Talk-Polywell.org

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:A Neutron decays into an electron, proton and anti-neutrino but it would be very wrong to talk of 'the electron in the neutron'.

Correct!

So too with this boson, it really is something very different with some very odd properties. We know it shows contempt for Schro's evanescent equation, so it can't be obeying Schro's wave equation in a lattice. Therefore it won't be affected by the electron band-structure.

That is because it is wrongly assumed that a superconducting charge carrier must be a boson. In fact the charge-carriers within a superconductor obeys Schroedinger's equation perfectly.

So in a lattice that is more gap than band for electrons, like a doped insulator, it is likely that our boson will take up an energy in a gap.

This is exactly what the charge-carriers within a superconductor do. They are stationary, localized electron-waves, each having the same binding energy, within an electron-energy gap; similar to donors below a conduction band. The so-called Cooper Pair "binding energy" is the position of the Fermi-level in this gap which ends up at the energy of the charge-carriers at absolute zero.

In fact such a doped semiconductor is a dormant superconductor. If their ionization energy and distances between the donors are suitably low, such a semiconductor will superconduct even though the donor-electrons are singly-charged. This has been demonstrated experimentally during the past decade.

Since the gap prevents thermal lattice electrons from causing decay of the bosons it can only be the bosons own thermodynamics that causes higher temperature SC.

As I have argued, one does not need bosons to have superconduction.

Further proof that we are dealing with a separate entity that decays to Cooper Pairs is the Tate '89 experiment. She measured e/m using the London Moment

I am at a lost with terminology here; and do not know the experiment. What do you exactly define as the "London moment" and what did Tate actually measure?

Tate's measurement of the mass of the Cooper Pair

Can we possibly get hold of a critical Temp./Field diagram for a cuprate sample?
On it you'll see a kink at around 10-20K. Before the kink is BCS compliant, after the kink something else flattens the thermal response. I've a clear explanation of this.
I'm interested that you imply there is a known distance relationship for Josephson coupling, could you point me at it?
Ideally email me the papers sandy(at)zymandia.com since I have no academic access.
I think between us we'd have no trouble landing room-temperature SC in a lab.
Odd how mainstream academia holds back advances in human knowledge until they are good and ready for them.

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:Tate's measurement of the mass of the Cooper Pair

Sorry I cannot afford to download it. I see it is the group of Blas Cabrera. I knew his father while he was at the University of Virginia. Blas' monopole search is of course just paranormal physics.

Can we possibly get hold of a critical Temp./Field diagram for a cuprate sample?
On it you'll see a kink at around 10-20K. Before the kink is BCS compliant, after the kink something else flattens the thermal response. I've a clear explanation of this.

This is where we disagree: There is no material in the world that is"BCS compliant".

I 'm interested that you imply there is a known distance relationship for Josephson coupling, could you point me at it?

I have just published a book on it, but you can see section 28 of this book on my website (www.cathodixx.com) where I discuss how Josephson tunneling really occurs ( I posted it yesterday) . There is no "coupling" involved: only straightforward physics.

I think between us we'd have no trouble landing room-temperature SC in a lab.

I like the idea.

Odd how mainstream academia holds back advances in human knowledge until they are good and ready for them.

People are never ready to give up what they want to believe; especially if it means leaving their "comfort zone". Thank God we are at least not liable to actually burn at the stake: Although the reaction against new ideas are just as devastating! Academia is nothing else but the most bigoted "church" that ever existed.

Hi JFP, check your private message?
I agree BCS is a crock, actually what happens is Fermi-Dirac statistics cause pairs of holes to open further and further below the fermi level and when pairs open below the bosons' energy decay occurs. The idea that because phonons blow super-con apart then phonons must hold electrons together seems like saying that gas explosions blow houses apart so gas holds houses together, very odd.
By BCS compliant I meant that there are no relevant gaps in the Local Density of States and nothing inhibits F-D statistics opening holes low enough to 'evaporate' the bosons. High-temp SC, of course, is where a semi-conductor band-gap prevents F-D statistics from stripping the bosons.
Another reason that this boson is a separate entity is that the spin 1 version is a 'vortex' and is responsible for ferro-magnetism. The official view on SC vortices and the Nernst effect would be hilarious if it weren't the pinnacle of academic understanding.

That is because it is wrongly assumed that a superconducting charge carrier must be a boson. In fact the charge-carriers within a superconductor obeys Schroedinger's equation perfectly.

That's odd! Because the charge-carrier in Josephson Coupling precisely doesn't obey Schro.
We know that the minimum size of the bosons must be of a scale with their penetration/cohesion lengths which are typically 100s of lattice cells apart. We know that the presence of bosons will cause an increase in
decay pairs of electrons. How can we know whether the charge is carried by the boson and converted to an electron by Andreev reflection or whether the electrons carry it?

Grurgle-the-Grey wrote:Hi JFP, check your private message?

Yes I have: Thanks. I e-mailed back.

That's odd! Because the charge-carrier in Josephson Coupling precisely doesn't obey Schro.

It does. I will send you a copy of my description of Josephson tunnelling.

Andreev reflection or whether the electrons carry it?

This model is wrong. All that happens is that when the charge carrier carrying a charge -e is injected into the insulator, a positive image charge must be reflected: This has been known for 100 years. Why one must use Andreev's paranormal model to explain something as simple as this effect is beyond my comprehension!

Gurgle.

You should post any further points in 'General'. This isn't news, and by the time this thread hits 100 pages then your posts will be very very lost.

No-one is going to read through 50 pages, so whatever fundamental points were made in this thread will have to be unearthed by some form of digital archaeologist, if there is such a thing. I don't believe a 50 page thread is the way to disseminate any form of information. It is un-searchable. Time for this thread to stop. Please make new topic headings in 'general'.

Started topic
The centenary of Super-Conductivity approaches
in General tab.
Perusing Josephson at the moment.

Is there any more news on this from johanfprins or did Chrismb manage to kill off one of the more interesting threads, in his inimitable way?

The discussion appears to have moved to the General Forum, as chrismb (correctly) suggested.

parallel wrote:Is there any more news on this from johanfprins or did Chrismb manage to kill off one of the more interesting threads, in his inimitable way?

I am very busy doing a few more experiments which should prove conclusively that I am right. It is going slowly since I have to fund them out of my small pension. My patent lawyers also asked me to avoid too much discussion at this stage, since they want to add the results of these experiments to a patent. I believe, however, that there will soon be good news: Although I despair that it will be accepted even when I levitate a superconducting device. The superconductor church is too devoted to Cooper pairs and have for 10 years been too stupid to understand how dipole layers over interfaces form and how they react to an apllied electric field.

Johan,
I, for one, am interested in what you are doing. Please keep us informed as best you can within the boundaries you must stay.
I also like to see you thoughts on others work in this field as they surface.

ladajo wrote:Johan,
I, for one, am interested in what you are doing. Please keep us informed as best you can within the boundaries you must stay.
I also like to see you thoughts on others work in this field as they surface.

Thanks for your interest. I will try to keep you informed. But please be patient since I am at present a bit overwhelmed with work. It looks good though.

Thanks.

Johan, I wonder what's your take on this paper, as from what I gather, it seems to disprove Cooper pairs in cuprate superconductors.

Physical Mechanism of Superconductivity

The physical mechanism of superconductivity is proposed on the basis of carrier-induced dynamic strain effect. By this new model, superconducting state consists of the dynamic bound state of superconducting electrons, which is formed by the high-energy nonbonding electrons through dynamic interaction with their surrounding lattice to trap themselves into the three - dimensional potential wells lying in energy at above the Fermi level of the material. The binding energy of superconducting electrons dominates the superconducting transition temperature in the corresponding material. Under an electric field, superconducting electrons move coherently with lattice distortion wave and periodically exchange their excitation energy with chain lattice, that is, the superconducting electrons transfer periodically between their dynamic bound state and conducting state. Thus, the intrinsic feature of superconductivity is to generate an oscillating current under a dc voltage. The coherence lengths in cuprates must have the value equal to an even number times the lattice constant. A superconducting material must simultaneously satisfy three criteria required by superconductivity. Almost all of the puzzling behavior of the cuprates can be uniquely understood under this new model. We demonstrate that the factor 2 in Josephson current equation, in fact, is resulting from 2V, the voltage drops across the two superconductor sections on both sides of a junction, not from the Cooper pair, and the magnetic flux is quantized in units of h/e, postulated by London, not in units of h/2e. The central features of superconductivity, such as Josephson effect, the tunneling mechanism in multijunction systems, and the origin of the superconducting tunneling phenomena, are all physically reconsidered under this superconductivity model.

Johan,
Thank you for replying. As I wrote earlier, I find this one of the most interesting threads and wish you well in your experiments.
Looking forward to the results!