Superconductivity at room temperature??

ben m · Aug 1, 2011

johanfprins said:
Why will they migrate into the z-direction if there is NO electric-field in this direction? Please stop posting physics-claptrap!

Did you read my post? Please read it again.

You asked for initial conditions in which there was an uncancelled, applied electric field. I gave them to you; I started the problem with an uniform E field in the z-direction.

Under those conditions, some charges accelerated, due to the action of the electric field that you insisted on.

After these charges had accelerated and moved to their equilibrium positions (i.e. forming the excess charge sheets) there was no longer an electric field inside the slab.

(And while all this is going on, there's also a current in the slab in the x-direction. I put this current in as part of the initial conditions. Nothing arises later in the time to generate a force which could make it stop; therefore it keeps on going.)

What's the problem?

Do you still think, as you claimed to, that the problem is that there are not enough charge carriers to pull this off? That's what you said to begin with.

johanfprins · Aug 1, 2011

The Don said:
As regards standards at Bristol I can only speak from personal experience and say that the standard required was very high but I failed to match that very high standard.

At last THE TRUTH.

Consequentially I sought a career in industry instead of academia - I recognised MY limitations.

Obviously you have NOT YET realised YOUR limitations. If you have, you will not argue with a guy like me who has made his mark in BOTH academia AND industry.

At least I agree that the physics department at Bristol, except for a few nincompoops like Sir Prof. Michael Berry, has been top class for many-many years. Some of my best physics teachers have completed their PhD's at Bristol. But in the interest of Bristol University I would like to advise you not to tell people that you also studied there. You are just sullying their reputation.

What I have seen in this thread is a group of people attempting to teach you the rudiments of physics and failing to do so but not because of the quality of the teaching.

How arrogant. You admit that you cannot master physics but is still willing to make such a wrong deduction. REALLY!!

You argue that you have revolutionised physics based on some anomalous experimental results.

How do YOU know that the experimental results are "anomalous" while admitting that your physics is not up to reaching such a conclusion? Have you read and studied what I have written? Obviously not!

You quite correctly sought to explain this but when people point out that perhaps you may be mistaken instead of saying "gee, they may be right" you instead invent a global conspiracy against you.

Where have I invented “global conspiracy against myself”? Please stop lying at the drop of a penny. If the "people" who "pointed out" my mistakes on this thread were not so obviously incompetent, and gave convincing arguments, I will obviously say "Gee!". As I did when they pointed out my mistake on the AC Josephson effect.

[*]If you had found room temperature superconductivity all that time ago the world would either have beaten a path to your door OR stolen your research but in any case would not have ignored you.

The facts prove your misguided naivety wrong. I did find superconduction at room temperature and they did not beat a path to my door since it violates the religious, dogmatic beliefs of the so-called "experts" on superconduction.

[*]If you had revolutionised physics then you'd be getting some traction at least. Look at all the crackpoint ideas that have been considered, however briefly

I have looked at the crackpot physics of Sol Invictus. Ben m, Ziggurat etc. and am saddened that physics could have developed into such an unholy mess.

johanfprins · Aug 1, 2011

ben m said:
Did you read my post? Please read it again. You asked for initial conditions in which there was an uncancelled, applied electric field. I gave them to you; I started the problem with an uniform E field in the z-direction.

I must admit that your equations in your first post claiming a solution were unreadable, but I did not even think in my wildest dreams that anybody could be so daft to assume the presence of an electric field along the z-direction while the applied electric field that has to be cancelled must clearly be along the direction in which the charge-carriers are moving: According to you along the x-direction. Have you ever heard about vectors and that two vectors perpendicular to one another cannot cancel each other?Your grasp of elementary physics is even worse than I have thought.

Under those conditions, some charges accelerated, due to the action of the electric field that you insisted on.

You claim that when applying an electric field along the x-direction you will find charges accelerating along the z-direction: Bravo! Prove it and obtain the Nobel Prize. Furthermore, even if this cockamamie idea of yours could be correct, the field these charges generate cannot cancel the applied electric field along the x-direction.

After these charges had accelerated and moved to their equilibrium positions (i.e. forming the excess charge sheets) there was no longer an electric field inside the slab.

The applied electric field is along the x-direction and cannot be cancelled by a polarization field along the z-direction.

(And while all this is going on, there's also a current in the slab in the x-direction. I put this current in as part of the initial conditions. Nothing arises later in the time to generate a force which could make it stop; therefore it keeps on going.)

You REALLY need some help” AND SOON!!

What's the problem?

If you cannot see that an electric field perpendicular to an applied electric field cannot cancel the applied electric field. And if you cannot see that an applied electric field along the x-direction CANNOT accelerate charges along the z-direction, then you will NEVER be able to understand ANY problem EVER.

Do you still think, as you claimed to, that the problem is that there are not enough charge carriers to pull this off? That's what you said to begin with.

I did not: I said that while a current is flowing through a material having free charges, these charges can never accumulate ANYWHERE to high enough densities so that they can cancel an applied electric field. It does not matter how many charge-carriers you have in the material.

ben m · Aug 1, 2011

johanfprins said:
I must admit that your equations in your first post claiming a solution were unreadable, but I did not even think in my wildest dreams that anybody could be so daft to assume the presence of an electric field along the z-direction while the applied electric field that has to be cancelled must clearly be along the direction in which the charge-carriers are moving: According to you along the x-direction. Have you ever heard about vectors and that two vectors perpendicular to one another cannot cancel each other?

In the stated initial conditions, there IS no electric field along the x direction. There's nothing to cancel. The component Ex starts as 0 and remains 0. The component Ez starts nonzero (as requested) and gets "cancelled".

This is all what you asked for, Johan. It's a situation with a flowing current, cancellation of all in-conductor electric fields, and 100% consistent with (and derivable from) Maxwell's Equations.

If this doesn't look like what you thought it would look like---well, you should have asked a different question.

ben m · Aug 1, 2011

johanfprins said:
The applied electric field is along the x-direction and cannot be cancelled by a polarization field along the z-direction.

No there isn't. Who applied an electric field in the x-direction? Ex = 0 explicitly in the initial conditions. I don't need to cancel something that was never there.

There is *current* in the x direction. The current will continue unless some force tries to stop it---an object in motion, after all, tends to stay in motion. You specified that the resistance was zero, so there's no force trying to stop the current, so it flows at a constant rate without an "applied" E field.

ben m · Aug 1, 2011

Of course, it works the same way if it's all in the x-direction. There is nothing wrong with having the static charge excess---the one that forms during the out-of-equilibrium acceleration of charge in your desired initial conditions---and also having current running past it. Indeed, it's easy to think of examples. To avoid your confusion about superconductors, let's look at a vacuum system. Here is part of the beam pipe of a Van de Graaff accelerator.

Code:

-Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q 
__________________________________ -Q
lots of excess                    |-Q
+charge on a                      |-Q excess - charge
Van de Graaff                     |-Q on a wall surrounding
terminal                          |-Q the terminal
                 a beam pipe with |-Q
QQQQQQQQQ        an E field in it |-Q
QQQQQQQQQ-----------------------------------------------------------      
QQQQQQQQQ-----------------------------------------------------------
QQQQQQQQQ                         |-Q     the other end of the beam
                                  |-Q     pipe has zero E field in it
                                  |-Q     because the wall field
__________________________________|-Q     cancels the terminal field
-Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q

If you prefer, you can think about the electron gun and electron optics of (e.g.) an electron microscope.

Do you want to tell me that it's impossible for an charged particle beam to be "injected" into, and carry a current through, the zero-E-field beam pipe on the right?

Ziggurat · Aug 2, 2011

johanfprins said:
The equilibrium voltage across a superconductor is ZERO!! GET IT???

Obviously that depends on what you mean by "equilibrium". In that context, I was obviously talking about the voltage being constant. And it DOES reach a constant value. The current is not constant in that situation, but that's rather the whole point. Whether or not you like my use of the term "equilibrium", my meaning should have been obvious, and any semantic objections you might have are irrelevant. The voltage is constant while the current is changing. And the displacement current is ZERO while this is happening.

So, fail. Again.

The Don · Aug 2, 2011

johanfprins said:
At last THE TRUTH. Obviously you have NOT YET realised YOUR limitations. If you have, you will not argue with a guy like me who has made his mark in BOTH academia AND industry. .

I had prepared a response to this one but unfortunately it would have contravened the Management Agreement so in attempting to attack the argument, not the person making the argument.....

My post which caused this little spat-ette addressed one thing in particular, your apparent inability to understand the meaning of "If you think everyone else is crazy maybe you have to consider whether the crazy guy is you". In this case you have a large number of people posting in opposition and you holding the contrary view. You asked whether Ziggurat would consider his/her position. He/she does not need to, with respect to "If you think everyone else is crazy...." on the grounds that he/she isn't the one railing against the world.

johanfprins said:
At least I agree that the physics department at Bristol, except for a few nincompoops like Sir Prof. Michael Berry, has been top class for many-many years. Some of my best physics teachers have completed their PhD's at Bristol. But in the interest of Bristol University I would like to advise you not to tell people that you also studied there. You are just sullying their reputation.

That again seems to be getting very close to an ad-hominem attack. I feel that I DO uphold the reputation of the Bristol University Physics department on the grounds that I have a working knowledge of physics AND the ability to engage in discussion without resorting to name calling and bullying.

johanfprins said:
How arrogant. You admit that you cannot master physics but is still willing to make such a wrong deduction. REALLY!!

johanfprins said:
How do YOU know that the experimental results are "anomalous" while admitting that your physics is not up to reaching such a conclusion? Have you read and studied what I have written? Obviously not! Where have I invented “global conspiracy against myself”? Please stop lying at the drop of a penny. If the "people" who "pointed out" my mistakes on this thread were not so obviously incompetent, and gave convincing arguments, I will obviously say "Gee!". As I did when they pointed out my mistake on the AC Josephson effect.

Well your experimental results are anomalous because:

They have not been repeated by other experimental groups
They fly in the face of current theory

That's not to say that they're wrong, just anomalous (again perhaps it's an issue of you not having English as a first language that caused that misunderstanding). Where it all goes a bit wrong is that to explain this anomalous result, you have torn up great chunks of physics theory to explain a phenomenon which has not been observed by anyone else.

johanfprins said:
The facts prove your misguided naivety wrong. I did find superconduction at room temperature and they did not beat a path to my door since it violates the religious, dogmatic beliefs of the so-called "experts" on superconduction.

Superconductivity at room temperature would revolutionise a number of industries, it would be one of the key discoveries of the 21st century. I find it impossible to believe that not one reputable organisation is willing to take up this research despite the millions, billions even it could generate in revenue.

I mean I can see them being a bit wary of crediting a maverick like yourself but in a cut-throat world like academia I would have thought someone would have stolen your work and passed it off as their own if there was merit in it.

johanfprins said:
I have looked at the crackpot physics of Sol Invictus. Ben m, Ziggurat etc. and am saddened that physics could have developed into such an unholy mess.

....and the rest of the Physics establishment.

I applaud your tenacity and unwillingness to bend in the face of criticism but there's a point in time where you have to consider whether you may be wrong when:

No-one has repeated the experiemental results
The theories which underpin it require massive changes to physics theories with experimental backing
An apparently momentus discovery is ignored

Of course the real shame is that you're wasting all this time and effort failing to persuade a bunch of people on a minor web forum when you could change the world - if only you were right

johanfprins · Aug 2, 2011

ben m said:
In the stated initial conditions, there IS no electric field along the x direction. There's nothing to cancel. The component Ex starts as 0 and remains 0. The component Ez starts nonzero (as requested) and gets "cancelled".

Where did I request this? It should be obvious to anybody with a bit of grey matter that when you apply an electric field along the direction in which the charge-carriers are moving (in your case x) there will be no electric field along the z-direction that needs to be cancelled. So why would I ask such a stupid question; and why would you answer such an irrelevant question; except to try and confuse the issue? I have clearly asked you to prove (i.e. give a mechanism) why there is no electric field along the direction in which a current flows through an element within a circuit ONLY because the charge-carriers experience no resistance to their motion within this element. To assume that the field STARTS OF BEING zero, does not explain WHY IT STARTS OFF BEING zero.

This is all what you asked for, Johan.

Another lie!

It's a situation with a flowing current, cancellation of all in-conductor electric fields, and 100% consistent with (and derivable from) Maxwell's Equations.

It is not consistent with the boundary conditions which apply when an element forms part of a circuit. There is no reason whatsoever why an applied EMF can exist along the whole circuit while not manifesting as an electric field through ALL elements while a current is flowing around the circuit. Assuming as a starting condition that it can be zero within a circuit element through which charge-carriers can flow (for the sole reason that they do not experience any resistance to their motion), does not give a mechanism that explains why the electric-field becomes cancelled within such an element.

You can, for example, assume as much as you want that the electric field is zero between the cathode and anode within a vacuum diode: This assumption does NOT make the electric field zero, since it can be experimentally verified that there is an electric field EVEN though the electrons experience (ignoring EM generation by their acceleration) no resistance while moving from the injection contact (cathode) to the target contact (anode). Why will it be different if you have free electrons within a material which also do not experience resistance to their motion?

If this doesn't look like what you thought it would look like---well, you should have asked a different question.

I have asked the correct question; but instead of giving a mechanism for the cancellation of the applied electric field within the element, you "solved" the problem by assuming that the field must be zero and that there is a ghost field that appears perpendicular to the applied field: The latter is not possible at all. Thus the boundary conditions are in fact as follows: Ez starts off zero and remains zero while Ex does not start off zero and will not become zero since a polarisation field cannot build up along the direction of current-flow as long as there IS a current flowing.

johanfprins · Aug 2, 2011

ben m said:
Of course, it works the same way if it's all in the x-direction. There is nothing wrong with having the static charge excess---the one that forms during the out-of-equilibrium acceleration of charge in your desired initial conditions---and also having current running past it. Indeed, it's easy to think of examples. To avoid your confusion about superconductors, let's look at a vacuum system. Here is part of the beam pipe of a Van de Graaff accelerator

Code:

-Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q __________________________________ -Q lots of excess |-Q +charge on a |-Q excess - charge Van de Graaff |-Q on a wall surrounding terminal |-Q the terminal a beam pipe with |-Q QQQQQQQQQ an E field in it |-Q QQQQQQQQQ----------------------------------------------------------- QQQQQQQQQ----------------------------------------------------------- QQQQQQQQQ |-Q the other end of the beam |-Q pipe has zero E field in it |-Q because the wall field __________________________________|-Q cancels the terminal field -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q -Q

I am delighted that you chose this example since if clearly demonstrates how confused your thinking is. You are saying that a pipe that does not contain its own charge-carriers is the same as a superconductor which does contain its own charge-carriers. If you believe that Cooper pairs are required within a material for superconduction to be possible, where are the Cooper pairs in this pipe?

Injecting electrons from an electron gun into a vacuum is obviously NOT the same as injecting charge into a material which has its own charge-carriers so that these charge-carriers, already present within the material, are transferring the injected charge from the injection contact to the target contact. In the case where there are charge-carriers, the injected charge-carrier DOES NOT move all the way on its own from the injection contact to the target contact. In fact when you inject a single charge-carrier, the corresponding charge-carrier being ejected at the target contact IS NOT the injected charge-carrier at all. This is simple-simple elementary physics!

If you prefer, you can think about the electron gun and electron optics of (e.g.) an electron microscope.

So an electron microscope is filled with charge-carriers before you inject electrons into it. Are they Cooper pairs? You really are funny, you know.

Do you want to tell me that it's impossible for an charged particle beam to be "injected" into, and carry a current through, the zero-E-field beam pipe on the right?

What I am telling you is that this IS NOT the same as injecting charge-carriers into a material or an electron-phase which has its OWN charge-carriers.

Consider, for example, a vacuum diode (already mentioned above) By heating the cathode, one generates electrons within the vacuum between the cathode and the anode (called the space charge). When applying a positive voltage on the anode, this space charge is attracted to the anode, and once it fills the gap a current flows through it. But the electric field is NOT cancelled at all; even though there is no resistance to the motion of the charge-carriers. If you keep on increasing the voltage, you reach a stage where the current requires a density of charge-carriers which exceeds those within the space charge between the cathode and the anode: The current then becomes constant no matter by how much you now increase the voltage further. This situation is similar to a superconductor: NOT your silly example of a van de Graaff beam pipe, or an electron microscope.

johanfprins · Aug 2, 2011

Ziggurat said:
Obviously that depends on what you mean by "equilibrium". In that context, I was obviously talking about the voltage being constant. And it DOES reach a constant value.

When does it reach a constant value after switching on the power, and for how long does it maintain this so-called constant value?

The current is not constant in that situation, but that's rather the whole point.

That is not the point. Why is the current not constant after the voltage has reached an equilibrium value? In fact it is quite funny that Ben claims the voltage must "start off" being zero, and you claiming that it must become a non-zero constant value.

Whether or not you like my use of the term "equilibrium", my meaning should have been obvious, and any semantic objections you might have are irrelevant.

It seems that there are many things in physics which are not possible which you find "obvious" even though they are not possible

The voltage is constant while the current is changing.

Prove this experimentally please?

And the displacement current is ZERO while this is happening.

The charge-carriers causing superconduction cannot be accelerated and therefore when you measure a change in current it must initially be caused by a displacement current until equilibrium is reached: And at this point the voltage is ZERO!!

So, fail. Again.

Yup! You are correct. You have failed yet again.

johanfprins · Aug 2, 2011

The Don said:
My post which caused this little spat-ette addressed one thing in particular, your apparent inability to understand the meaning of "If you think everyone else is crazy maybe you have to consider whether the crazy guy is you".

I have NEVER claimed that “everyone else” is crazy. By stating this you are creating a straw man which you then attack.

In this case you have a large number of people posting in opposition and you holding the contrary view.

Does this prove that my view is wrong? Especially when you note that these large number of people did not attack ANY of my physics that I have posted on my website but consistently defended the accepted dogma COME WHAT MAY.

You asked whether Ziggurat would consider his/her position. He/she does not need to,

If you are a real scientist doing actual research, which you probably will never understand, it is imperative that you must consistently every day consider your position. If anybody refuses to do so he/she should be banned from doing research.

with respect to "If you think everyone else is crazy...."

As I have stated above I have never said “everyone else is crazy”. Why do you lie in order to make a point?

on the grounds that he/she isn't the one railing against the world.

Where am I “railing against the world”. You see why it is impossible to argue with you? You are dishonest and not able to think objectively at all.

That again seems to be getting very close to an ad-hominem attack. I feel that I DO uphold the reputation of the Bristol University Physics department on the grounds that I have a working knowledge of physics AND the ability to engage in discussion without resorting to name calling and bullying.

Then why do you not display this “ability” of yours on this thread? You are the one that are bringing in terms like “crazy” and other lies. How about reading my model of superconduction on my website and discussing it with me without “calling me names and bullying me”.

Well your experimental results are anomalous because:
[*]They have not been repeated by other experimental groups

That does not make the results anomalous at all. It just means that no other group wanted to repeat the experiment. There can be many reasons for that.

[*]They fly in the face of current theory.

That could mean that current theory is wrong. And since this will be important if I am correct, one would expect that the “experts” in the field will study my model and come up with cogent arguments. This has not happened during the last 10 years. Neither do you want to follow this honourable route. Instead you resort on this thread to “name-calling and bullying”.

That's not to say that they're wrong, just anomalous (again perhaps it's an issue of you not having English as a first language that caused that misunderstanding). Where it all goes a bit wrong is that to explain this anomalous result, you have torn up great chunks of physics theory to explain a phenomenon which has not been observed by anyone else.

Again you display your ignorance. The phase that I generated by extracting electrons at room temperature does NOT require “great chunks of physics theory to be torn up”. The fact that it must form, follows logically from the physics-laws that model Solid State Electronics. In fact, it follows so logically, that I should have been able to have predicted its formation without even having had to do the experiment. So you see, you are again not making sure of your facts, but firing from the hip. I hope you are more meticulous when reporting to your boss in industry.

Superconductivity at room temperature would revolutionise a number of industries, it would be one of the key discoveries of the 21st century.

Correct. This is as it should be, but unfortunately it does not require pair-formation as the ‘experts” want to believe. Therefore they refuse to test it. As an example, I met a person who was a director* (now retired) of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. It was his task to look for new technologies. He looked objectively at my results and then approached the JPL to repeat the experiment. It would not have cost them very much to do so. At first they agreed: But when their “theoretical experts” on superconduction heard about it, they immediately jumped in to stop the experiment. This has happened in many other occasions also.
*If anybody not hiding behind anonymity wants to contact this person in order to verify what has happened, such a person (provided he/she is reputable) can contact me to introduce him/her to this retired director.

find it impossible to believe that not one reputable organisation is willing to take up this research despite the millions, billions even it could generate in revenue.

So do I. But this has been the de facto situation since 2001. So it is actually happening and therefore it is therefore possible despite your reservations!

I mean I can see them being a bit wary of crediting a maverick

I have a reputable citation index and has publsihed in Journals like Physical Review: This hardly makes me a maverick!

like yourself but in a cut-throat world like academia I would have thought someone would have stolen your work and passed it off as their own if there was merit in it.

Nobody in academia wants to publish any controversial results anymore; no matter how certain he/she is that he/she is correct. It immediately pitches such a person against the majority who unfortunately always resist any change in the status quo: As you can see for yourself on this thread. Once you have been branded as a “crackpot” it is goodbye funding, goodbye promotion. Thus hiding amongst the mediocre majority is the only way of survival in academia.

Fortunately, even while teaching at university, I was totally funded by industry which did not really care a hoot how many academic publications I created. They kept me on for my talent to innovate, not publishing mediocre academic manuscripts.

....and the rest of the Physics establishment.

The “experts” in charge of superconduction research are blocking me since if I am correct, it will mean that they will have to explain why they wasted billions of dollars since 1986 looking for room temperature superconductors without finding any. Within the rest of the physics establishment I have found people who agree that I am correct, but are not willing to stand up and state this since “superconduction is not their field”. Coupled with this is course is their unwillingness to enter a bloody battle which obviously will not benefit them when applying for grants etc.

I applaud your tenacity and unwillingness to bend in the face of criticism

Thank you

but there's a point in time where you have to consider whether you may be wrong

I do this every day since if you do not do this you are not even a scientist’s A-hole

[*]No-one has repeated the experiemental results

It has been repeated in detail but the person who repeated them refuses to publish his results after he visited the “experts on superconduction” at Cambridge University.

[*]The theories which underpin it require massive changes to physics theories with experimental backing

On the contrary: It does not require massive changes in the fields, like chemistry and micro-electronics, within which quantum mechanics generated massive leaps in technology. In these fields the Copenhagen interpretation were largely ignored and the advances where made by “shutting up and calculating from Schroedinger’s equation".

[*]An apparently momentus discovery is ignored

And being naïve you claim that it is impossible that this can happen! This has happened before: Have you ever heard about “plate tectonics”? Why do you not rather read my model and the proof that it explains everything that the standard dogma thinks it has explained as well as those aspects which the standard dogma cannot explain: And then judge my physics objectively; instead of making ill-informed deductions from the circumstances I find myself in.

Of course the real shame is that you're wasting all this time and effort failing to persuade a bunch of people on a minor web forum when you could change the world - if only you were right

I am trying to do both. I would not call this web forum a “minor” one. It is useful in sharpening my arguments, and has already led me to find a mistake that I have made when I initially modelled the AC Josephson effect. Thus although Ben m, Ziggurat, and Sol Invictus are making numerous mistakes in their arguments, they have served as extremely valuable sounding boards. It might even be possible that they will find a major mistake that obviates my model: If they do I will be grateful. So far they have not, and since their arguments in many cases violate elementary physics and calculus, I doubt it that they will. But, even so, I am still grateful since it taught me how wrong a physicist can argue when it is his/her prime objective to protect accepted dogma.

Ziggurat · Aug 2, 2011

johanfprins said:
When does it reach a constant value after switching on the power

Within milliseconds.

, and for how long does it maintain this so-called constant value?

For tens of seconds.

Why is the current not constant after the voltage has reached an equilibrium value?

For the obvious reason: the charge carriers are accelerating. Which you claimed was impossible, but quite observably is not.

Prove this experimentally please?

It's the standard ramping mode for a superconducting magnet. We've been over this before. This isn't esoteric, this isn't some one-off unreproduced result, this isn't just my experience, this is standard, widely observed, commonly USED behavior.

The charge-carriers causing superconduction cannot be accelerated

This is simply not true. Because you have assumed something false to begin with, and are trying desperately to reconcile a false claim with reality, you keep searching (in vain) for a reason, any reason, to hold onto your conclusion, when the logical course of action it to simply abandon a conclusion which conflicts with observation.

and therefore when you measure a change in current it must initially be caused by a displacement current until equilibrium is reached

This is obviously nonsense. The REAL current changes during a period of time when the displacement current is zero. As I said before, you cling desperately to this idea because it's the only one you could think of which, in your mind, allows you to conclude that I'm wrong. But this hope is in vain. It doesn't work. It breaks down for the most trivial of reasons: the displacement current cannot achieve what you want it to achieve because it doesn't exist when you need it to.

johanfprins · Aug 2, 2011

Ziggurat said:
Within milliseconds.
For tens of seconds.

And then what happens to it after 10ths of seconds?

ben m · Aug 2, 2011

johanfprins said:
I am delighted that you chose this example since if clearly demonstrates how confused your thinking is.

Man oh man, when I typed that up I asked myself "what are the odds that Johan will get sidetracked by the obvious differences between a beampipe and a superconductor, rather that noticing how close this is to his 'impossible' E&M boundary conditions?"

Remember when you said that this field configuration would violate Maxwell's Equations somehow? You claimed that, if you analyzed a region with both "cancelled" fields and nonzero current, you'd find that it required grad J != rho or something like that. If you don't care any more, I'm happy to drop it, but it goes in your mistakes column.

CriticalThanking · Aug 2, 2011

Johan - what would it take for someone to reproduce your results? How much money?

CT

johanfprins · Aug 2, 2011

CriticalThanking said:
Johan - what would it take for someone to reproduce your results? How much money?

CT

He will require:

1. A high vacuum, oil-clean vacuum which can be generated by an efficient turbo pump.

2. Within this system he will need an accurate micrometer stage which can be used to lower an anode sphere (about 0.5 mm diameter) GENTLY onto the diamond surface and a switching device which confirms when the anode sphere clears the diamond surface when lifting it away from the diamond. I can supply a good design for such a system. In many laboratories around the world, which work on cold-cathode extraction of electrons, there are existing systems which can be used. My original system did not have a viewing port; but the one that Prof Terry Doyle built has such a port. Unfortunately he did not design his micrometer system to ensure that the anode contacts the diamond surface GENTLY, and thus regularly contaminated the diamond surface by banging the anode into the diamond.

3. One should then add a microscope to view the gap between the diamond and anode through the port. To this must be added a power supply to send a current through the circuit and of course an accurate ammeter.

4. CVD diamond substrates can be bought from various suppliers at present. If they are not too large (smaller than 6 mm diameter) I can treat them in my "garage-laboratory". If the experimenters want to treat the diamonds themselves, they will need a plasma-ion implanter and some technical advice from me. You must know the correct conditions that will effect the n-type doping you want.

The cost of such an experiment will of course depend on the country in which the experiment is done. Excluding salaries, and accepting that I will ion-treat the diamond substrates in my Heath-Robinson plasma system, I would guess that the set-up outlined above should not be more than $30000. But I might be underestimating the cost of the high-vacuum turbo-pumped system. However, many laboratories have such systems and then the cost should be substantially lower.

I hope this helps.

johanfprins · Aug 2, 2011

ben m said:
Man oh man, when I typed that up I asked myself "what are the odds that Johan will get sidetracked by the obvious differences between a beampipe and a superconductor, rather that noticing how close this is to his 'impossible' E&M boundary conditions?"

Remember when you said that this field configuration would violate Maxwell's Equations somehow? You claimed that, if you analyzed a region with both "cancelled" fields and nonzero current, you'd find that it required grad J != rho or something like that.

I have not said that.

If you don't care any more, I'm happy to drop it,

Obviously you would want to drop it since it is not in your nature to admit when you are just plain wrong

but it goes in your mistakes column.

What a joke!!

You are deliberately distorting what I have said to get off the hook. I have very clearly stated that if the charge-carriers within a superconductor are free to be accelerated, such charge-carriers can never cancel an applied electric field within the material: i.e. such charge-carriers CANNOT be responsible for superconduction. You all claimed that they can be accelerated while cancelling an electric-field; and I challenged you to prove that they can: In which you falied miserably.

You then came with all types of arguments which are irrelevant to the issue; like assuming that the electric field is zero while not giving any mechanism why it must be zero: Thus avoiding to prove what I asked you to prove: Namely that it must be zero.

Nice try! But I am not going to allow you to yet again wriggle yourself free by not ackowledging that you have been wrong! As you usually do!

ben m · Aug 2, 2011

johanfprins said:
You then came with all types of arguments which are irrelevant to the issue; like assuming that the electric field is zero while not giving any mechanism why it must be zero: Thus avoiding to prove what I asked you to prove: Namely that it must be zero.

Um.

ben m said:
OK, let's start with initial condictions in which the E field is nonzero inside the slab. That also satisfies Maxwell's Equations, but now there is a force on the free charge carriers in the slab. The force accelerates the charge carriers (whatever they are) in the z-direction, but they can't go any further than z=0 or z=a. By charge conservation, then, if the sheets of excess charge did not exist to begin with, they form due to the electric forces. It is easy to show that the solution I originally quoted (E=0 in the slab) is the unique equilibrium solution, and that it's arrived at after a finite time.

If the resistivity is zero, yes, the DC electric field (if not initially zero) has an obvious and well-known mechanism for rapidly becoming zero.

Nothing whatsoever about this picture is contradicted by superimposing a DC current on top of it.

W.D.Clinger · Aug 2, 2011

science that Dr Prins would have us discard

johanfprins said:
[*]The theories which underpin it require massive changes to physics theories with experimental backing

Click to expand...

On the contrary: It does not require massive changes in the fields, like chemistry and micro-electronics, within which quantum mechanics generated massive leaps in technology. In these fields the Copenhagen interpretation were largely ignored and the advances where made by “shutting up and calculating from Schroedinger’s equation".

Superconductivity at room temperature??

Unregistered

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Unregistered

Unregistered

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Penultimate Amazing

Graduate Poster

Unregistered

Designated Hitter

Graduate Poster

Graduate Poster

Unregistered

Philosopher

Share this page

ISF - Join now!