Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

It's not the same problem at all. QV goes in, QV comes out. Quite simple, really. The details might be messy, the standard theory could even be wrong, but there's no missing or extra energy involved. Whatever the problems with BCS might be, energy conservation isn't among them.

As already pointed out BCS is worse as far as conservation of energy is concerned: Even if there is no Josephson junction with a voltage across, the electrons forming a "Cooper pair" must each gain energy (delta) to leave the superconductor and enter the circuit at the ejection contact.
Added later

JFP: My model fits all data on all superconductors

Why are you repeating this obviously false claim when you already backed off of it before?

I have not backed off on this before: Obviously it is impossible for me to model all the data that have been published (I just do not have the time); but I do prove without doubt that my model explains the low temperature metals, the ceramic, the semiconductors and the amorphous metal layers perfectly (including the so-called super-insulating phase); whereas for BCS it is claimed to be only valid for the low temperature metals which are so-called "conventional superconductors". The fact is that there is a plethora of data on the 'conventional superconductors" that cannot be modeled by BCS (see for example Science vol. 330, (2008) 1509) which my model perfectly explains and models with astonishing accuracy.

But you're putting in QV, and getting out 2QV.

For somebody who does not know his elementary physics about dielectric behavior it is probably not understandable: But I am hoping that most people reading this thread have this elementary knowledge.

Even though it violates energy conservation.

It does not since the extra electric field-energy can enter the superconducting dielectric without needing a further increase in the voltage.

Indeed, there is another explanation, and it's the simplest one of all: you're wrong.

The "simple" is in your brain.

By introducing this "polarization energy" stuff, which only changes the label on your energy conservation problem, because the energy still needs to come from somewhere, and you can't provide a source.

As I have pointed out the power source maintains the polarization energy within the superconductor even though the voltage over the contacts remains zero, or in the case of the biased Josephson junction remains V_J. If you lose polarization energy qV_J, it is replaced without requiring an increase in the voltage across a dielectric. This is elementary physics.

Where does the energy come from? What's the maximum amount of energy can it store? How much current do you need to deplete it? What happens when it's depleted?

The extra energy radiated comes from the change of polarization energy on the opposite sides of the junction by qV_J: Once radiated this energy is replaced by the battery without having to change the voltage V_J, as is the case for any dielectric between two contacts (capacitor plates) if one removes in some manner part of the stored electric field-energy.

The only difference between a "normal" dielectric between two plates and a superconductor is that a localized, polarized entity can transfer charge by quantum hopping of its negatively charged component within a superconductor. In a "normal" dielectric the binding energy at each localized dipole is too high to cause superconduction; or else it would also superconduct.

Thus you have negative charges moving relative to positive charges with a constant jump speed; and therefore you can measure a static magnetic field around the superconductor. In the case of a Cooper pair, the positive charge that bonds the two electrons by means of "phonon exchange" moves with the electrons. The pair is most probably a neutral entity: There should thus not be a magnetic field at all, nor a current, if superconducting charge-carriers are Cooper pairs.

You have expressed no interest in any of these rather obvious questions about your idea. Given this curious lack of curiosity on your part, I'm amazed that you can really claim to be searching for the correct explanation.

Nobody following this thread cannot conclude that I have been trying my best to explain to simple minds like you Sol and Ben, how it works.

The lack of curiosity has been totally on your side: You have only been interested to protect the main stream dogma; and therefore you all consistently ignored my questions about the validity of the BCS model.

JFP:My model fits all data on all superconductors

Why are you repeating this obviously false claim when you already backed off of it before?

Where have I backed off? Although it will be impossible to sit down on my own and model all the data ever published on superconductors, my model explains and accurately fits data for the low temperature metals, the ceramics, the semiconductors, and the amorphous metal layers (including the super-insulating phase reported a while ago). In contrast it is claimed that BCS only models the so-called "conventional superconductors. Even this claim is a lie since there exists a plethora of data on the "conventional superconductors" which BCS cannot model at all: See for example Science vol. 330 (2008) 1509. My model explains this data and fits it with astonishing accuracy. I was of course blocked from publishing it; and had to publish it in my most recent book. So I did not back off anywhere!

 

[johanfprins]

Why do you keep talking about acceleration by an electric field, when Maxwell's equations indicate that the cause of the acceleration is irrelevant?

As I have repeated often on this thread we are only discussing individual charge carriers being accelerated by an electric field. In these cases the acceleration always produces radiation. If you disagree with me then state that according to you it is possible to accelerate charge carriers within a conductor by using an electric-field without generating radiation.

Whatever you claim happens when the force is not an electric-field is not relevant to the discussion whatever Maxwell's equations predict about these cases.

 

[johanfprins]

Johan,

There's a different conclusion that can follow the premise. Please give it some consideration.

Otherwise, good luck.

Yes there is a different conclusion which I kept on outlining and will patiently try and explain better when questions are asked. It is just a pity that Ben, Sol and Ziggurat are willing to lodge attacks without knowing in detail what they are attacking. I am trying my best to answer them under these conditions even though I find their approach very unscientific. Thanks for the good wishes.

 

[johanfprins]

Once again, why do you think the cause of the acceleration is in any way relevant to the existence of radiation, when Maxwell's equations clearly indicate no such dependence exists?

It is you who claim that the cause of acceleration can prevent radiation; and that such acceleration within a superconductor will therefore not result in radiation.

Show me any conductor where acceleration of its charge-carriers by an applied electric-field will not cause radiation; and please do not quote a steady-state current in a resistor, since in this case the radiation is being overwhelmed by scattering events; so that on average the charge-carriers are moving with zero acceleration. Any schoolboy should know this.

 

[johanfprins]

Why is this an issue to avoid, johan? If you are right and this means free energy, you have discovered the most remarkable thing in the history of mankind.

I agree, but I came to this idea about 7 years ago when I still did not fully understand that the energy can be supplied without an extra increase in voltage.

Screw whether or not superconductivity has Cooper pairs, that pales in relevance next to potentially free energy. Why aren't you trying to figure this out? Why isn't this the focus of your attention?

Firstly since I believe that I have figured it out and there cannot be such free energy; Nonetheless, it would have been worthwhile to do experimental checks as one should do for any derivation in physics; but alas I do not have the money and facilities and cannot raise any sponsorship since the main stream physicists advise everybody against funding me even if it would only cost a small amount, like the $30000 which the Jet Propulsion Laboratory first allocated to repeat my original experiment and then withdrew after being advised by their "superconduction experts" that I must be wrong!.

Or are you afraid that no violation of energy conservation occurs, and that this might prove you wrong?

No I am not afraid of this since the dielectric cancellation of the electric-field within the superconductor does supply the energy which you are claiming is not there.

 

[Evilgiraffe]

if my model is correct, one might be able to use Josephson junctions to extract "free energy" from our surroundings. There: Ben has forced me to state this in the open! I now really feel like a crackpot!

Johan,

There's a different conclusion that can follow the premise. Please give it some consideration.

Otherwise, good luck.

Yes there is a different conclusion which I kept on outlining and will patiently try and explain better when questions are asked. It is just a pity that Ben, Sol and Ziggurat are willing to lodge attacks without knowing in detail what they are attacking. I am trying my best to answer them under these conditions even though I find their approach very unscientific. Thanks for the good wishes.

WHOOSH! I think that was the sound of another point flying waaaaaaaay over your head.

 

[sol invictus]

It is you who claim that the cause of acceleration can prevent radiation; and that such acceleration within a superconductor will therefore not result in radiation.

Same question as before - are you lying deliberately, too incompetent to comprehend what you read, or is this another "joke"?

Show me any conductor where acceleration of its charge-carriers by an applied electric-field will not cause radiation; and please do not quote a steady-state current in a resistor, since in this case the radiation is being overwhelmed by scattering events; so that on average the charge-carriers are moving with zero acceleration. Any schoolboy should know this.

Already done, multiple times.

 

[johanfprins]

Nope, I've never claimed that. I have claimed that the current in a superconductor can only change by accelerating the charge carriers, and that requires an electric field. But once they are moving in a straight section, they don't need to accelerate to maintain a current, and no field is needed.

You ignore the fact that to move along a straight section, charges must be injected at one contact and ejected at the other; and the charge-carriers within a superconductor do not flow at the same drift speed as the charge-carriers being injected, and the charge carriers after they have been ejected.

Thus, if charge-carriers move faster within the superconductor, which is a reasonable assumption and can also be proved to be the case, each charge-carrier that enters the superconductor must be accelerated to reach the drift speed at which, according to you, they suddenly stop to accelerate and coast on to the ejecting contact; where they then encounter a decelerating electron field. To accelerate the charge-carriers and then let them coast further will require the injection contact and a region within the superconductor beyond the injection contact to act like a separate electron-gun. Can you model this gun for me please? How far does the electric-field penetrate into the superconductor from the injection contact before it mysteriously, abruptly disappears? Very, very strange indeed

Furthermore, that post also claims that I said bremsstrahlung (you misspelled it)

Aaah thanks for correcting my spelling: Small things amuse small minds.

But again, I never claimed accelerating charges couldn't radiate, only that they do not always radiate.

You did claim that they can accelerate within a superconductor under the action of an applied electric-field without radiating. Are you now pedaling back by claiming that the radiation is not there since they are coasting without acceleration?

 

[Ziggurat]

As already pointed out BCS is worse as far as conservation of energy is concerned: Even if there is no Josephson junction with a voltage across, the electrons forming a "Cooper pair" must each gain energy (delta) to leave the superconductor and enter the circuit at the ejection contact.

That's not a problem. Whatever the change in their potential energy (and they don't need to change total energy, changing potential energy is enough), it happens at both ends of the superconductor, in opposite directions. So... no energy conservation problem. If BCS is wrong, it's not because of any energy conservation violation. You only got on this kick in the first place as an attempt to justify your own energy conservation violations.

I have not backed off on this before

Yes you have. I even linked to where you did. And you're doing it again:

Obviously it is impossible for me to model all the data that have been published (I just do not have the time)

Exactly. Which is why the claim was farcical to begin with.

but I do prove without doubt that my model explains the low temperature metals, the ceramic, the semiconductors and the amorphous metal layers perfectly

How can you make this second claim if the first claim is obviously false? Even if your theory is correct, you cannot possibly know that it explains everything perfectly. Especially since you still can't work out the energy conservation.

whereas for BCS it is claimed to be only valid for the low temperature metals which are so-called "conventional superconductors".

You say that like it's a problem, but it isn't.

It does not since the extra electric field-energy can enter the superconducting dielectric without needing a further increase in the voltage.

That answer tells me absolutely nothing about the origin of the energy.

As I have pointed out the power source maintains the polarization energy within the superconductor even though the voltage over the contacts remains zero

You're claiming that you can extract polarization energy, but how do you maintain it? The only way a battery can provide that energy for you is to provide a current. But you're claiming that the energy isn't coming from the battery current but from voltage without a current. Sorry, that's not an energy source.

If you lose polarization energy qV_J, it is replaced without requiring an increase in the voltage across a dielectric.

I never claimed that you needed to increase the voltage. But where's the replacement energy coming from? If you say "the battery voltage", slap yourself.

This is elementary physics.

Indeed it is: the battery can only provide energy QV. You are claiming to extract energy 2QV. That violates energy conservation.

That's as elementary as it gets.

As I have repeated often on this thread we are only discussing individual charge carriers being accelerated by an electric field.

Once again, the cause of the acceleration does not matter. You keep claiming it does, but can provide no evidence of that claim.

Whatever you claim happens when the force is not an electric-field is not relevant to the discussion whatever Maxwell's equations predict about these cases.

Oh, it's completely relevant, because the cause of the acceleration doesn't matter.

It is you who claim that the cause of acceleration can prevent radiation

This is exactly wrong. The cause of the acceleration cannot prevent OR cause radiation, because the cause of the acceleration makes no difference. How can you so thoroughly misunderstand the most basic of statements? The cause does not matter. Only the acceleration itself matters. Some accelerations will produce radiation. Some will not.

I agree, but I came to this idea about 7 years ago when I still did not fully understand that the energy can be supplied without an extra increase in voltage.

And without an extra increase in current either, evidently. Which is why you're violating energy conservation.

Firstly since I believe that I have figured it out and there cannot be such free energy

Yet your attempts to solve that problem consist merely of relabeling it "polarization energy". Despite the fact that there is no polarization energy for a perfect dielectric at finite polarization, and that even if there were you have no explanation for where it comes from.

You did claim that they can accelerate within a superconductor under the action of an applied electric-field without radiating. Are you now pedaling back by claiming that the radiation is not there since they are coasting without acceleration?

Those are two different scenarios. How can my statement about one scenario be a backpedal of my statement about the other? You make no sense.

 

[johanfprins]

I wonder what you think "mechanical forces" are.

Mechanical, chemical, call them what you want but a line of charges does not consist of separate charge-carriers, each of which is being accelerated by an applied electric-field while not being held in rigid position relative to surrounding charge-carriers

And I also wonder why you continue to insist that the cause of the acceleration is relevant, since Maxwell's equations indicate that it is not.

So you are saying that when charge-carriers are accelerated within one material and emit radiation, then they can be accelerated in another material so that, for no reason at all, they do not emit radiation? really mind-boggling!

 

[sol invictus]

And I also wonder why you continue to insist that the cause of the acceleration is relevant, since Maxwell's equations indicate that it is not.

So you are saying that when charge-carriers are accelerated within one material and emit radiation, then they can be accelerated in another material so that, for no reason at all, they do not emit radiation? really mind-boggling!

Same question as above, Johan. Are you

1) lying deliberately

2) too incompetent to comprehend what you read, or

3) is this another "joke"?

If you don't understand why I'm asking, re-read Zig's quote ten times slowly.

 

[johanfprins]

We know where that polarization energy comes from, we know how to calculate it, we know how to extract it, we know when it's all gone.

Maybe you do in the case of a conductor and a non-conducting dielectric, although I doubt from your postings that you even understand such simple undergraduate physics. But you sure as hell do not know how a dielectric, which superconducts, achieves this; unless you have read my model: Which you of course refuse to do because you arrogantly "just know" what my model is. It is people like you who have contaminated the integrity that there should be in physics!

 

[Ziggurat]

Mechanical, chemical, call them what you want

I don't care what you want to call it, what do you think it is? Which of the four fundamental forces is responsible for mechanical, or chemical, interactions?

So you are saying that when charge-carriers are accelerated within one material and emit radiation, then they can be accelerated in another material so that, for no reason at all, they do not emit radiation? really mind-boggling!

Indeed, it is quite mind-boggling that you continue to construct such obvious strawmen. I said nothing about the material. Nor is your statement in any way a logical extrapolation of what I did say. And lastly, of course, you have failed (again) to address in any way the actual substance of what I said.

 

[Ziggurat]

Maybe you do in the case of a conductor and a non-conducting dielectric, although I doubt from your postings that you even understand such simple undergraduate physics. But you sure as hell do not know how a dielectric, which superconducts, achieves this

Indeed I do not, because it violates conservation of energy, and I still can't figure out how to do that. I must be an idiot.

What's the polarization energy of a dielectric, johan? The volume density of polarization energy is given by
[latex]$ [(\epsilon-\epsilon_0)/\epsilon^2] P^2/2$[/latex]
What happens when the dielectric constant goes to infinity, as it must for a perfect dielectric? Why, the energy goes to zero!

You cannot store energy in a perfect dielectric. This should be obvious. And the reason is quite simple: it's only a perfect dielectric in the first place because it takes no energy to polarize it. If it took energy to polarize it, then it wouldn't be a perfect dielectric.

Now, what were you saying about me not understanding dielectrics?

It is people like you who have contaminated the integrity that there should be in physics!

Given your own inability to deal with a violation of energy conservation in an honest manner, you'll have to forgive me for not really caring about polluting physics by insisting on dealing with this most basic issue.

 

[ben m]

I just want to add some historical comment. Onne's old papers do not appear to be online but I found a source that quotes them extensively.

Onnes' original measurement was indeed simply using Ohm's Law. He had a voltage source and a galvanometer connected across (a) his normal-conducting apparatus and (b) a set of mercury-filled capillaries in series (I don't know how many) each 20cm long and 1/20mm diameter. His original paper reported that the resistance dropped below 10^-5 Ohms, implying a conductivity of at least 10^15 Ohm-meters. The measured quantity is nothing other than V/I. The 10^-5 number comes from seeing that the voltage drop was somewhere below 3x10^-9 V (the best limit attainable from the voltmeter) when the current was 300uA.

direct quotations from Onnes' papers are in DOI:10.1109/TMAG.1987.1065148

Improved measurements of (and limits on) the actual conductivity do not come from IV curves like Onnes', but rather from the survival of loop currents for very long times.

 

[johanfprins]

Perhaps a silly question here: Does "free energy from the vacuum" have any relation to the quotation below.If so, then perhaps there is a free lunch somewhere along the way.

"Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space even when the space is devoid of matter (free space).

This is accepted main stream physics but I doubt very much that there is energy when there is no matter. My conclusion is that what they call "vacuum energy" in QED is just part of matter energy which does not manifest within three-dimensional space, but can be borrowed when a matter wave resonates etc. The amount that can be borrowed, and the time interval for which it can be borrowed are determined by Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time. This is exactly what I am postulating is happening when a charge carrier "quantum-hops" from one position to the next within a superconductor.

The concept of vacuum energy has been deduced from the concept of virtual particles, which is itself derived from the energy-time uncertainty principle.

Yes it is accepted physics that you can get extra energy for a limited time interval, but when I claim that this is the way that superconduction is being driven without requiring acceleration, I am accused of being a "crackpot".

The effects of vacuum energy can be observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect, the van der Waals bonds and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales.

So why,when I use Heisenberg's relationship to model superconduction am I called a "crackpot" while the main stream scientists using the same relationship to model "spontaneous emission", "Casimir effect", van "der Waal's bonds" and the "Lamb shift", are not crackpots. Either we are all crackpots or all not crackpots.

the Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy in a cubic centimeter of free space has been estimated to be 10−15 Joules. However, in both Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) and Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck Constant requires it to have a much larger value of 10107 Joules per cubic centimeter."

The energy available is directly proportional, and most probably less, or at best equal, to the total mass energy within our 3D universe: A matter-wave in equilibrium has only stationary mass energy within 3D space, but in addition it has kinetic energy outside 3D space which it can harness for short times when changing its shape, size and position within 3D space. This external energy facilitates near instantaneous "quantum jumps" and near instantaneous "collapses" or "inflations" of wave-intensities.

 

[johanfprins]

If x is a random variable with probability density function P, then its expected value is ∫ x P(x) dx.

Mainstream physicists use those brackets to indicate the standard notion of expected value as defined above.

I have taught quantum mechanics on both graduate and post graduate levels and know it far better than a clown like can ever hope to do. As usual you hear the bell ringing without knowing where its tongue is.

As can be seen from the quotations above, johanfprins is saying that he does not know the standard definition of expected value, does not understand the standard definition of expected value, and rejects the standard definition of expected value.

What I have been asking is what do you "expect" to find at say the calculated "expectation value" of position: If you call it an "expectation value" you must have some expectation is it not? So tell me what is this expectation for position?

 

[johanfprins]

So I'm asking this as a layman here, since I'm not really well-versed in physics anyway: is there anything in your research which could be the basis of a scientific breakthrough? Or can your results be used to make an already existing process or technology more efficient?

It has already been a scientific breakthrough ten years ago when I demonstrated that I can extract electrons from an n-type diamond to form an equilibrium dipole-interface over the surface of the diamond. Within this equilibrium dipole cannot be a net electric-field. This means that the applied electric-field extracting the dipole becomes cancelled within the dipole by the polarization field of the dipole.

I then found that when the equilibrium dipole establishes equilibrium contact between the diamond and the extraction anode, an equilibrium phase of electrons "congeals" through which charge can be transferred from the diamond to the anode, and vice versa; even though it is physically impossible that there can be a net electric-field within this electron-phase; and this happens at room temperature. It is the very first experiment that proves directly in terms of the impeccable laws of equilibrium electrostatics and thermodynamics that charge transfer is possible through a phase without any electric field driving the charges through the phase.

From this I realized that one must have a dielectric response to form a polarization field for superconduction to occur. Not one of the traditional models, like the BCS model, are based on this requirement. I thus started to look at the traditional superconductors and found that I could model them more simply when taking this requirement into account. Not just that but I could model all superconductors like the low temperature metals, the ceramics, the semiconductors etc. in terms of a single simple mechanism. And by measuring the electronic properties of a material I can predict if it can superconduct, and if it can I can predict the critical temperature.

For the ceramic superconductors this model predicted an upper bound to the critical temperature of about 250 K. Since then I have found a way to circumvent this upper limit, and know now how to generate conducting regions on a microchip which have zero resistivity at room and higher temperatures.

If I had access to the facilities of an INTEL, or IBM, or SAMSUNG, I would have started to develop processor chips which generate a negligible amount of heat. If such a chip can be developed, one will, for example, be able to throw out cooling fans in all desktop computers: A rough calculation shows that the energy being saved by just doing this will be so enormous that it might be possible to close down electric power plants instead of frantically building new ones as we are doing at present.

So yes, I believe that my results can and will one day initiate a new industrial revolution: We could already have been on our way 8 years ago if it were not for the dogmatic stupidity of the mainstream crackpots in charge of superconduction research.

 

[johanfprins]

As every high school physics student knows, and as you will find in every introductory physics text, the energy in a capacitor (at fixed charge Q, which is the situation you described) is reduced when you insert a dielectric. There's a force on the dielectric as you insert it, and it requires work to pull it back out (since doing so increases the energy of the capacitor).

Yes you are of course correct that work is done when inserting the dielectric after the capacitor has been charged to a charge Q. This work is dissipative and and for this reason the internal energy will decrease if you keep Q constant without any topping up in energy. If, however, you charge the capacitor to Q, disconnect it, and do the work to push in the dielectric, and then reconnects it with the power supply, the energy that has dissipated is topped up. It was to the latter situation that I referred in a rather sloppy manner.

 

[sol invictus]

I have taught quantum mechanics on both graduate and post graduate levels and know it far better than a clown like can ever hope to do.

For the sake of your (imaginary) students, I can only hope you're lying.

No one that understands the basics of QM (or studied statistics at even the most superficial level) would ask questions like

What I have been asking is what do you "expect" to find at say the calculated "expectation value" of position: If you call it an "expectation value" you must have some expectation is it not?

and

Thus for many of these measurements you will find that -dV/dx is not zero. So how can the average value define an equilibrium state when many of your measurements give a non-equilibrium value for this derivative?

and

I believe that it is you and the main stream physicists who do not know what the brackets really mean And the definition of "expectation value" found in the main stream literature means that many measurements will not find that the wave is in equilibrium