Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Cuddles]

When we transmit electricity down miles of wires & cables, we lose a big percentage of it. If there could ever be superconducting transmission lines, people all over the world would need to generate less electricity, which would really be good for our environments.

As others have already mentioned, there are various possible reasons room temperature superconductivity may not necessarily be quite so amazing as often thought. When it comes to power transmission there is a very important point - superconductors have zero DC resistance, they do not have zero AC impedance. If we switched to DC power lines and kept the current below the critical current, we could eliminate most power loss. With existing grids, however, we could not simply replace the wires with superconducting ones and expect to see power loss disappear. In fact, we could easily end with things being significantly worse.

Another important point is that all known high temperature superconductors are ceramics. This makes them rather difficult to make into things like wires, since instead of just stretching them out as is done with metals, you have to go through rather complicated, expensive processes that still don't result in wires anywhere near as easy to work with as metal ones. They also have a high failure rate since any flaws anywhere in the process (which usually involves powder being heating in a mould and can easily introduce impurities, air bubbles, and so on) can result in the whole length of wire being useless. Obviously this is far from ideal when you want to make large amounts of cheap, reliable wire covering hundreds of kilometres.

The point being that even assuming we discover a cheap, easily produced room temperature superconductor, it will not necessarily be cost effective to actually use it in many situations where it might seem useful. For example, it could easily be cheaper to build a few more power plants to cover power losses than to produce and maintain an entire national grid of superconducting power cables. There would certainly be some uses for it. After all, superconductors can be useful for enough for us to go to crazy lengths involving liquid helium to use them. But just as superconductors, followed by high temperature superconductors, did not revolutionise the whole world, there is no guarantee room temperature ones would either.

 

[johanfprins]

He may have found room temperature conductivity but......

- Why is he (self) publishing books rather than papers ?

Because all my manuscripts have been blocked by the mainstream physicists for the last 7 years. And when I mean blocked I mean blocked since not a single editor or "peer reviewer" gave any reason based on sane physics-arguments.

- Why isn't he prominently associated with a major university or other research institute ?

I have been associated with the University of the Witwatersrand and the University of Pretoria: But after discovering superconduction at room temperature I was excommunicated because the theoretical physicists working on superconduction claimed that it cannot be superconduction since they cannot model it in terms of the wrong models which were proposed by Ginzberg and Landau and by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer. They were just not willing to allow experimental facts to prove that they have been barking up the wrong tree for more than 50 years and even awarded Nobel Prizes for models which are physically nonsense.

- Why is he promoting via a website ?

What other option do I have?

If he has found room temperature superconductivity or made major steps towards it, the world would be beating a path to his door.

Not when the so-called "experts" on superconduction advise the world that I must be wrong in order to protect their own wrong dogma. As one of them wrote to me: "You will one day get recognition for having discovered superconduction at room temperature, but this not a suitable time". I makes me think of an old white man who said to me in 1972: " I know Apartheid will have to end in South Africa, but not in my time. My children will have to handle that". It is disgraceful that the physicists in charge of superconduction research have also become just as bigoted.

 

[johanfprins]

From the description, which is very vague, it sounds like the guy's a crackpot. My guess would be that he did some kind of spark-gap experiment in his garage, misinterpreted the results ("The resistance suddenly read 0.000 on my Fluke multimeter!") as superconductivity, and latched on to the idea with both hands.

There are to many people like you who jump to conclusions by guessing and not by checking the scientific facts. It is people like you who have over the past 110 years led physics along the garden path and caused physics to be more deluded than any other field in the history of humankind. And this is why I was forced to write my book "The Physics Delusion" before it is too late. Exactly to save physics from people like you who are not willing to check the facts but are willing to being charge of physics.

Now let us consider your marvelous insight that I did a "spark-gap" experiment. If you were not prone to guessing but mentally balanced enough to first check the facts, you would have noted that I extracted electrons from a diamond substrate which had a very high density of donors near its surface.

Thus when applying an electric field with an anode the electrons from the donors could be extracted into the vacuum leaving positive donor charges behind. And as even my grandchild in Kindergarten knows, charges separate to form a dipole structure in order to cancel an applied electric field. Thus the electrons kept on flowing out until the polarisation field generated by the dipole COMPLETELY CANCELLED the applied electric field: THUS WHEN THIS EQUILIBRIUM STATE IS REACHED THERE IS NO ELECTRIC FIELD WITHIN THE DIPOLE. When now increasing the applied electric field, more electrons flow out to also cancel this increase in electric field.

When there are enough electrons near the diamond's surface, as was the case in my experiment, the dipole can be extracted until the electrons just reach the surface of the anode. At this point there is still no electric field within the dipole. By now slightly increasing the applied field, electrons will start cascading into the anode. Thus, their density within the dipole layer decreases and the polarization field cannot cancel the applied field anymore.

Electrons thus accelerate into the anode where they generate Brehmstrahlung. However, the electrons between the diamond surface and the anode still form part of a dipole layer which had formed to cancel the applied electric field. Thus, in addition to the electrons accelerating into the anode, extra electrons are injected to cancel the applied electric field until the resultant polarization field again cancels the applied field. Thus an equilibrium state is again reached at which the applied electric-field is cancelled.

It was, and still is experimentally found that when this state is reached electrons are still being transferred from the diamond into the anode: i.e. they are transferred EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOT, AND CANNOT BE, AN ELECTRIC FIELD PRESENT WITHIN THE ELECTRON-PHASE BETWEEN THE DIAMOND SURFACE AND THE ANODE! THIS DEFINES SUPERCONDUCTION It does not just prove superconduction in my experiment it is also the very first experiment that proves unequivocally that charge can be transferred through a phase while there is definitely not an electric field present. This has never been proved for any other material which is claimed to be superconducting. Thus, in terms of this experimental result, the possibility exists that the phase I have discovered is the only phase that is really superconducting. No FLUKE METER was required to establish this fact.

So I hope you will become more responsible and stop making wild guesses in the future. If we want to save physics we do not need people like you around!

 

[lionking]

Full points for posting Johan. When do you think mainstream acceptance of your experiments will occur?

 

[johanfprins]

The same is somewhat the case for superconductors. If there's a mechanism that allows RTS at all, people will find out what it is, and they will try very hard to engineer a material with a high critical current. Here, however, there's not necessarily a scaling law---we only have one Periodic Table to work with, and the desired answer might just not be in there.

The mechanism for traditional superconductors is similar, but not quite the same, as for the phase I have discovered. I have tried to publish this mechanism in physics journals for the past 7 years; and although it models all superconductors (metal as well as ceramic) correctly and although it models aspects which cannot be modeled by the traditional models, and although the mechanism is predictive which is not the case for the traditional models (as had been pointed out time and again by the late Bernd Matthias) I was blocked from publishing it since it proves that the BCS model is wrong. Time and again I had to hear the argument that although it cannot model the ceramics, the BCS model is so well established for the metals that it cannot be wrong: Therefore we will not allow publication of your mechanism which can model both the metals and the ceramics.

In conclusion, it is interesting that my model predicts that the critical temperature for all the ceramic materials discovered to date has a ceiling at about 250 K: Exactly where it became stuck during the past twenty years. But how can the BCS model be wrong after Brian Pippard canonized it? I predict that Pippard will become known as the biggest nitwit who ever practized physics.

 

[johanfprins]

Acceptance

Full points for posting Johan. When do you think mainstream acceptance of your experiments will occur?

Well it has now been ten years and it has not yet happened no matter how hard I have tried to bring my message across. It has tired me out, nearly bankrupted me and has affected my personal relations within my family.

It will one day be accepted because it is scientifically correct and self-consistent. I just hope that it will be in my lifetime; which is probably less than another 10 years.

 

[nvidiot]

So you've written papers and submitted them for peer review, but they were rejected due to a conspiracy of ignorance?

Any chance you have a prepublication paper we can look at and dissect?

 

[Ririon]

I am not sure I understand this completely (in fact I am sure I don't) but it sounds to me that this is an effect localized to a very small region of a diamond substrate. An while the conditions locally there can be described as superconducting, it does not mean that the entire diamond substrate is superconducting at room temperature. I think even the most conventional of physicists out there would have noticed if plain diamond itself was superconducting at room temperature.

My question is: Could this technology be used to make some sort of wire? Given the funds, could you make a superconducting wire of a practically useful length? 10 cm? 10 m? If so: What kind of power would you need to keep that in a superconducting mode? A low temperature superconductor will transfer electricity with no loss, but the cost of cooling it represents a loss in a practical application.

 

[johanfprins]

Pre-publications

So you've written papers and submitted them for peer review, but they were rejected due to a conspiracy of ignorance?

Any chance you have a prepublication paper we can look at and dissect?

Yes I can supply the last papers on Superconduction and the Aharanov-Bohm effect that I tried to submit to Proc. Roy. Soc. A, two years ago and which after another rejection finally forced me to write my book "The Physics Delusion", in which I also explain the same physics. For obvious reasons I would not like to have pre-publications doing the rounds if they are not going to be published.

You might think that I am now just punting my book, but I think it is a much better read since all the consequences of my discovery of superconduction are spelled out in greater detail than one can in the rejected publications.

However, if you want to select a few people to look at the Roy. Soc. papers without distributing them any further, I will be willing to cooperate. I must, however, know to whom they are going and that no further distribution will take place.

BTW I did succeed to get two manuscripts on ArXive a few years ago which you can look at. I was just lucky to slip them in by pleading that I know no expert I can approach to vouch for them since I am isolated here in South Africa. Just remember that my knowledge and insight have improved vastly since those manuscripts had been written.

 

[johanfprins]

I am not sure I understand this completely (in fact I am sure I don't) but it sounds to me that this is an effect localized to a very small region of a diamond substrate.

Not on the diamond substrate but between the diamond and the anode.

while the conditions locally there can be described as superconducting, it does not mean that the entire diamond substrate is superconducting at room temperature.

Correct, the latter was never claimed.

My question is: Could this technology be used to make some sort of wire?

No since the superconducting phase is a rod with a diameter of about one to two microns, and the length of the rod that can be formed is limited by the thickness of the depletion-layer below the diamond's surface.

Given the funds, could you make a superconducting wire of a practically useful length? 10 cm? 10 m? If so:

Obviously not. But this experiment did lead me to the real mechanism that is responsible for superconduction and why the ceramics will most probably never reach a critical temperature higher than 250 K. I tried to publish this information but was blocked by the main stream physicists over the last 7 years. Therefore I published it in my book. This is not the end of the story yet since I have also developed more IP which will only be made available after I can afford to protect it.

 

[Ririon]

No since the superconducting phase is a rod with a diameter of about one to two microns, and the length of the rod that can be formed is limited by the thickness of the depletion-layer below the diamond's surface.

OK, that was what i thought. You claim to have superconductivity at room temperature, not a superconducting solid material at room temperature.

But this experiment did lead me to the real mechanism that is responsible for superconduction and why the ceramics will most probably never reach a critical temperature higher than 250 K. I tried to publish this information but was blocked by the main stream physicists over the last 7 years. Therefore I published it in my book. This is not the end of the story yet since I have also developed more IP which will only be made available after I can afford to protect it.

So, you know the real mechanism of superconductivity? A model that you can plug several materials (including the ceramics used in superconductors today) into and that gives you quite accurate figures for critical temperatures and other parameters? Sounds very useful and publishable to me. If this real mechanism only fits this specific experiment, it is not that groundbreaking, but still interesting, since it would be a novel kind of superconductivity.

If you submitted a paper showing how this model fitted the experimental data much better than conventional models and the paper is refused for political reasons, wouldn't the reviewers use your superior model to get an advantage in their research? It gets very conspiracy theory-like from then on.

Does this insight let you see any material system that is more promising for higher temperature superconductors than the ones that are currently used? You probably wouldn't say which ones if you did.

 

[Cuddles]

There are to many people like you who jump to conclusions by guessing and not by checking the scientific facts. It is people like you who have over the past 110 years led physics along the garden path and caused physics to be more deluded than any other field in the history of humankind.

I agree. No progress whatsoever has been made in physics for over century. I will get right on to helping you just as soon as I finish posting on the internet with my electronic computer, leave my job at the particle accelerator and drive home in my internal combustion engine powered automobile. By then it will be dark, so I'll have to switch on a few LEDs so I can see. Of course, I may still be busy having to pack my portable media player ready for my transatlantic flight to visit a friend undergoing radiation therapy for a disease diagnosed using an MRI scanner. I'd also better remember my GPS receiver so I can find my way to the electric train. Once I've done all that, I'll probably be too busy trying to figure out a way to get SQUIDs and SEMs into this story to actually do anything.

Damn you physics!!!

 

[sol invictus]

It was, and still is experimentally found that when this state is reached electrons are still being transferred from the diamond into the anode: i.e. they are transferred EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NOT, AND CANNOT BE, AN ELECTRIC FIELD PRESENT WITHIN THE ELECTRON-PHASE BETWEEN THE DIAMOND SURFACE AND THE ANODE! THIS DEFINES SUPERCONDUCTION

Why can there not be an electric field?

 

[johanfprins]

Originally posted by Ririon: So, you know the real mechanism of superconductivity? A model that you can plug several materials (including the ceramics used in superconductors today) into and that gives you quite accurate figures for critical temperatures and other parameters? Sounds very useful and publishable to me.

So I would have thought myself. It should be so in a "normal" functioning physics society; but those days are long past.

If this real mechanism only fits this specific experiment, it is not that groundbreaking, but still interesting, since it would be a novel kind of superconductivity.

It fits all published data on all superconductors EVER discovered as well as the data that have been published and cannot be explained: Let me give you a few recent examples that fall within the latter category:
1. Science 330 (2008) 1509. P Aynajian et al. This data on lead could not be explained while my theory modeled it perfectly. Whe I sent in my paper to Science I got the following response. The editor Dr, Ian Osborne rejected it within a day without sending it out for peer review. I also sent it to Dr. Doug Scalapino who commented in Science on the fact that this data cannot be explained by the traditional theory. His response: "The BCS theory of superconductivity has been clearly established and Pb is essentially a poster child for the electron-phonon mechanism. Thus I believe that (the data) will be explained within a frame work that explains essentially all that is seen in lead. etc" He just wrote in science that BCS cannot explain the results, but when I send my alternative model which explains it beautifully, my manuscript is rejected because BCS "must one day explain the results". You must agree that this reasoning shows that physics has gone cuckoo!
2.Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 4907. Segawa and Ando. Results on YBCO which cannot be explained but are perfectly modeled by my mechanism. My manuscript was rejected by three journals.
3. Phys. Rev. B 75 (2007) 165323-1-4: Klein et al. Data on highly doped p-type diamond which cannot be explained by BCS. My mechanism explains it. Manuscript rejected by 5 journals including Phys Rev B and Phys Rev Letters.
4. Nature 462 (2008) 613. Vinokur et al. Data on amorphous metal films that show a a super insulating phase that cannot be modelled by BCS. My mechanism models it perfectly. In response from the editor Dr. Karen Southwell argued that it is not of high enoughsignificance to be published in Nature.
I have many more examples.

If you submitted a paper showing how this model fitted the experimental data much better than conventional models and the paper is refused for political reasons, wouldn't the reviewers use your superior model to get an advantage in their research? It gets very conspiracy theory-like from then on.

I doubt whether they have the intelligence to do so. They are so indoctrinated by "pairing" that they cannot see beyond their eye flaps and realize that "pairing" is not required for superconduction to occur.

Does this insight let you see any material system that is more promising for higher temperature superconductors than the ones that are currently used? You probably wouldn't say which ones if you did.

Yes it did and is still doing so. But that is still undisclosed IP; and will remain that way until I can find the financial support to safeguard it. You might now want to argue that somebody else might find the clue using my published mechanism. With the lack of brainpower I have seen within the superconduction research community, I am probably still safe for another 1000 years.

 

[johanfprins]

Why can there not be an electric field?

Since it has been accepted from the time of Kamerlingh Onnes that the measured voltage over any two contacts to superconductor must be exactly zero. That it is actually so has been proved for the first time by my experiment when I extracted electrons from a diamond. If there is an electric-field, there must be energy dissipation since there is a current flowing: Remember IV?

It is therefore hilarious to note that the London Bros calaimed that the electric field must be zero; but then went ahead to explain the Meissner effect by assuming that there is an electric field that causes currents near the surface. If this were so one would not measure a zero voltage and there will be energy dissipation. It is thus even more hilarious that all the models of the Meissner effect assume such an electric field. If these models were to be correct, it would mean that a material showing the Meissner effect cannot be a superconductor. My model explains why an electric field is not required for the Meissner effect.

 

[sol invictus]

Since it has been accepted from the time of Kamerlingh Onnes that the measured voltage over any two contacts to superconductor must be exactly zero.

If your device is a superconductor there is no E field. Therefore there is no E field and your device is a superconductor. Hmm....

That it is actually so has been proved for the firts time by nmy experiment when I extracted electrons from a diamond. If there is an electric-field there must be energy dissipation since there is a current flowing: Remember IV?

How do you know there's no energy dissipation?

It is therefore hilarious to note that the London Bros calaimed that the electric field must be zero; but then went ahead to explain the Meissner effect by assuming that there is an electric field that causes currents near the surface. If this were so one would not measure a zero voltage. It is thus even more hilarious that all the models of the Meissner effect assume such an electric field. If these models were to be correct, it would mean that a material showing the Meissner effect cannot be a superconductor. My model explains why an electric field is not required for the Meissner effect.

That's wrong. But maybe we should focus on your experiments?

 

[johanfprins]

Damn you physics!!!

You clearly do not have an idea what the difference is between engineering and physics. It is amazing that the engineers could develop all these gadgets even though the interpretation of the physics on which they have been based is fundamentally flawed. Thank God for engineers: They get the job done in spite of the stupid physicists.

 

[Ririon]

So I would have thought myself. It should be so in a "normal" functioning physics society; but those days are long past.

If you are right, I at least hope you are generalizing wildly. It is not entirely impossible that a small (relatively speaking) research field like superconductivity may have some problems. But I can assure you that physics is not dead yet.

It fits all published data on all superconductors EVER discovered as well as the data that have been published and cannot be explained: Let me give you a few recent examples that fall within the latter category:
1. Science 330 (2008) 1509. P Aynajian et al. This data on lead could not be explained while my theory modeled it perfectly. Whe I sent in my paper to Science I got the following response. The editor Dr, Ian Osborne rejected it within a day without sending it out for peer review. I also sent it to Dr. Doug Scalapino who commented in Science on the fact that this data cannot be explained by the traditional theory. His response: "The BCS theory of superconductivity has been clearly established and Pb is essentially a poster child for the electron-phonon mechanism. Thus I believe that (the data) will be explained within a frame work that explains essentially all that is seen in lead. etc" He just wrote in science that BCS cannot explain the results, but when I send my alternative model which explains it beautifully, my manuscript is rejected because BCS "must one day explain the results". You must agree that this reasoning shows that physics has gone cuckoo!
2.Phys. Rev. Lett. 86 (2001) 4907. Segawa and Ando. Results on YBCO which cannot be explained but are perfectly modeled by my mechanism. My manuscript was rejected by three journals.
3. Phys. Rev. B 75 (2007) 165323-1-4: Klein et al. Data on highly doped p-type diamond which cannot be explained by BCS. My mechanism explains it. Manuscript rejected by 5 journals including Phys Rev B and Phys Rev Letters.
4. Nature 462 (2008) 613. Vinokur et al. Data on amorphous metal films that show a a super insulating phase that cannot be modelled by BCS. My mechanism models it perfectly. In response from the editor Dr. Karen Southwell argued that it is not of high enoughsignificance to be published in Nature.
I have many more examples.

Inexcusable if true. There may be more sides to this story than yours, though.

I doubt whether they have the intelligence to do so. They are so indoctrinated by "pairing" that they cannot see beyond their eye flaps and realize that "pairing" is not required for superconduction to occur. Yes it did and is still doing so. But that is still undisclosed IP; and will remain that way until I can find the financial support to safeguard it. You might now want to argue that somebody else might find the clue using my published mechanism. With the lack of brainpower I have seen within the superconduction research community, I am probably still safe for another 1000 years.

You are using some rather strong words. It would be a tragedy if you are right, and the reason this is not accepted is that nobody likes your attitude and don't want to hear what you have to say. In that case, I hope you show those ******.

Then again, maybe you are very wrong about this, they have collectively been ***** and told YOU that you "lack brainpower" and that's why you are so angry and full of contempt.

I don't know. Interesting stuff, anyway. If you hang around here and you are the real deal, maybe you could learn a few tricks about how to not be seen as a crackpot. We have plenty of those around, and we discuss even more of them. Best of luck either way!

 

[johanfprins]

If your device is a superconductor there is no E field. Therefore there is no E field and your device is a superconductor. Hmm....

The definition of a superconductor is that an equilibrium current I is flowing through the material without any voltage V driving the current: And no voltage no electric-field! Can you give a better definition for superconduction?

How do you know there's no energy dissipation?

I have already learned in primary school that when a current I flows through a conductor under the action of a voltage V you generate energy IV that dissipates as heat! Have you not learned this?

That's wrong. But maybe we should focus on your experiments?

If you want to tell me that I am wrong, you should have the courtesy to explain why you make such a statement. I do not mind focusing on my experiments since they have been well done and the results are incontestable.

 

[johanfprins]

cracpots

I don't know. Interesting stuff, anyway. If you hang around here and you are the real deal, maybe you could learn a few tricks about how to not be seen as a crackpot. We have plenty of those around, and we discuss even more of them. Best of luck either way!

If I have to be called a crackpot because I am talking the truth: So be it. After 10 years of insults thrown at me the th real crackpots I do not care anymore what they call me. All I am interested in is to save physics from the claws of the real crackpots who are nowadays in control of this field.