Superconductivity at room temperature??

[ben m]

Here's an example of something Johan probably didn't mean to include in his statement:

Material #1: a copper block, plugged into ground
Material #2: a copper block, isolated and charged to +100 volts.

Those are two materials "which have Fermi levels at two different energies", but if I put them in contact, a dipole layer does NOT form "across the interface". I suspect this is not what Johan was thinking of when he made his statement. But he's supposedly walking us through a pedantic proof that that a certain zero electric field is the only possibility. It's reasonable to demand that he actually be pedantic, that he actually make correct statements, and that he actually exclude possibilities other than the one that he happens to be thinking of.

 

[johanfprins]

My posts are being moved. It seems that on this forum it is acceptable that I can be insulted left right and center but am not allowed to respond in kind. OK, if that is the one-sided rule on this discussion forum, I have no choice but to adhere to it. So go ahead and have a ball with your insults . I will stick to the physics which you are clearly trying to avoid.

The word "depletion region" is a standard term for this whole region, including both the region of extra holes and the region of extra electrons.

If one wants to distort and confuse, one can probably use it in this manner, although I have never come across this approach ever. As far as all text books I have studied, a depletion layer is a layer depleted of ONE type of charge-carrier and thus have an overal opposite charge to that of the charge-carriers.

It's synonymous with "space charge region", if you prefer.

How can your definition of a depletion layer be a "space charge region" when the overal charge adds to ZERO?

I would like to suggest that in order to avoid the confusion which you have (deliberately?) brought into this discussion, that we stick to the rule that a depletion layer is a region that is depleted of the same type of charge-carriers and is thsu REALLY a "space charge region" having an overal charge that is opposite to that of the depleted charge carriers. Or do you have another suggestion?

 

[johanfprins]

Neither. The statement is too ambiguous to mean anything.

I disagree: It is not ambiguous at all. Ask any competent undergraduate doing Solid Sate Physics or Electrical Engineering. Maybe a knowledge of Wannier functions does not include this fundamental elementary physics?

Do what undergraduate students are encouraged to do: Cite the scientific definition.

I NEVER encouraged my undergraduate students to quote like parrots, since this is usually a compelling demonstration that they do not understand the underlying physics. I have noted that you prefer to quote parrot-like. It is not a good practice at all. I penalised my students for doing this; since it cripples their ability to think for themselves.

 

[ben m]

If one wants to distort and confuse, one can probably use it in this manner, although I have never come across this approach ever.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pn-junction-equilibrium.png
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/pnjun.html#c2
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter4/ch4_2.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=c6...arris&pg=PA1017#v=onepage&q=depletion&f=false

No, never mind, I must have invented this term to inject confusion into the thread.

 

[johanfprins]

Yet more insults removed. If you continue to make personal insults right after moderator warnings, you will face more severe moderator action, up to and including suspension or banning.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles

this makes your statement completely meaningless.

What makes my statement "completely meaningless"? I do not think that my statement is meaningless physics. But if you disagree, I again invite you to reformulate it in terms of "meaningful" physics; or to suggest how I can reformulate it is terms of "meaningful" physics.

 

[johanfprins]

Here's an example of something Johan probably didn't mean to include in his statement:

Material #1: a copper block, plugged into ground
Material #2: a copper block, isolated and charged to +100 volts.

Those are two materials "which have Fermi levels at two different energies

Thank you You have made an intelligent contribution: So I will reformulate:.

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two different types of materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies when not connected to any power source or when not charged up before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No?

 

[johanfprins]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pn-junction-equilibrium.png
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/pnjun.html#c2
http://ecee.colorado.edu/~bart/book/book/chapter4/ch4_2.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=c6...arris&pg=PA1017#v=onepage&q=depletion&f=false

No, never mind, I must have invented this term to inject confusion into the thread.

I did agree that one can call both layers together a depleted region; but I still find it a bad practice since interfaces are not just between n- and p-type semiconductors. Furtheermore to call the whole dipole a space-cahrge while the overall charge is zero is not very logical.

My statement is general in the sense that it also includes dipole layers between semiconductors and metals. In this caser one does not gave a depleted region across the interface but only a depletion-layer on one side of the interface. You of course immediately wanted to confine my statement to pn-junctions only. Why? to deliberately introduce confusion? So I am going to stick to calling a depleted region with only one type of depleted charge a depletion layer. If you have any other suggestions I will welcome them. Please stop trolling!

 

[johanfprins]

My initial answer to the post has been moved. Since it does require an answer I will try to answer it again

No interpretaion is needed. This is what you wrote:


You are explicitly calling the physicist who proposed the idea:

• 'severely deluded' and
• 'not very bright'

However if you want to retract that statement then that is good.

So we now have a competent experimental physicist (Prof Doyle) whose interpretation of your results is that it is the formation of a dusty plasma.

You are as usual jumping to wrong conclusions before doing your homework. The first person who raised the dusty plasma idea was not Prof. Doyle. Furthermore, Prof. Doyle has not yet written his final report and so I cannot imagine how you can conclude that he interpreted my results as a dusty plasma. Prof. Doyle is a competent experimental physicist who has been funded by ESKOM to repeat my results; which he duly did and even added to. Since he must report to ESKOM he must consider all possible explanations, no matter how absurd they are. I am upset that he seems to have spent so much time on the "dusty plasma" idea which is physically impossible under the conditions used, and in addition, even if it couild form, just cannot explain all the data. I, however, doubt it very much that he will conclude that such an impossible mechanism can be the reason. We are all awaiting his report eagerly. It should have been out long ago, but it seems as if there are some hiccups between Prof. Doyle and ESKOM.

We also have: Superunlikely a letter? in New Sceintist by Archie Cambell

(Bigger quote in this post)

This was a very irresponsinble reaction by Prof. Archie Campbell. He argued that I have claimed superconduction because there was no voltage change when increasing the gap. I DID NOT claim this as the reason for my conclusion at all. I am definitely not so stupid that I would have done this. IV characteristics CAN NEVER prove superconduction. Thus, Archie Campbell's reaction was to shoot from the hip instead of reading my papers and ascertaining why I am claiming superconduction. It is sad that people who are professors at universities can be so irresponsible. It is just not acceptable academic behaviour. It is foolish to shoot of your mouth without first ascertaining all the facts involved.

The point is that fact that your experiment has been ignored (except by Prof Doyle). This means that your reported results have failed to convince any other scientist who has read your paper to make the effort to replicate it.

Not at all. There are many excellent physicists who agree with my analysis. And I hope that in future they will be brave enough to openly declare their support. I do not blame them for not doing so right away. There have been too many instances where even powerful physicists have been destroyed by those "in charge". Take the Copenhagen campaign against Einstein after 1927. Even today you still get a person like Glashow who writes in his book that "in his old age Einstein just did not know enough physics anymore". My personal opinion is that Glashow will never measure up to Einstein: He is too small fry. The fact is that the superconducting physics sect will not tolerate any superconduction results which prove that superconduction can occur without paired electrons; and most probably has always occurred without the need for pairs to form..

 

[ben m]

My statement is general in the sense that it also includes dipole layers between semiconductors and metals. In this caser one does not gave a depleted region across the interface but only a depletion-layer on one side of the interface.

So if I touch a block of p-type silicon to a block of chromium, you're saying there's a negative space charge on the Si side, but not positive space charge on the Cr side?

Or do you think that there's a double layer of (-) and (+) space charge, but when this is a metal you insist on not calling it "depletion"?

Do you think the whole assembly has acquired a (-) charge somehow?

Or do you think the (+) charge has gone somewhere other than the interface (where?)

 

[Reality Check]

johanfprins: Evidence that a dusty plasma cannot form in the experiment

The first person who raised the dusty plasma idea was not Prof. Doyle.

So you insulted another person (not Prof. Doyle) in

Originally Posted by johanfprins
BTW: The idea of a "dusty plasma" comes from a severely deluded, and not very bright physicist here in South Africa.

You owe them an apology.

Furthermore, the only person that you have mentioned who has tried to replicate your experiment is Prof Doyle.
As you state he has also spent time on the "dusty plasma" idea. Thus the implication was that you refered to him in your insult which you have since clarified (it is someone else that you insulted).

I am upset that he seems to have spent so much time on the "dusty plasma" idea which is physically impossible under the conditions used, and in addition, even if it couild form, just cannot explain all the data.

johanfprins
Show your evidence that a dusty plasma is physically impossible in the experiment.
Show your calculations that even if a dusty plasma formed (thus contradicting your first assertion ) then it would not explain all of the data.
Show that the bit of data that a dusty plasma cannot explain is explained by superconductivity, i.e. zero resistivity + the Meissner effect.

This was a very irresponsinble reaction by Prof. Archie Campbell. He argued that I have claimed superconduction

No he did not. He claimed that the measurements that you took can not demonstrate superconduction:
Superunlikely a letter? in New Sceintist by Archie Cambell

The example of room-temperature superconductivity that you report is unconvincing (12 April, p 17). It is clear from the original paper by Johan Prins that it would be quite impossible to detect superconductivity with his measurements.

and

Physicist Johan Prins conducted an experiment to develop a superconductor that worked at room temperature. He used a layer of synthetic diamond doped with oxygen atoms, and by applying a voltage to the gold-plated probe above the surface of the diamond, he was able to draw electrons out of the diamond into the vacuum which completed the circuit. In opinion of Archie Campbell, Cambridge, UK it would be quite impossible to detect superconductivity with his measurements.

In his experiment Johan Prins found that the current through his crystal did not change detectably when the thickness of the vacuum gap between the diamond and positively charged probe was reduced to zero. Since he was applying 1000 volts and drawing only half a milliamp, the resistance of his circuit was 2 megohms. And since the noise in his current was at least 1 per cent, any resistance in the gap less than 20 kilohms would be undetectable.

If the gap were made of copper the resistance would be about 0.04 micro-ohms, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the resistivity of the electron gas is no greater than around 10^11 times that of copper. This cannot be regarded as evidence of superconductivity.

There are many excellent physicists who agree with my analysis.
...paranoia and conspiracy rant snipped...

Little to do with what I wrote:
The point is that fact that your experiment has been ignored (except by Prof Doyle). This means that your reported results have failed to convince any other scientist who has read your paper to make the effort to replicate it.

The fact remains that whatever these unnamed excellent physicists have stated, they have still not been convinced enough by your results to try to replicate them.

P.S. Did you lie to Physics World or are they lying about what you said?
Can diamond now be a superconductor? (Apr 4, 2003)

Prins admits that he must show that the state can expel magnetic fields to conclusively prove that the state is superconducting.

 

[johanfprins]

So if I touch a block of p-type silicon to a block of chromium, you're saying there's a negative space charge on the Si side, but not positive space charge on the Cr side?

Where did I say that? What I said is that:

Statement 1: When creating an interface between two different types of materials which have Fermi-levels at two different energies when not connected to any power source or when not charged up before generating the interface, then after creating the interface a dipole layer forms across the interface when there are free charges that can move across the interface from one material into the other. Yes or No? Do you want to claim that there cannot be any charge exchange across the interface when pressing a chromium block to a p-type semiconductor?

Or do you think that there's a double layer of (-) and (+) space charge, but when this is a metal you insist on not calling it "depletion"?

Are you arguing that the depletion- and accumulation layers that form at the surfaces of metals are respectively exactly the same as the positively-charged depletion layer at the surface of an n-type semiconductor and the negatively-charged depletion layer at the surface of a p-type semiconductor? PLEASE stop being a TROLL: You fully understand the context of my statements but like to play the clown.

OK, I will play along with your ludicrous attitude and tighten my statement up even more: I am looking forward to see what you will next pull out of the hat to try and derail my arguments.

Statement 1: When creating an interface between an n-type semiconductor and a metal, where the latter has a Fermi level at a lower energy than the n-type semiconductor, and when neither of the two materials are charged up before generating the interface, then, after creating the interface, a dipole layer forms across the interface, since negative charge-carriers move across the interface from the n-type semiconductor into the metal, thus leaving a positively charged depletion-layer behind in contact with the interface, and forming a negatively charged layer in contact with the interface by accumulation within the metal. Yes or No?

 

[johanfprins]

So you insulted another person (not Prof. Doyle) in

You owe them an apology.

Why do I owe "them" an apology? I have not named the original jerk.

Furthermore, the only person that you have mentioned who has tried to replicate your experiment is Prof Doyle.
As you state he has also spent time on the "dusty plasma" idea. Thus the implication was that you refered to him in your insult which you have since clarified (it is someone else that you insulted).

Only in your mind can you arrive at such a conclusion. You are prone to jump to conclusions before ascertaining all the facts.

johanfprins
Show your evidence that a dusty plasma is physically impossible in the experiment.

Plasmas only form under very special conditions which are jointly determined by both the pressure (vacuum quality) and the applied electric field. When switching off the electric field the plasma collapses. In my case my superconducting phase does not, and even when you then also collapse the vacuum, the phase still does not collapse as it MUST if it were a plasma. This is high School physics.

Show your calculations that even if a dusty plasma formed (thus contradicting your first assertion ) then it would not explain all of the data.

I have just now given you the reason.

Show that the bit of data that a dusty plasma cannot explain is explained by superconductivity

I have done that in my original publications and have done it in more detail, and using simpler mathematics, in my book. I am also, at present, trying to go through the same arguments, one at a time, on this thread.

i.e. zero resistivity + the Meissner effect

One cannot measure “resistivity” directly and thus needs proof that there is no electric field possible while the current flows. One can also NOT “measure” zero electric field directly and thus needs impeccable corroborating evidence that the electric field is exactly zero. Many people erroneously believe that the Meissner effect provides this evidence. THIS IS NOT SO: Let me quote the following recent remark from a person who is revered as an expert on superconduction:

""Further notes on the centenary of superconductivity Physics World

When Grant suggests that the Meissner effect is the ideal test for superconductivity, he continues a misunderstanding that has led to some very poor papers on new superconductors. There are two reasons why it is a very bad test. First, the best superconductors, such as niobium-titanium-tin, do not show a significant Meissner effect, because “flux pinning” prevents the field from being expelled. Second, even if an apparent diamagnetic signal is seen, it is very easily confused with a reduction in paramagnetism.

Archie Campbell, University of Cambridge"

My experiment is the first that supplies the best impeccable evidence EVER, that there cannot be an electric field present (within the phase that I have discovered) while a current is transferred through this phase. No other experiment HAS EVER given such crystal-clear direct proof as my experiment does.

No he did not. He claimed that the measurements that you took can not demonstrate superconduction:
Superunlikely a letter? in New Sceintist by Archie Cambell

He assumed that I am such a fool that I will claim superconduction using the IV characteristics which I have also measured. ONE CAN NEVER prove superconduction by solely measuring IV characteristics. By assuming that I have done so Archie Campbell insulted me in the most unfair manner.

Little to do with what I wrote:
The point is that fact that your experiment has been ignored (except by Prof Doyle). This means that your reported results have failed to convince any other scientist who has read your paper to make the effort to replicate it.

Maybe they have tried but were just to incompetent?

The fact remains that whatever these unnamed excellent physicists have stated, they have still not been convinced enough by your results to try to replicate them.

They do not have the equipment to do so and have other programs and their future to worry about than to spend thousands of dollars replicating my results.

P.S. Did you lie to Physics World or are they lying about what you said?
Can diamond now be a superconductor? (Apr 4, 2003)

When I discovered superconduction at room temperature, I was also still caught within the old paradigm that one must first prove the expulsion of a magnetic field. You will note that in my first two papers I did not outright claim superconduction. I only afterwards realised that my experiment is so conclusive that I do not need such an experiment. Even so I still wanted to do such a measurement but could not get funding. But in terms of what Archie Campbell wrote above, I am glad that I did not waste money.

 

[ben m]

Are you arguing that the depletion- and accumulation layers that form at the surfaces of metals are respectively exactly the same as the positively-charged depletion layer at the surface of an n-type semiconductor and the negatively-charged depletion layer at the surface of a p-type semiconductor?

You referred to a metal-semiconductor junction as having only *one* charge sign layer. It's reasonable to ask where the other sign goes, in your mental picture. Where does it go, Johan?

 

[johanfprins]

You referred to a metal-semiconductor junction as having only *one* charge sign layer. It's reasonable to ask where the other sign goes, in your mental picture. Where does it go, Johan?

You are again deliberately distorting what I wrote. I said very clearly that a dipole layer's charge add to being zero since you have opposite charges across the interface: So where do YOU think that I lost any charges?.

I did say that in a metal-semiconductor junction there is only ONE depletion layer within the the semiconductor having a specific charge, while in the metal you have either an accumulation of negative charges or positive charges. There are no donors or acceptors in metals. So please stop playing at being a smart a--.

 

[excaza]

You know, if I had to know all these things that Johan claims as 'elementary' in high school and 1st year college physics, I think my head would have exploded. Pretty much everything in this thread apparently falls into that category.

 

[ben m]

I did say that in a metal-semiconductor junction there is only ONE depletion layer within the the semiconductor having a specific charge, while in the metal you have either an accumulation of negative charges or positive charges. There are no donors or acceptors in metals. So please stop playing at being a smart a--.

That was one of the options I suggested. All you had to do is say so.

Or do you think that there's a double layer of (-) and (+) space charge, but when this is a metal you insist on not calling it "depletion"?

Seriously, Johan: I can't read your mind, thank goodness. If I want to know what you mean I need to ask questions about it, which means I'm going to test out my understanding of what you mean and ask you to clarify.

If you're going to turn every such question into three posts accusing me of trolling and idiocy, I'm not going to bother.

(By the way, I have no problem using semiconductor-like terms for a metal. The band structures look the same the differences are practical ones. A metal has an electron density very far from filling a band, a semiconductor has density rather close to filling a band. Charging (or discharging) a metal is, quantum mechanically, exactly the same thing as partially depleting an intrinsic semiconductor. In a metal, the newly-filled or emptied states are boring ones in the middle of a band. In the semiconductor they're interesting ones near a band edge. In an over-doped semiconductor, or a semiconductor at high temperature, it's somewhere in between. So I'm happy to use the familiar "depletion region" term for the whole thing, understanding that the term encompasses something about the density-of-states, but doesn't say anything about (e.g.) the I-V curve of such a junction.

 

[johanfprins]

You know, if I had to know all these things that Johan claims as 'elementary' in high school and 1st year college physics, I think my head would have exploded. Pretty much everything in this thread apparently falls into that category.

Yes they all do unless you believe in paranormal metaphysics like "wave-particle" duality, "complementarity", the twin paradox, length contraction, Wheeler's participating universe, that an electron does not move through both slits when it diffracts, and similar superstitions.

 

[johanfprins]

Seriously, Johan: I can't read your mind, thank goodness. If I want to know what you mean I need to ask questions about it, which means I'm going to test out my understanding of what you mean and ask you to clarify.

If only this were true: But I believe that anybody with a smatterring of intelligence can see that you are playing a game to avoid engaging with any statement I make. I have played along and tightened my statement every time, although it was not really required: So let us try again:

Statement 1: When creating an interface between an n-type semiconductor and a metal, where the latter has a Fermi level at a lower energy than the n-type semiconductor, and when neither of the two materials are charged up before generating the interface, then, after creating the interface, a dipole layer forms across the interface, since negative charge-carriers move across the interface from the n-type semiconductor into the metal, thus leaving a positively charged depletion-layer behind in contact with the interface, and forming a negatively charged layer in contact with the interface by accumulation within the metal. Yes or No?

 

[ben m]

I have played along and tightened my statement every time, although it was not really required

How do I know what is or is not required? You're making a statement that you seem to intend to use eventually to "prove" your idiosyncratic theory of superconductivity.

I have no way of knowing what parts of this statement are important. How do I know what error, ambiguity, or mis-definition you might eventually rely on in your "proof" that BCS theory is wrong? Since I don't know how much detail you're going to squeeze out of this stupid "statement", the only thing I can do with it is ask for it to be actually correct.

I have a better idea, though. Get to the point.

 

[Reality Check]

I disagree: It is not ambiguous at all.

I disagree: It is ambiguous. You need to exclude situations as in ben m's post. Unless you want to include this which gives the trival statement that charges flow between materials with different Fernmi levels.
ETA which you have at least tried to do in later posts.

Ask any competent postgraduate who has done Solid Sate Physics or Electrical Engineering ... like me !