Superconductivity at room temperature??

[W.D.Clinger]

This thread is the latest example - you've got at least four very well-educated, intelligent, motivated people trying to understand you,

"Well-educated, intellegent, motivated people" will not hide behind anonymous names: Only charlatans do.

It's truly unfortunate that all of your adversaries, in this thread and elsewhere, have been anonymous. In that respect, you've had a remarkable run of bad luck.

and after 1,100 posts they are even more convinced that you're a deluded fraud (or at best, senile) than they were to start.

Obviously, only charlatans who are too afraid to reveal their identities, act in this way. I have been treated in the same way by the Apartheid secret police: Faceless scoundrels!

How does your mistreatment by the Apartheid secret police's faceless scoundrels provide evidence of mistreatment in this thread?

There is a single common factor in all that, from which most people would draw the obvious conclusion. Instead, your conclusion is that "physics is rotten" - that everyone else is wrong. I'm not sure if it's sad or funny.

Have you read the complete argument from section to 1 to section 38? No you have not! And you probably will be too stupid to understand simple logic. But you are arrogant enough to keep on insulting me behind Ku Klux Klan masks. You are really impressing are you not! You are disgusting! Well educated? I do not think so at all! You are craven charlatans.

I haven't seen much evidence of sol invictus's stupidity. Can you provide examples?

I haven't seen anything wrong with sol invictus's logic. Can you provide examples?

I haven't seen any Ku Klux Klan masks in this thread. Can you provide examples?

I haven't seen much evidence that sol invictus, ben m, or Ziggurat are poorly educated. Can you provide examples?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

There is no force! If it is impossible for you to understand that a nonexistent field cannot produce a force, then it is impossible to argue sense with you.

So when you use your hand to compress a spring, your hand and the force it exerts become non-existent after you have compressed the spring. If posting BS was a spot, you would have been a leopard!

Using a bathroom scale, I have just finished conducting the experiment you suggested. The results contradict your claim on both counts:

• My hand continued to exist.
• My hand continued to exert a force after it had compressed the spring, and that force continued so long as the spring was compressed by my hand.

ETA: I suspect that I have once again fallen victim to Poe's Law.

 

[Ziggurat]

So when you use your hand to compress a spring, your hand and the force it exerts become non-existent after you have compressed the spring.

Again, this is not the equivalent. Because the polarization affects the field, the mathematical equivalent is NOT one spring with some specified displacement. It is TWO springs, one representing the electric field and one representing the polarization, with some specified COMBINED displacement. Increase the polarization and you decrease the field, and vice versa.

And yes, if one of the springs is not compressed, then there's NO FORCE.

Actually, this is a slight simplification. If one spring is uncompressed, we have three options: no total displacement, one spring has a spring constant of zero, or one spring has an infinite spring constant. The first two scenarios lead to no force. The last option produces a force, but we know that the electric field has a finite spring constant, so the only way to obtain that scenario with polarization is to have an unpolarizable material (infinite spring constant). Which still has no polarization energy, and doesn't apply to your model or observations.

 

[Ziggurat]

Using a bathroom scale, I have just finished conducting the experiment you suggested. The results contradict your claim on both counts:

Actually, in this case you misunderstood him. He's trying to claim that that is the consequence of MY position, and since it's clearly wrong, my position must also be wrong. So he doesn't actually believe that (though given what he does believe, I can understand the mistake you made).

But where he screwed up is thinking that that was the consequence of my position. It isn't, not at all (as I just explained above). And that was a major error.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Using a bathroom scale, I have just finished conducting the experiment you suggested. The results contradict your claim on both counts:

Actually, in this case you misunderstood him. He's trying to claim that that is the consequence of MY position, and since it's clearly wrong, my position must also be wrong. So he doesn't actually believe that (though given what he does believe, I can understand the mistake you made).

But where he screwed up is thinking that that was the consequence of my position. It isn't, not at all (as I just explained above). And that was a major error.

Yes, I understood that the experiment Dr Prins suggested had absolutely nothing to do with what you had said. That, combined with my knowledge of other things he had said, led me to think he was serious. After reflection, however, I edited my post to note the relevance of Poe's Law.

 

[johanfprins]

Comments on post # 1177 by SOdhnor

The internet never forgets, and these days more and more employers are doing searches on people.

So if you want to post opinions which will put off employers then you are clearly a devious scumbag. I have had my doubts about Wiki-Leaks but I can understand more and more that anonymity is the mask of the scoundrel.

I think it's prudent to keep a certain degree of anonymity when you can.

It should be declared a criminal offence. Civilized societies should consider the death penalty for such behavior!

While I don't know the real-life names of these people, I do trust that they are not part of a conspiracy; they aren't the same person, for example.

Maybe not the same person: But decent people with honor and self-respet will not attack the competency of another person from a position of anonymity. Only a scumbag will do this.

So then, what does it matter who they "really" are? If we were to work out some arrangement where a neutral third party talked to them and verified that they have names, and relevant jobs or educations, what would that prove?

When they attack another persons competency from behind a mask, it will still prove that they are scumbags; since they are too afraid to stand up in public for their beliefs.

You've already said that there are many credentialed people who disagree with you

I have not! It depends what you call credentialed people: Referees who also hide behind anonymity are still scumbags. Most people who took the time to read and talk to me believe that I have good chance of being correct. But usually these are bright young physicists with open minds: The established, fossilized people like Ben m, sol and Ziggurat attack you without first studying in detail what your arguments are; and do everything in their power to distort what you say.

There are a lot of good reasons to use a pseudonym online, and that doesn't change anything about what they are saying - either they are right or they are wrong,

It gives the argument that they have the knowledge to judge you while they do not have this knowledge at all: As Ziggurat, sol and Ben m have clearly demonstrated on this thread.

I would count any dismissal based on using an online name as an Ad Hom.

You are wrong! I have found out the hard way that this is the behavior of scumbags. That is why I always informed people who I am before stating my beliefs; even when I was asked to referee their manuscripts, If you act in any other manner, you are a scumbag. And our world should not tolerate scumbags anymore. If you believe you know your subject, you will state your name and your credentials.

 

[Ziggurat]

I have not! It depends what you call credentialed people: Referees who also hide behind anonymity are still scumbags.

They may be scumbags, but they're still credentialed. They've got Ph.D.'s in the field. And you gave some names earlier in the thread of specific, well-credentialed people who don't believe you.

 

[johanfprins]

comments on post #1180 by W. D. Clinger

It's truly unfortunate that all of your adversaries, in this thread and elsewhere, have been anonymous. In that respect, you've had a remarkable run of bad luck.

How do you know that> I have had very intelligent people who discussed these issues with me face to face.

How does your mistreatment by the Apartheid secret police's faceless scoundrels provide evidence of mistreatment in this thread?

They used the same type of false statements and lies behind masks of anonymity.

I haven't seen much evidence of sol invictus's stupidity. Can you provide examples?

Well you wont since in comparison to you sol invictus is a genius. Not that this means much. Any tiny bit is more than zero.

I haven't seen anything wrong with sol invictus's logic. Can you provide examples?

I already have many times> If you have been too stupid to pick it up that is your problem. Do not ask me to spoon-feed you. And even if I do, I doubt whether you will have the ability to understand.

I haven't seen any Ku Klux Klan masks in this thread. Can you provide examples?

A mask is a mask!

I haven't seen much evidence that sol invictus, ben m, or Ziggurat are poorly educated. Can you provide examples?

I have many times. Any person who claims that an applied electric field can be cancelled by charge-carriers which can be accelerated while they transport a current through a material could not have had any physics education.

 

[johanfprins]

Comments on post #1182 by W. D. Clinger

Using a bathroom scale, I have just finished conducting the experiment you suggested. The results contradict your claim on both counts:

• My hand continued to exist.
• My hand continued to exert a force after it had compressed the spring, and that force continued so long as the spring was compressed by my hand.

ETA: I suspect that I have once again fallen victim to Poe's Law.

Very funny. But you hopefully do agree with me that the force you exerted was cancelled by the opposite force. Thus at the point of contact to your hand the total force is zero and cannot be measured to be anything else but zero; and this did not require that all other forces in the universe have to be cancelled at the same time.

Well the BS is again coming fast and furious: I will just as before again answer these posts in my stride when I have the time. So bye for now!

 

[ben m]

Yes there are.

Can you get one of them to:

a) draw a diagram of voltage-vs-position around a circuit exhibiting the DC Josephson effect, something you failed to do?

b) Compose a complete, understandable energy budget---obeying the work-energy theorem and Kirchoff's Law---for a complete circuit exhibiting the DC Josephson effect?

They all warned me that the mainstream will fight me to the end and that I should not engage such scumbags; since history has taught us that they first have to die out before physics can progress.

Please notice, Johan, that nobody is (at the moment) fighting a desperate defense of BCS theory. Heck, I don't think that BCS theory has come up twice in the past 20 pages.

Maybe BCS theory will be overturned some day. By what? I don't know. I can guarantee you that the "true" theory of superconductivity, whatever it is, will be one that conserves energy, conserves charge, obeys E = grad(V), and obeys rho = div(E). Your theory does not appear to obey all of these; you vacillate on which ones you ignore. Therefore your theory is not the true theory of superconductivity.

 

[SOdhner]

Johan,

In some of your recent posts you have been quite hostile. You throw around some direct insults and quite a few indirect ones. I'm enjoying this discussion but would like to ask that you make some attempt to discuss actual facts and figures rather than making baseless personal attacks or implying that the people that disagree with you are racists, cowards, criminals, etc. I'm not a mod and don't pretend to be, nor do I want to in any way imply that this is some sort of ultimatum. If you continue to be hostile and attack the posters instead of keeping to the actual arguments at hand I will simply stop reading, which certainly won't do you any harm.

But I think it's worth noting that this strategy makes you look irrational and downright nasty to me, and probably to others.

I don't know anywhere enough physics to say who is right based on the actual facts, but your attitude makes it hard to take you seriously. I would suggest that you try making the diagrams that have been requested so many times - that seems to me to be a simple request that would help to clarify things greatly.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It's truly unfortunate that all of your adversaries, in this thread and elsewhere, have been anonymous. In that respect, you've had a remarkable run of bad luck.

How do you know that> I have had very intelligent people who discussed these issues with me face to face.

As a matter of classical logic, one of the following possibilities must be true:

1. You have no adversaries.
2. All of your adversaries have been anonymous.
3. At least one of your adversaries has not been anonymous.

By complaining of your many adversaries, you have denied the first possibility.

By disagreeing with me above, you have denied the second possibility.

Hence the third possibility is true. Corollary: When you complain about all of your adversaries being anonymous, you are lying.

How does your mistreatment by the Apartheid secret police's faceless scoundrels provide evidence of mistreatment in this thread?

They used the same type of false statements and lies behind masks of anonymity.

They may also have the same number of fingers on each hand.

I have noticed several false statements within this thread, and you are not the only person who has made them. I have made (and corrected) a couple of false statements myself; I may also have made some false statements without realizing they were false and without correcting them.

I have not seen outright lies from your adversaries in this thread. I invited you to provide specific examples, but you did not do so.

I haven't seen much evidence of sol invictus's stupidity. Can you provide examples?

Well you wont since in comparison to you sol invictus is a genius.

I'm glad we agree on something.

Not that this means much. Any tiny bit is more than zero.

Yes, ∀ ε . (ε > 0) ⇒ (ε > 0). I'm glad you agree with that also.

If you meant anything beyond the tautology, you should spell it out.

I haven't seen anything wrong with sol invictus's logic. Can you provide examples?

I already have many times> If you have been too stupid to pick it up that is your problem. Do not ask me to spoon-feed you. And even if I do, I doubt whether you will have the ability to understand.

I certainly don't expect you to spoon-feed me. I asked whether you could provide examples of illogic. You replied by saying you have already done so, but you appear to be unable to identify any of those alleged examples.

I haven't seen any Ku Klux Klan masks in this thread. Can you provide examples?

A mask is a mask!

Where I come from, when I came from there, a Ku Klux Klan mask was not equivalent to the Lone Ranger's mask. The most charitable interpretation of your remark is that you are ignorant of US history.

I haven't seen much evidence that sol invictus, ben m, or Ziggurat are poorly educated. Can you provide examples?

I have many times. Any person who claims that an applied electric field can be cancelled by charge-carriers which can be accelerated while they transport a current through a material could not have had any physics education.

Ziggurat didn't claim that.

What should we conclude about someone who persists in distorting Ziggurat's (and others') positions?

 

[johanfprins]

Comments on post # 1168 by Ziggurat

Nope, I've never claimed that. You will search in vain for any quotes to that effect. I have no idea how you keep concluding that I'm saying the opposite of what I'm actually saying.

If you say so; but that is not how it comes over.

First off, the field is canceled everywhere within the superconductor. Any remnant field and you'd get a voltage.

There is no remnant field at the positions of the charge-carriers since, at these positions, the field acts as a force on the charge and therefore it becomes cancelled by an opposite polarization force. Do the experiment on post #964 and see for yourself.

Second, you seem to be confusing forces with fields. They aren't the same. The external electric FIELD is cancelled by an internal electric FIELD.

Which is formed by polarization which opposes the force that would be at a point when placing a test charge at that point.

Force is proportional to total field, so this means that there is no electric force.

The force at a point is proportional to the electric-field at that point: Not the total electric-field.

So at equilibrium, there is no polarization force either. No polarization force, no polarization energy.

Wrong since the experimental results prove that you are wrong. The charge carriers can increase their polarization when applying an extra external electric field without increasing the voltage across the contacts to become non-zero. Do the experiment and see for yourself.

 

[johanfprins]

Comments on post #1190 by Ben m

Can you get one of them to:
a) draw a diagram of voltage-vs-position around a circuit exhibiting the DC Josephson effect, something you failed to do?
b) Compose a complete, understandable energy budget---obeying the work-energy theorem and Kirchoff's Law---for a complete circuit exhibiting the DC Josephson effect?

I have already done it ion this thread , and proposed an experiment one can use to confirm that I am correct. Why must another person repeat what has already been done?

Maybe BCS theory will be overturned some day. By what? I don't know. I can guarantee you that the "true" theory of superconductivity, whatever it is, will be one that conserves energy, conserves charge, obeys E = grad(V), and obeys rho = div(E). Your theory does not appear to obey all of these; you vacillate on which ones you ignore. Therefore your theory is not the true theory of superconductivity.

Where have you read my theory? Or are you like Ziggurat a God who just knows it must be wrong?

 

[johanfprins]

Comments on post #1191 by SOdhner

Johan, In some of your recent posts you have been quite hostile. You throw around some direct insults and quite a few indirect ones. etc.

I understand what you mean, but you should note that I was not the first to throw insults around on this thread. Just after the thread opened I was immediately branded as a "crackpot". Why do you not also reprimand Ben m, sol and Ziggurat; or is it OK when they question my abilities, and call me senile?

I don't know anywhere enough physics to say who is right based on the actual facts, but your attitude makes it hard to take you seriously.

But you are not affronted by the attitudes of sol, Ben m, Ziggurat and Clinger?

I would suggest that you try making the diagrams that have been requested so many times - that seems to me to be a simple request that would help to clarify things greatly.

The diagrams they want me to make only apply to a normal conductor and are thus irrelevant when it comes to a superconductor. I have made the correct diagrams and posted them on my website.

 

[johanfprins]

Farewell

When I discovered superconduction and how it works, I explained it to a very bright physics colleague of mine and pointed out that my results prove without doubt that large sections of theoretical physics have lost their way: He studied my results and deductions in great detail, and then said to me: You are correct, but you are going to regret this since the main stream physicists will NEVER admit that such obvious mistakes have been inherent in physics for so long. Being naive I disagreed with him on the basis that this is not how physicists will react to new ideas.

Unfortunately it came to pass that he knew more about people than I did at that stage. I have been blocked and insulted for nearly 10 years now. The mentality has again been demonstrated by especially sol invictus, Ben m, Ziggurat and W. D. Clinger on this thread. When they could not answer, they became abusive. Their behavior have been totally in line with what my colleague predicted, and what I have summarized in section 1 of my book entitled "Modern Physics is Rotting". Those readers with open minds can read this and make their own conclusions and deductions.

I can point out many illogical and unphysical arguments which have been made by so, Ben, Ziggurat and Clinger. But to keep it short I will select the most obvious one:

You should note that anybody who claims that you can have a conductor within which the charge-carriers can change speed by being accelerated, and that in addition it is possible that such a conductor can transport a current through it from one contact to another while at the same time cancelling an applied electric field does not even understand primary school physics. It is impossible to cancel an applied electric field in this manner. You can just as well claim that you can freeze a flame!

The only way in which an electric field can be eliminated while a current flows, is by switching off the source of the field. In the case of an induced circular current the field switches off when its source cannot sustain it anymore: i.e. after the applied magnetic field reaches a constant equilibrium value. An electric field between two contacts can only switch off in a similar way when the power supply is switched off. The current through the superconductor will then dissipate. But in a superconductor it is found that even when not switching off the power source, the voltage over the contacts becomes zero. If one cannot give a mechanism why this is possible between two contacts while the power supply remains on, you cannot explain why superconduction occurs. There is not a single model on superconduction except mine that gives a mechanism.

Well my friends have advised time time and again not to throw pearls before swine. I hoped that the Jeff Randi forum would be different. Unfortunately it turned out not to be different. Therefore, I will stop wasting my valuable time here and bid you all a final farewell. When (not if) I am one day vindicated you will know how disgusting sol, Ben m, Ziggurat and Clinger have been.

 

[excaza]

And so the dodging of direct questions ends with an "I'm taking my toys and going somewhere else" style huff.

 

[Cuddles]

So if you want to post opinions which will put off employers then you are clearly a devious scumbag.

Of course, the irony here is that I'm fairly sure that all the people responding to Johan still have jobs, while the university that used to employ him has disowned him precisely because of the opinions he's posted.

When (not if) I am one day vindicated you will know how disgusting sol, Ben m, Ziggurat and Clinger have been.

What's really amazing is how well you've been treated considering all the abuse you constantly hand out. All four of those people have been almost unfailingly polite to you, the only thing they've done is disagree with your claims. Even if your claims actually turned out to be true, there is absolutely nothing they've said that could in any way be construed as "disgusting". Your constant need to vilify and insult every single person who disagrees with you in any way, rather than just accepting and answering criticism, is one of the main causes of any less-than-polite reactions you will get.

There are many people on this forum I've disagreed with. I know I've disagreed with both Sol and Ziggurat from time to time. Yet I would be happy to share a pint with most of them because they generally understand that a difference of opinion is not a personal attack. You, on the other hand, I would never want to meet in person even if I agreed with everything you said. Style matters. If you can't have a discussion without insulting everyone involved, no-one's going to care if you're right or not, they'll just ignore you as a nasty piece of work and go and talk to someone else.

 

[SOdhner]

Just after the thread opened I was immediately branded as a "crackpot".

Yeah, but that was less of a personal attack and more of a callback to "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". The people here frequently hear about free energy devices, room temperature superconductors, and other exotic technology. The vast majority of these things don't pan out, and your claims have a lot in common with them. If I were to suggest that I had psychic powers, I would fully expect to be called a fraud or delusional until I could prove it. Saying that in a general way "Eh, looks like another fraud to me" isn't the same as someone saying directly to me "You, sir, are a fraud and a scoundrel!". They did the first, you do the second.

Furthermore, your insults are not just unfounded but also irrelevant.

or is it OK when they question my abilities, and call me senile?

It's not just okay for them to question your abilities, it's expected and encouraged. You should be able to answer those questions with solid proof.

As for senility... well, I think at this point with your obsession over anonymous people and the conspiracy-like way you talk about mainstream physics I would say paranoid rather than senile. I would suggest talking to a professional just in case. I don't say that as an insult - I would genuinely reccommend talking to someone who would be able to either diagnose you or give you a clean bill of mental health.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you say so; but that is not how it comes over.

You are the only person misinterpreting my posts. So no, it's not my writing, it's you.

There is no remnant field at the positions of the charge-carriers

The force at a point is proportional to the electric-field at that point

Since there's no field at the position of your charge carriers, then there's no force acting on them either. So... thanks for finally agreeing with me.

Do you even pay attention to what YOU say?

Wrong since the experimental results prove that you are wrong. The charge carriers can increase their polarization when applying an extra external electric field without increasing the voltage across the contacts to become non-zero. Do the experiment and see for yourself.

Indeed: the voltage doesn't increase because the field is canceled.

I understand what you mean, but you should note that I was not the first to throw insults around on this thread.

You threw insults at me long (and often) before I ever returned the favor. I reminded you, repeatedly, not to do so. And yet, you would always slip back to insults with me. So I gave up.

Once again, YOU made this bed, don't blame me now that you find yourself lying in it.

You should note that anybody who claims that you can have a conductor within which the charge-carriers can change speed by being accelerated

Um... acceleration is the only way for anything to change speed. You know that, don't you? You know that your reference to acceleration is pointlessly redundant, right?

Well my friends have advised time time and again not to throw pearls before swine. I hoped that the Jeff Randi forum would be different.

It's James Randi, not Jeff Randi. It's right there at the top of the page.

I can't help but think that all these little errors are symptomatic of a basic inability to think clearly. Seriously, johan, go see a neurologist.

When (not if) I am one day vindicated you will know how disgusting sol, Ben m, Ziggurat and Clinger have been.

I'm sure I'll rue the day!