Superconductivity at room temperature??

[marplots]

What puzzles me is that Johan has said on numerous occasions that the Josephson junction is irrelevant.

Yet here we are, discussing the Josephson junction again.

I think he meant it was irrelevant to the broader theory, but it is an example of single electrons emitting without the predicted pairing of superconduction. It's where the magic happens!

 

[Skwinty]

My mistake, it's not the junction thats irrelevant, its Josephsons derivation.

Heres what he says on his web site:

• When this book was written, the author believed some physics-dogma which turned out to be incorrect, specifically:
  
• that most of the superconductors discovered up to that date have doubly-charged charge-carriers
• that Josephson’s derivation, based on the postulate that a difference in phase angle is responsible for “tunnelling” through an insulating layer between two superconductors, is based on the mathematics which models harmonic waves.

• Since then, the author has found compelling evidence that the way in which the phase-angle is used to model superconduction actually, grossly violates the mathematics which models harmonic waves; and therefore it does not represent tenable physics. The compelling conclusion has thus been reached that:
  
• the derivation by Josephson is irrelevant
• as a consequence, superconductors generally have charge-carriers which are only singly-charged

 

[Ziggurat]

After 18 pages, am I finally going to see the "where does the extra energy come from" question solved?

Doubtful. Johan's idea violates conservation of energy, he doesn't understand why it violates conservation of energy, and he can't let go of it because his whole house of cards will collapse if he does. So it won't get resolved, it will just continue to spin around in circles.

 

[dasmiller]

So it won't get resolved, it will just continue to spin around in circles.

. . . causing it to radiate a great deal of heat but very little light.

 

[ben m]

I will admit that I can see your problem: You have never really thought about what an additional voltage V_J over a Josephson junction really implies ...

Johan, if the above is correct, surely you can explain it by following an electron through a complete loop and keeping track of work done.

Are you going to do this, or do you refuse? Please reply. If you refuse, why? If there is some technical issue ("unable to draw ASCII diagrams" or some such), I can try to help. If you think your circuit is "fundamentally un-analyzable using the work energy theorem" then ... well, that'd be crazy.

 

[Skwinty]

. . . causing it to radiate a great deal of heat but very little light.

Certainly no visible light.

 

[sol invictus]

I will admit that I can see your problem: You have never really thought about what an additional voltage V_J over a Josephson junction really implies. Without going into the details of how the circuit is changed to place an extra voltage V_J over the junction, let us start off with a SIS without this voltage and having a voltage V_source over the SIS. When it is in a superconducting state, the applied electric field caused by V_source is cancelled everywhere within the SIS structure. This is proved by the fact that when you increase the source voltage V_source from zero, the current increases without any voltage increase over the junction. This would be impossible if the charge-carriers were accelerated by the applied voltage through the SIS system; and thus proves that what Ziggurat is proclaiming is nothing else but unfounded fairy tales.

Now you place an additional voltage V_J to the source voltage V_source over the junction. This does not change the source voltage over the two contacts to the SIS (yes this is amazing but has been proved over and over again for a SIS system which allows Josephson tunneling as just described above) and can therefore only be accommodated if the voltage drops on both sides of the junction adjust in order order not to change V_source over the SIS.

Just try the experiment yourself, instead of pontificating that theoretical physics is sufficient on its own. Thus, the electric-fields active on both sides of the junction must now be different. This demands that the polarization energy of the orbitals on the low energy side of the junction must decrease by qV_J (see my calculation on my website) in addition to the decrease qV_J that would be there if there were no polarization energies involved.

Yes, the fact that an extra voltage over a Josephson junction acts like a separate source input always amazed me; even when I still believed in the fallacy of Cooper Pairs. But this is the experimental fact; and I believe in experimental facts and not in pie-in-the-sky imaginary rotating discs and infinite ropes consisting of a single charge; even when the proponents claim behind anonymous masks that they are highly recognized and able physicists.

There is no "additional voltage", Johan. In any given experiment there is some total voltage V across the junction. You can measure V with a voltmeter or electrometer. It's true that a current can flow even when V=0, but that's not the situation we've been discussing, nor does it change the fact that V=/=0 in some experiments.

Now, are you going to answer Ben's question and follow an electron through the loop, keeping track of the energy?

(I think the answer is "no", since that would show you that your model violates conservation of energy, and your mind cannot handle that painful realization and therefore won't let you follow the exercise through. Instead, you will become angry and accuse us of attacking or insulting you. That behavior pattern is known as "cognitive dissonance".)

 

[johanfprins]

A voltaic pile or battery delivers 1 qV per electron. The presence of this 1 qV is accounted for by the V difference in the Fermi levels.
You need something to deliver another qV "polarization energy" in addition to the Fermi level change.

OK, I am slowly realizing what your problem has been all along: Not one of you understands what the difference is between an SIS Josephson junction without a voltage V_JS over the junction and an SIS Josephson junction with a voltage V_JS over the junction.

Since these experiments have been done more than 40 years ago, I expected that people who claim that they know something about superconduction, would have known what the basic experimental results are before mouthing off on an open forum on how the results must be interpreted. No wonder I could not follow your arguments: Not in my wildest dreams could I have expected that people could know so little about a subject and then still arrogantly argue about something they obviously NEVER understood.

Now let us carefully look at the measured results step-by-step:

1. You have an SIS in the superconducting state switched into a circuit which will cause an applied voltage V_source over the SIS if it were not in the superconducting state. But it is in the superconducting state so you cannot measure a voltage over any two points along the SIS; specifically also not over the insulating junction. When you increase the source voltage V_source from zero, you find that a current immediately starts to flow even though the voltage over the junction V_J remains zero (or as Ziggurat will argue against all sensible logic; a voltage is there but cannot be measured; but if you can measure it you do not have supeconduction). Nonetheless on the I-V_J diagram, the current increases at V_J=0 until it reaches a maximum value I₀; whence it falls to zero with a further increase of source voltage. With this further increase in source voltage, a non-zero voltage V_J can now be measured over the junction, while the current remains zero until a critical voltage V_JC is reached at which the current suddenly increases and then follows the rest of the curve as one would expect for the SIS device when it is not superconducting.

2. Now you put a capacitor-device in parallel to the source voltage: When the SIS is non-superconducting, this device does not add any extra voltage to the source voltage. In fact, when the SIS is superconducting this capacitor device also does not add to the source voltage V_source; but now there is a difference to what is measured when the SIS is non-superconducting. A voltage V_JS appears over the insulating junction without changing the applied voltage V_source in any manner. The charge carriers just outside the injection contact to the SIS are still at an energy qV_source higher than the charge carriers which has just excited the SIS at the other side; even though you can now measure a voltage V_JS over the junction. To explain how this is possible should have been Josephson'a priority; However. he claimed that the abacadabra of "phase slippage" can explain it; while it cannot.

3. Now consider a superconducting phase according to my model: It consists of localized orbitals trapped by positive charges; and all these orbitals are in the lowest energy state, which they can be in, or else they will not be forming a superconducting phase. Now apply an electric-field. The orbitals polarize and cancel the applied electric field at their positions. This increases their energy to be more than the energy they have had before the electric-field has been switched on. Are these orbitals still in a lowest energy state as required to form a superconducting phase? Yes they are, since for as long as the electric-field is there they cannot relax to a lower energy. They can relax to a lower energy when the electric-field is reduced, or they can increase their energy when the electric field is increased; while still being in the lowest energy state possible while the source voltage is being applied.

4. Now let us consider SIS again without applying a junction voltage by a suitable capacitor device. The electric-field is the same everywhere and the orbitals on both sides of the junction are equally polarized and thus have the same energy. Now you apply the junction voltage V_JS which causes an energy drop qV_JS over the junction but without a change in the value of the source voltage. The latter cannot happen when the SIS is not superconducting: It only happens when the SIS is superconducting. Since the total voltage drop over the SIS does not change when adding V_JS over the insulating junction, the voltage appearing over the junction must be caused by shifting some of the voltage which were there before switching on the junction voltage, to appear over the junction. Fortunately the mechanism by which this can happen is inherent in my model; since the charge-carriers one one side of the junction can lose polarization energy relative to the other side of the junction so that the voltage drops over the two S-regions are now different and thus also the electric-fields within them. Thus you end up with the charge-carriers having a difference in energy of 2qV_Js, even though the voltage difference over SIS is the same as it was before switching on the voltage over the junction.

In terms of my model it is then possible for a superconducting charge-carrier to radiate energy 2qV_JS even though the source voltage remains the same as it was before switching on the voltage over the junction": i.e. even though the external charge-carriers being injected into the SIS has only an energy qV_source higher than the charge carriers have after they have been ejected from the SIS.

I thus suggest, that before further making fools of yourselves by indiscriminately mouthing off on this thread, you should go through the mathematics of my model in detail to convince yourselves that Josepson's derivation cannot explain where the junction voltage V_JS comes from while the applied source voltage does not change; while my model can: And my model in addition mandates that the charge-carriers must be singly-charged.

 

[johanfprins]

In all fairness, Johan has written two books.

The first book was "Room temperature superconductivity without Cooper Pairs: I though that physicist would be able to follow the mathematics, but they are obviously not up to it

The Physics Delusion.

this is my second book which is aimed at people who need not be physicists, and probably cannot be physicists, since it is aimed at people with common sense.

Excerpts from this book led me to believe he was a crackpot.

Why?

Coupled with other papers I have read, it seems clear to me that the mainstream is busy with trying to understand what the mechanisms are that allow this phenomenom to occur.
I suppose only time will tell what the reality of the situation is and in the meantime we are just whistling in the dark.
Lets hope that the mainstream who have the labs and the budget, get to the root of the matter.

As long as they cling to "pair formation" they will never solve this problem; which I have already solved 10 years ago. How about a bet that if the mainstream crackpots do come around to find the root of the matter, they will have to concede that Cooper pairs do not form in low temperature metals, and even if they form they are not responsible for superconduction; and that neither is pair formation required to explain superconduction in the ceramics and doped semiconductors.

 

[johanfprins]

You are wrong. The solution ignoring the disk-material is perfectly reasonable and does not radiate. The solution taking into account the disk-material is also reasonable, but also does not radiate. The solution taking into account the disk material, Special Relativity, and the slight paramagnetism of oxygen in the air near the disk? Sorry, that still doesn't radiate.

Did I mention special relativity in the case of the disc? Did I mention paramagnetism of oxygen? You are really beneath contempt

You are on a fishing expedition. We have presented a clear and simple example of accelerating charges that according to Maxwell do not radiate.

You have not proved anywhere that charge carriers being accelerated by an electric field within a conductor do not radiate. So stop bringing in ad hominim arguments.

The orbiting point charge was not one of the counterexamples.

Obviously not since your "counterexamples" are not counterexamples that prove that a charge carrier being accelerated by an electric field cannot radiate. You had to look for arguments that lie outside the parameters of the discussion and are therefore all irrelevant. You are just plain dishonest!

 

[Skwinty]

Why?

Johan,

It was the reference to religion, crimes against humanity and general vitriol towards the mainstream. I know that the mainstream can be wrong, but overall we have a lot of technology today that we must thank them for.

To me, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I don't care what line of thinking provided the recipe as long as the recipe bears fruit.
No one can say that the mainstream has not provided the fruit.

I figured that something had "cracked your pot" for you to make those statements. It is not a personal indictment, merely an observation.

 

[ben m]

Did I mention special relativity in the case of the disc? Did I mention paramagnetism of oxygen? You are really beneath contempt

Read more carefully, please. I proposed a classical calculation that gave a DC field. You suggested that I needed to add a real-world detail (kappa in the disk) to it. I am saying: I could add kappa and every other real-world detail you could possibly imagine, and all they will do is make the DC non-radiating field a little different.

Obviously not since your "counterexamples" are not counterexamples that prove that a charge carrier being accelerated by an electric field cannot radiate.

Of course they aren't! How many times do we have to repeat this: they are proof that a charge carrier, despite being accelerated, need not radiate. (And: the cause of the acceleration does not and cannot matter, remember? Unless Maxwell was wrong.)

But let's get back to energy-conservation, eh?

 

[ben m]

1. You have an SIS in the superconducting state switched into a circuit which will cause an applied voltage V_source over the SIS if it were not in the superconducting state. But it is in the superconducting state so you cannot measure a voltage over any two points along the SIS; specifically also not over the insulating junction. When you increase the source voltage V_source from zero, you find that a current immediately starts to flow even though the voltage over the junction V_J remains zero (or as Ziggurat will argue against all sensible logic; a voltage is there but cannot be measured; but if you can measure it you do not have supeconduction). Nonetheless on the I-V_J diagram, the current increases at V_J=0 until it reaches a maximum value I₀; whence it falls to zero with a further increase of source voltage. With this further increase in source voltage, a non-zero voltage V_J can now be measured over the junction, while the current remains zero until a critical voltage V_JC is reached at which the current suddenly increases and then follows the rest of the curve as one would expect for the SIS device when it is not superconducting.

Why do you think V_source is nonzero when V_j is zero, Johan? If V_j is zero, then V_source is also zero. They're the same thing. (Unless you're talking about some internal detail of the box on your lab bench, which I'm not.)

V_source----A -------wire----------B---junction---C----wire------D----ground

A-D is the same voltage as B-C. If it ever (transiently) is not, then current will flow along A-B or C-D until it is.

2. Now you put a capacitor-device in parallel to the source voltage: A voltage V_JS appears over the insulating junction without changing the applied voltage V_source in any manner.

Not true. Putting a capacitor across the junction changes its impedance. This may cause V_j to change, but if so it also causes V_s to change.

(Note: That does NOT mean "the user twiddles a knob on the power supply to increase V_s." That means "when you add the capacitor, the power supply (which was in constant-current mode to begin with) is now being asked to maintain its previous current through a different impedance, and therefore increases its voltage.")

 

[ben m]

And I will repeat, again, the request for an energy conservation argument. Take your complete circuit, in light-emitting mode---capacitor installed, current flowing, V_source nonzero---and walk an electron all the way through it, explaining any work done.

 

[Ziggurat]

Obviously not since your "counterexamples" are not counterexamples that prove that a charge carrier being accelerated by an electric field cannot radiate.

First off, nobody is claiming that no accelerating charges radiate, we are merely saying not all accelerating charges radiate. Those are obviously VERY different claims, and your substitution of the former for the later is dishonest (or incredibly foolish). And second, as has been pointed out to you time and time again, the cause of the acceleration is completely irrelevant. As it MUST be, since Maxwell's equations are linear.

And we're still waiting for you to figure out energy conservation. You put in energy QV. You cannot get out energy 2QV. So if you get photons of energy 2eV, then you cannot get more than one photon per two electrons. Simple energy conservation. Your ideas are incompatible with energy conservation.

 

[johanfprins]

I'd love to hear the real story about the experiments and what was observed. I think we are all capable of sorting it out for ourselves.

Glad to comply. The following is a summary:

I succeeded to dope diamond substrates to become n-type conducting after oxygen ion -implantation. Chinese scientists five years later confirmed that I was right; but was then consistently blocked from publishing their results in Western Physics Journals since the crackpots in charge of diamond physics decided that I must be wrong.

Nonetheless, soon afterwards I succeeded to increase the density of donors to a very high value, and proceeded with an experiment to extract donor electrons with an anode from the diamond. The extracted electrons did not come out and accelerate to the anode as the crackpots in charge of diamond physics expected, for more than 20 years, that they would do. Why not?

As any person with common sense will tell you, the extracted electrons must be attracted back to the surface by the positive charges left behind on the donors. And as any Solid State Electrical Engineer will tell you, this mandates that a dipole layer forms across the surface by the extracted electrons and a "depletion layer" below the surface containing the donor charges. Just do not try and explain this simple freshman-fact to a physicist: They are incapable to understand that such a dipole layer will form in an attempt to cancel the applied electric field. I have tried now for more than 10 years to explain this simple freshman physics fact to the "experts" in charge of superconduction physics! You will have a better chance to teach a baboon calculus.

Nonetheless, if there is a high enough donor density, as was the case in my experiment, electrons will keep on flowing out until the polarization-field generated by the dipole layer TOTALLY cancels the applied electric-field. When this equilibrium situation is reached, the net flow of electrons from the diamond stops since there is now NO ELECTRIC-FIELD WITHIN THE DIPOLE WHATSOEVER.

One can now increase the applied electric-field and more electrons will flow out until the electric-field within the dipole again becomes EXACTLY ZERO. If there are enough donors, as there was in the case of my experiment, you can keep on increasing the applied electric-field until the dipole electrons are JUST outside the anode while the electric-field within the dipole is zero.

When you now just slightly increase the applied electric-field, the dipole electrons will enter the anode and since the Fermi-level within the anode is at a lower level than the external electrons, an electric field will appear within the dipole which will accelerate electrons from the diamond to the anode. One can then measure electromagnetic radiation owing to Brehmstrahing notwithstanding the claims by Ziggurat and Ben that this does not happen when you accelerate electrons.

BUT, the electrons between the diamond surface and the anode together with the dipole layer still form a dipole, and this dipole will still increase its electron density to cancel the electric-field within it. While doing this the current is erratic and increases until equilibrium is reached: AND equilibrium is reached when the dipole cancels the electric-field TOTALLY within the dipole. So there is now no electric field that can accelerate the charge carriers from the diamond to the anode: What will happen?

According to Ziggurat's great wisdom on this thread, current flow MUST come to a halt; even within a superconductor. But what is experimentally observed? An equilirium current flows EVEN THOUGH THERE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ANY ELECTRIC FIELD WITHIN THE DIPOLE!! So charge is definitely transferred through the dipole while there is ZERO electric-field. So what must I call it? I call it superconduction, even though there is not an electric field as Ziggurat claims that there must be.

I have one question, if anyone should find the time. In all my reading about this, I read something that I don't quite follow. Someone made a statement that the juncture of two superconductors is superconducting. Now, I had never thought about this, but how can this claim of superconductivity be specified if the cross sectional area and the pressure or force applied to the two superconductors is not made specific? Is this essentially the basis for the Josephson junction? In other words, what if the cross section is microns, and the pressure is extremely small?

This relates to so-called Josephson effects which are ascribed in a "hand-waving" manner to paranormal phase fields. Why a smaller junction a reacts as if it is an insulating layer can be perfectly explained in terms of real physics when using my model.

 

[Ziggurat]

One can then measure electromagnetic radiation owing to Brehmstrahing notwithstanding the claims by Ziggurat and Ben that this does not happen when you accelerate electrons.
...
According to Ziggurat's great wisdom on this thread, current flow MUST come to a halt; even within a superconductor. But what is experimentally observed? An equilirium current flows EVEN THOUGH THERE CANNOT POSSIBLY BE ANY ELECTRIC FIELD WITHIN THE DIPOLE!! So charge is definitely transferred through the dipole while there is ZERO electric-field. So what must I call it? I call it superconduction, even though there is not an electric field as Ziggurat claims that there must be.

Wow. What a complete misinterpretation of everything I've said.

 

[dasmiller]

I'd love to hear the real story about the experiments and what was observed. I think we are all capable of sorting it out for ourselves.

Glad to comply. The following is a summary:

I succeeded to dope diamond substrates to become n-type conducting after oxygen ion -implantation. Chinese scientists five years later confirmed that I was right; but was then consistently blocked from publishing their results in Western Physics Journals since the crackpots in charge of diamond physics decided that I must be wrong...

Is there a version of the story that doesn't include name-calling and deprecations?

 

[ben m]

One can then measure electromagnetic radiation owing to Brehmstrahing notwithstanding the claims by Ziggurat and Ben that this does not happen when you accelerate electrons.

Johan, you mentioned earlier that you have a medium-term memory problem. Perhaps it is preventing you from remembering the six or seven times I've clarified this already.

Some charge configurations DO radiate when accelerating; Maxwell's Equations tell us so. A stopping point charge is a good example. On page 709-710 of Jackson (3rd ed.) you can see a derivation of this radiation from Maxwell's Equations.

Some charge configurations DO NOT radiate when accelerating; Maxwell's Equations tell us so. A line of charges in uniform circular motion is a good example. On page 183 Jackson derives the fields of these charges, which you can see have no time-dependence at all and thus no outward field energy flux.

 

[ben m]

I thus suggest, that before further making fools of yourselves by indiscriminately mouthing off on this thread, you should go through the mathematics of my model in detail to convince yourselves ...

Your model contains a very convincing mistake, Johan. You are postulating that there's a potential energy q*V_j on top of the potential energy q*V_source generated by the battery.

You are then making the mistake: you pay attention to the effects V_j when an electron is on the "downhill" side. You have forgotten about, or ignored, or mistaken, the effect of V_j on electrons on "uphill" side.

You talk about electrons starting on top of a potential hill V_j+V_source. Then you pay close attention to V_j when the electrons are rolling down the hill. The electron comes around the circuit, the battery boosts it up to V_source, and in this direction you have ignored the V_j potential hill. From this side, the V_j potential hill is actually preventing the electron from getting back to where it started.

your version:

   battery       ignore        hey, look
   does          this          at the electron
   work          part          going down a big big hill

                         _________
                                  \ 
      __________ ? ? ?             \ 
     /                              \ 
____/                                \____________                              



Your model, without ignoring anything

 battery          oops, an electron at V_source
                  never gets to the top of this hill at all
                  so no current flows
                     _____________
                    /             \ 
      _____________/               \ 
     /                              \ 
____/                                \____________

ETA: let me clarify: I am not saying "no current flows in Josephson junctions". Current does flow in Josephson junctions. I am saying "If Johan's V_j were really there, no current WOULD flow in Josephson junctions". Therefore, I am saying that Johan's V_j is not there, and that his model is incorrect.