't pair. 'Dynamic Hubbard models' describe the different physics of electron and hole carriers in metals. The different mobility of holes and electrons can be illustrated by a garage analogy. The reason for the increased mobility of holes upon pairing is that they 'undress' when they pair, and turn into electrons. This leads to a new understanding of superconductors, that a superconductor is a giant atom. If the theory is correct it implies that the electron-phonon interaction is irrelevant to superconductivity, that BCS theory is incorrect and that London theory is incorrect. The theory also explains the Meissner effect and predicts a Spin Meissner effect. The high temperature superconductivity of the cuprates (hole-doped and electron-doped ), the arsenides, magnesium diboride, transition metal elements, and elements under high pressure have a natural explanation within this theory.

and this...
Kinetic energy driven superconductivity

We have proposed that superconductivity is driven by a decrease of kinetic energy of the carriers.

In quantum mechanics, carrier delocalization leads to lowering of kinetic energy. The theory of hole superconductivity predicts that when hole carriers pair they delocalize and lower their kinetic energy. This is the driving force for superconductivity. An experimental signature of it is change in color when the material becomes superconducting.

[TallDave]

It might be good if we had a short, three-paragraph summary of your ideas, Johann, something sympathetic heads might spread around to places where people might find it interesting enough to follow a link and learn more. Maybe one graf on the idea, one on how it contradicts the conventional view, and one on the room-temp superconduction you found?

Also -- I think the notion of repeating your earlier experiments deserves more attention. The first thing we had to do with Polywell was get WB-7 to validate the claims made about WB-6. It's not a step forward, but getting more evidence always helps. What kind of budget would it require to do the same thing you already did? Could this be done as a throwaway undergrad project at some U.S. schools? I would hope we have a few vapor deposition labs out there that could do it.

Of course, you'd be giving up your IP by allowing open replication, so you might hold this in reserve as a final option if nothing develops funding-wise. You'd at least be remembered as the father of a revolution, if you're right.

You might sound out the Gemesis people; they appear to have hundreds or thousands of diamond-producing vapor deposition machines. Of course, you may run into the same "SC theorists say this is impossible" wall but iirc the founder started out in a garage, so who knows...

[GIThruster]

If you could convince the superconducting aircraft motor people that bulk diamond superconductors above room temperature are possible, the money could start to flow. Engineers and venture capitalists, not mainstream physicists. The whole aircraft industry is on a one-way path to electric propulsion, whether they all realize it or not.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2003/700 ... erson.html

[GIThruster]

Yeah, my complaint too. I've known Tony for years, and I pressed him to get him hard only to get him to say "no" twice. I don't think anyone is going to get a different answer. Sorry.

Not surprising. Since the theoreticians at the Jet Propulsion lboratory voted down a proposal that they should repeat my measurements, since my claims violate the BCS model of superconduction, I have been completely blocked by all Conferences and Journals to get my message across. It seems there is a blacklist and I have been placed on it. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy theorist but there is no doubt that I am known at DARPA, Office of Naval Reseach, NASA etc. and has been classified as "unsavoury".

So thanks for your efforts, but we might be up against more than you want to believe. It also shows in the manner that I have been treated by the patent examiners at the PCT. I have to withdraw everytime because the most assinine and stupid arguments are raised by them. Every time I have lost money. Even my patent attorneys agree that the situation has become unacceptable.

I'm sure this has nothing to do with any of that. Tony is right that it's not a superconductor conference. There probably won't be anyone there able to judge the technology. There will be investors and their hired guns at the conference and those physicists probably won't be specialists in superconductivity.

I think the generalization about being blocked is unnecessary. There are many potentially valuable technologies out there that don't have funding, for decades even. It's the Catch 22 issue mentioned above. . .

[johanfprins]

Just a few wild ideas...
How accurate can your theory predict?

Accurate once you have made the correct measurements on a material.

Any chance of you predict a ceramic compound performing just slightly better than current materials? Perhaps more "believable" and someone else will pick it up independently to test.

Yes I can predict what properties any material must have to be able to superconduct at any temperature. Most of these properties do not manifest in known materisls. To tell what to do to increase the critical temperature might be giving away IP.
All I can say at present is that I am not aware of any ceramic material which has suitable properties; and it is probable that such a material might not even exist. There is an extra aspect which comes into play which is NOT predicted by my theory but which I have discovered by experimentation. Thus my model can describre ALL superconductors but does not predict this extra aspect. It predicts that "normal" materials will rarely exceed a Tc of 200 K. Pressure might under certain circumstances increase Tc, but it can alo decrease it. It is NOT realy a useful paarameter. My patrent is thus NOT based directly on my odel. It is thus NOT an attempt to patent a theory! but by publishing how to increase the Tc is not a good idea.
[qoute] Or a web site where anyone can define the structure of a compound, and it returns some prediction of transition temperature. [/quote]
This would be like calculating the crystal structure from the Schroedinger equation. We have to be content to measure the crystal structure and then calclating the electron energy spectrum. Therefore we have to be content to measure the relevant properties and be able to predict the Tc. BCS cannot do this!

After it confirms existing compounds, some researchers, treating it as pure curiousity, might test the substance they "have in mind" before conducting experiments - and then when experiment matches prediction - whammo! - what a buzz that would generate. This service could be provided anonymously, so as to not be discounted out of hand, with all your IP locked up in a black box. You would be leaveraging inate human curiousity in an environment where the user feels in control.

Unfortuantely it might be giving away the IP. Not That I believe that I will ever be allowed to own my IP. It is already known by the "men in black". As usual the latter statement leaves my wide open as a "conspiracy theorist". But do you really think the USA military will not know what is in the first patent I tried to file in the USA and then had to withdraw? I will probably just be blocked all the way. But this does not mean that I am willing to place it freely into the public domain.

[johanfprins]

Some things I found particularly interesting...

BCS Theory etc.

This is of course utter nonsense: There is ONLY one definition for a superconductor and that is what Onnes has measured in 1911. A superconductor is a material through which a constant current is flowing (i.e. with a constant drift speed) while there is NO electric-field present that can accelerate the charge-carriers. If you cannot model how the latter happens, and the BCS model CANNOT, then you do not know the mechanism reponsible for superconduction. Onnes made the mistake of plotting his data as resistance versus temperature and then deduced zero resistance WITHOUT defining what the latter means: It is ONLY DEFINED by superconduction. It cannot be deduced from Ohm's law since Ohm's law IS ONLY valid when the resistance is NOT ZERO!

This is analogous to rolling a bowling ball up the middle of a bed. 2 people, one lying on each side of the bed, will tend to roll toward the center of the bed, once the ball has created a depression in the mattress. And, a 2nd bowling ball, placed at the foot of the bed, will now, quite easily, roll toward the middle.

Sounds sexy but my balls do not roll separately on a bed to form a pair in this way.

Ultraconductor...

This is a term invented by Mark Goldes to get past the morons who are patent examiners.

Josephson Junction A thin layer of insulating material sandwiched between 2 superconducting layers. Electrons "tunnel" through this non-superconducting region in what is known as the "Josephson effect" (see above).

So far the definition is correct, but Josephson predicted this result in terms of Cooper pairs which do NOT form. Bardeen told him that pairs cannot tunnel. Bardeen was correct, but neither Josephson or he would have received Nobel Prizes for superconduction if he stuck to his guns: Which is what he should have done because his initial reaction was totally correct.

[johanfprins]

Johan,
What do you think of the following, which echos some of your ideas...

superconductivity occurs due to pairing of hole carriers, and is driven by the fact that paired holes can propagate more easily (have a smaller effective mass) than single holes.

Superconduction does NOT require ANY pairing. Although a pair of electrons and/or holes might be able to superconduct, such pairing IS not REQUIRED for superconduction to occur. In fact, the majority of superconductors discovered to date conduct by means of fermion charge-carriers.

As a consequence, their kinetic energy is lowered. In contrast, single electrons can move easily and so they don't pair

This not required for electrons "not to pair": It is physics-nonsense.

'Dynamic Hubbard models' describe the different physics of electron and hole carriers in metals. The different mobility of holes and electrons can be illustrated by a garage analogy.

The Hubbard model is an abortion and I am not going to discuss it on this forum. It requires too many pages to show how stupid this model really is.
The rest of this posting is such nonsense that I will rather believe the BCS model than this.
Take the following:

In quantum mechanics, carrier delocalization leads to lowering of kinetic energy.

The authors should first define what they mean by a "delocalised charge-carriers". In section 8 of my forthcoming book I show that charge-carriers can ONLY be localised waves (wave packets); and this localisation is caused by the applied electric field. No field, no charge-carriers!

[GIThruster]

This would be like calculating the crystal structure from the Schroedinger equation. We have to be content to measure the crystal structure and then calclating the electron energy spectrum. Therefore we have to be content to measure the relevant properties and be able to predict the Tc.

Have you considered taking a test drive on Millsian? Might make you better able to predict than measuring everything, which in turn might make you able to construct a cheaper, easier to test material than diamond:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/millsian.shtml

[johanfprins]

It might be good if we had a short, three-paragraph summary of your ideas, Johann, something sympathetic heads might spread around to places where people might find it interesting enough to follow a link and learn more. Maybe one graf on the idea, one on how it contradicts the conventional view, and one on the room-temp superconduction you found?

The problem is that such a summary is immediately rejected since it shows that the BCS model is not tenable. Even worse, it next proves that the phase-angle approach used in all quantum-field theories violates simple vector calculus by claiming that one can set a conservatibve vector field point-for-point-equal to a circular vector field. Once you have realised this, this in turn leads to the conclusion that Dirac's "relativistic equation" for the electron is bollox and his prediction of a magnetic monopole is even more ridiculous.

This, in turn, then leads to the conclusion that concepts like 'spontaneous symmetry breaking" is pure nonsense; and then the holiest of holies, namely the Copenhagen interpretation is pure nonsense. This is a mouthful and I know that people might now accuse me of being a crank. The only way to succeed is thus to get my new book out since in it I explain all these concepts in simple language which any person with common sense should be able to follow. There you have it: Now condemn me: But history will prove me right.

I wish this were not the case and that I could have slipped room temperature superconduction past the theoretical physicists without them noticing. But this has not so far been possible. So I have been forced to take on the whole "physics church". I SO wish it could have been different!

Also -- I think the notion of repeating your earlier experiments deserves more attention. The first thing we had to do with Polywell was get WB-7 to validate the claims made about WB-6. It's not a step forward, but getting more evidence always helps. What kind of budget would it require to do the same thing you already did? Could this be done as a throwaway undergrad project at some U.S. schools? I would hope we have a few vapor deposition labs out there that could do it.

There are MANY vapour deposition labs which can reproduce my original experiment where I have extracted electrons from a diamond which forms a superconducting phase. I cannot understand why it has not yet been done. Neither can I understand why no laboratory ever took up my offer to test diamond which I have treated. Neither can I understand why two laboratories, one in England and one in Japan, whom I gave diamonds to to test NEVER respond when I enquire what has happened to those diamonds.

You might sound out the Gemesis people; they appear to have hundreds or thousands of diamond-producing vapor deposition machines. Of course, you may run into the same "SC theorists say this is impossible" wall but iirc the founder started out in a garage, so who knows...

They know me very well, but has never taken up any of my offers. Why not? They have NOTHING to lose, do they?

[johanfprins]

I'm sure this has nothing to do with any of that. Tony is right that it's not a superconductor conference. There probably won't be anyone there able to judge the technology. There will be investors and their hired guns at the conference and those physicists probably won't be specialists in superconductivity.
I think the generalization about being blocked is unnecessary. There are many potentially valuable technologies out there that don't have funding, for decades even. It's the Catch 22 issue mentioned above. . .

You might be completely correct in this case. So I have not accused Tony. If it looks like I have, I apologise.

[johanfprins]

Have you considered taking a test drive on Millsian? Might make you better able to predict than measuring everything, which in turn might make you able to construct a cheaper, easier to test material than diamond:

http://www.blacklightpower.com/millsian.shtml

I do not know about this approach and will look at tomorrow. It is near bedtime here in South Africa.

[GIThruster]

I'm sure this has nothing to do with any of that. Tony is right that it's not a superconductor conference. There probably won't be anyone there able to judge the technology. There will be investors and their hired guns at the conference and those physicists probably won't be specialists in superconductivity.
I think the generalization about being blocked is unnecessary. There are many potentially valuable technologies out there that don't have funding, for decades even. It's the Catch 22 issue mentioned above. . .

You might be completely correct in this case. So I have not accused Tony. If it looks like I have, I apologise.

No. It didn't appear you accused anyone. Just FYI though, Tony is the guy at NASA who was doing the investigations into both Woodward's and Pod's work before funding was cut. He has a very open mind.

On this issue that you forwarded test items to England and Japan, and haven't heard back. ..can you say either here or in private mail some of the details of this? I've never heard of such a thing before.

Did you have a written agreement with either of these labs before you sent the test items? I'm just flabbergasted. One would think that at least with the lab in the UK, you could get someone on the phone. Japan you may have a language barrier, but the lab in the UK. . .I dunno what to think.

[DeltaV]

If you could convince the superconducting aircraft motor people that bulk diamond superconductors above room temperature are possible, the money could start to flow. Engineers and venture capitalists, not mainstream physicists. The whole aircraft industry is on a one-way path to electric propulsion, whether they all realize it or not.

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2003/700 ... erson.html

Cool link, thanks. More details in the pdfs here:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2006/DE/ ... berg2.html
in particular
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/2006/ ... 214481.pdf

Now combine that with RTS for the coils and maybe some bulk RTS for diamagnetic field shaping and you might have one bitchin' lift fan and low-speed propulsor, with possible evolution into a higher-speed turbine.

Posted as a separate thread on the Design forum.