Superconductivity at room temperature??

[marplots]

I'm not a physicist, but if he has discovered something anomalous, something that cannot be readily explained by current theory, wouldn't the next step be getting another physicist to duplicate it?

Or, contrariwise, if the discovery births new theory, then wouldn't the next step be applying the new theory to current experiments that are also not well explained and getting another physicist to agree with him?

If he is getting the cold shoulder from the physics community, I can see no other way to proceed except to continue to document his own experiments and push his ideas as far as he is able, up to and including his "opus magnus" in book form. And he may be ignored. He may be Gregor Mendel, I don't know.

Life is not just and not every Susan Boyle gets discovered. To have one key idea that reshapes our view of reality is a wonderful thing all on its own. But he may be right in thinking he won't live to get the honors or the money.

 

[davefoc]

I'd like to thank johanfprins for taking the time to respond to the posts in this thread.

As a result of this thread, I spent a little time looking around for what was going on with cold cathodes. The first thing I found out was that my buddy (well not really) Philo T. Farnsworth had a patent for one back in 1936.

(I'm not knowledgeable in any of the following and not everything below may be correct.)

More recently people have been messing around with them for the purposes of their use in displays and for their use in minature vacuum tubes. (They call them CNT's for carbon nanotube triodes).

It seems that the diamond is most commonly doped with nitrogen. The fields to get these things emitting electrons seem to be substantially less than the fields in johanfprins' device. One informal report talked about about turn on field strength at around .5 V/um. A formal report talked about turn on field strength of about 7V/um.

I wonder if johanfprins believes these devices are also exhibiting superconduction in the region between the anodes and cathodes. Of course superconduction in a normal vacuum tube or CRT is ruled out because the electrons are accelerated. A lot of you are probably too young to remember this, but we used to watch TV on these things called CRT's in which electrons were accelerated from the cathode and crashed into phosphors on front glass where their energy was transformed into light emissions.

Links
Letter in nature
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v381/n6578/pdf/381140a0.pdf

Formal report on cold cathode devices
Forms and behaviour of vacuum emission electronic devices comprising diamond or other carbon cold cathode emitters by Davidson, et al.
(Available on-line but only with a license I think).

Philo's patent
Cold cathode Electron Discharge
November 4, 1936

 

[johanfprins]

OK I am back and have read all the responses since last Friday. Each response requires an answer from me, but I just do not have the time to sit down and do all in one day as I did last Friday. In addition, to to being plowed under with my research into the applicable literature.

I am also being challenged on other discussion forums. One recent challenge has given me some hope for the future of physics: A very clever young guy, apparently with the surname of Dodd, opposes my statement that there cannot be electric field energy around a solitary charge. In contrast to the senile old crackpots who are at present in charge of mainstream physics, who just maintained over the past 10 years that this energy has been calculated for 110 years by all physicists and therefore I must be the crackpot, Dodd challenged me by doing mathematics on YouTube. Now this is what I call doing real physics. No wonder Max Planck said that one must first wait for all the senile old crackpots to die out so that young fresh minds can come to the fore.

So after this present posting of mine, I will first have to attend to other matters, but will, when time allows, answer all the issues that had been raised on this thread since Friday. But I think it is imperative to first address the most important criticisms first; namely that my data for the electrons extracted from a highly doped n-type diamond "does not prove superconductivity". To me it has been clear for 10 years that my data proves superconduction better than any other data that had been published for other materials. Therefore I am feeling just as frustrated as Galileo must have felt when he handed his telescope to a Cardinal to look at the mountains on the moon. The Cardinal responded that he cannot see any mountains. This shows that once your synapses in your brain has been wired into a state of dementia, you are unable to see the obvious. This unfortunately can creep up on any one of us: Therefore we must be ever vigilant!

The main criticisms are that my conclusion is based on "unproved theoretical deductions" and that I have not proved by measurement that the electric field is actually zero.

For example, the following by Ben m:

At first glance, Johan, it does not look like direct evidence at all. It looks like you saw something weird, you came up with a (rather complex) model (including an E=0 condition) to explain it. You are saying that "because my E=0 model explains the data, the data proves E=0." That is indirect evidence---it's practically the definition of indirect evidence.

Proof? No! That's not how hypothesis testing works, even for a loose definition of "proof". To convince people that E=0 you need direct probes of the E=0 condition itself---

.

And the following by Sol Invictus

How could you convince me? One way would be to find a way to actually measure the field. Another would be to exhibit a current that sustains itself over a very long period (which is a good definition of superconductivity).

In order to demonstrate a current that "sustains itself over a very long period" I will have to find a way to bend the superconducting rod that has formed from electrons between the diamond and anode into a ring: This is impossible: But even if it were to be possible, such a ring has no charge-carriers which can transport a current around it. The rod from which it has to be created is a single entangled, ground state macro-wave.

When you inject electrons into it, even if it is just one electron, such an electron entangles with the wave, thus increasing its energy. To maintain its energy the macro-wave must, within a allowed time-interval, eject an electron at the opposite contact. Since in this case the wave does not exist of separate electrons, the injected electron "disappears" at the injection contact and an electron appears at the other contact without a specific electron having moved from one contact to the other: Non-local transfer of charge occurs in this case.

What is important to note is that the phase passes charge through it in order to maintain its ground-state energy. This is also the case for the traditional superconductors; but in the latter case the charge is transferred by entities which can be classified as charge-carriers (and they are not Cooper Pairs). They do not transport charge like "normal" charge carriers, but by running a relay race. One replacing the other as it reaches the next carrier.

Now back to measuring zero electric field: This has not EVER been done since there exits no electrometer which can measure zero electric field. What is done is to assume that the phase has resistivity and then using a measurement technique for the voltage and current in a manner that allows one to subtract the other resistances like contact resistances etc.; and by using the most sensitive electrometers available. If it is found that the resistivity obtained in this manner is lower than the accuracy allowed by the electrometer it is argued that the electric-field is zero.

But this is course absolute nonsense since it does not prove absolute-zero electric-field at all: Therefore, the mainstream crackpots argue that the final proof that the electric-field is zero is to measure the Meissner effect. This is of course mind-boggling, since the mainstream models of the Meissner effect demands that there MUST be an electric-field on the surface of the material. This means that according to the very models that the crackpots accept are explaining the Meissner effect, the applied electric field cannot be zero when the Meissner-effect manifests: i.e. the material cannot be a superconductor.

At this point I want to quote a comment that has been published by one of the typical crackpots that do research on superconduction at Cambridge University. He already published it in 2003, but for some unfortunate reason I missed it until somebody drew my attention to it this year. Archie Campbell wrote: "In his experiment he found that the current through his crystal did not change detectably when the thickness of the vacuum gap between the diamond and the positively charged probe was reduced to zero. Since he was applying 1000 volts and drawing only half a milliamp, the resistance of his circuit was 2 megohms. And since the noise in his current was at least 1 per cent, any resistance in the gap less than 20 kilohms would be detectable "

This is a classic example of a crackpot who reads a paper and is unable to follow the simple, elementary physics right in front of his eyes. "He cannot see mountains on the moon". If he looked at the data he would have seen that once the phase has established itself, you can use ANY voltage from kilovolts to picovolts for the current to flow. Now if I had known that people are going to ask me "to measure" a zero electric-field, I would have and checked that I can demonstrate the following.

You have formed the phase at a distance L (somewhere between 15 and 150 microns). Next you drop the voltage so that the current that is flowing can be measured on the most sensitive current-setting available in the world. You now do not change the voltage setting so that for every subsequent measurement it is only the current that can change. You measure the current for different values of L right down to L=0, and you find that within the sensitivity of the electrometer the current is exactly the same for all distances L.

You allow the system to stabilize for L=0 and then carefully open the gap. The current immediately falls to zero. This means that with L=0 you measure exactly the same current as at large L, even though at L=0 there is no phase between the diamond and the gap. This can only mean one thing: That the "resistance" of the phase at large L is the same that you measure when the diamond and anode touches and there is not such a material present at all.

Now look at it in another way: you measure R which is the sum of the resistance R(p) of the phase and the resistance of the contacts R(c). Assuming a cross-sectional area A=1 for the phase its resistivity will be (rho)= R(p)/L. The apparent total resistivity (rhoa) is thus

(rhoa)=(rho)+R(c)/L

Thus when plotting (rhoa) as a function of L, one will find that for small L (rhoa) falls away inversely with distance and for large L approaches (rho). So one can remove the effects of the contacts by plotting (rhoa) as a function of 1/L. A linear relationship will be obtained, giving you the value of (rho) on the vertical axis. When you do this for my data and you use least squares fit to this line, you find that the line passes through the origin with an accuracy that is greater than the accuracy of the current measurements. The resistivity of the phase is so small that it cannot be measured directly. But, just as in all the traditional cases it still does not prove that the electric field is actually zero.

Now let us go back to my so-called "unproven theoretical" analysis in terms of a dipole layer. It has been proved experimentally that charges separate to form a polarization field which attempts to cancel ab applied electric-field. If there are enough charges which can separate, equilibrium is reached when the polarization field is equal and opposite to the applied electric field. This is not "complicated' theory.

The diamonds that were used all had a high density of donors just below the surface which means a high density of available electrons. And since diamond is a large band-gap semiconductor, these electrons are available very near to the vacuum level. When you apply a field by means of an anode, the available electrons just below the surface of the diamond are extracted out of the diamond and they leave an equal amount of positive donor-charges behind. A dipole layer forms which, if there are enough electrons available, reaches equilibrium when the resultant polarization field generated by the dipole cancels the applied field. Thus there remains no electric field within the dipole layer.

Now, if there are enough electrons available one can extract enough of them so that the dipole occupies the whole region between the diamond (below the depletion layer) and the anode. As long as equilibrium is reached before any of these electrons have entered the anode, the field within the dipole remains exactly ZERO! Now increase the voltage slightly so that electrons can enter the anode. Immediately a current starts up but drops just as fast back to zero; then it jumps up a gain and drops to zero, etc. etc. etc. Why does this happen: As soon as the electrons enter the anode, the electron density within the gap drops and there are then not enough electrons to make contact with the anode. But this also means that an applied electric field appears over the dipole: This field thus again increases the dipole until it touches the anode, a current jumps up but immediately goes to zero again because the density of electrons within the gap decreases again.

Now you increase the applied field by more and the current becomes less erratic and settles down to a constant equilibrium current. This means that a situation is reached where just as many electrons enter the dipole from the diamond as the electrons that enter the anode. This will not be possible unless the field within the dipole is exactly zero. For if it is not exactly zero the dipole will widen in order to cancel this field.

Now which proof is more direct that there is not an electric field and that there cannot be an electric field? The one I gave by extrapolation of my resistivity data above or the one in terms of the dipole layer I have just given? Jeeez!!!!!

 

[ben m]

In order to demonstrate a current that "sustains itself over a very long period" I will have to find a way to bend the superconducting rod that has formed from electrons between the diamond and anode into a ring:

Nonsense. If it's superconducting in the z-direction (direction from anode to cathode) then it's also superconducting in the x-y plane (along the surfaces). Turn on your effect, then slowly move a small permanent magnet into place behind your substrate. If you have a patch of superconductor, this would induce a ring current going around the periphery of the patch.

Let me restate my objection. You have been talking about a whole lot of theory and very very little data. Basically, one I-V curve of a device that you claim has a 10um gap in series with the obvious 1MOhm resistor. No Meissner measurement (but excuses for why not), no electrometer measurement (but excuses for why not), no spectroscopy, no XPS, no Wheatstone bridge, no temperature or B field scan, etc.

It's sort of like claiming to have discovered cold fusion, and presenting an elaborate nuclear theory of it, based on readings from one thermocouple.

(ETA: I still haven't had time to read the theory carefully.)

 

[sol invictus]

To me it has been clear for 10 years that my data proves superconduction better than any other data that had been published for other materials.

You think your data proves superconductivity better than materials in which currents have been circulating untouched for years without degrading? Really?

In order to demonstrate a current that "sustains itself over a very long period" I will have to find a way to bend the superconducting rod that has formed from electrons between the diamond and anode into a ring: This is impossible: But even if it were to be possible, such a ring has no charge-carriers which can transport a current around it. The rod from which it has to be created is a single entangled, ground state macro-wave.

Do I understand correctly that you are saying your "superconductor" is not a conductor?

 

[johanfprins]

Nonsense. If it's superconducting in the z-direction (direction from anode to cathode) then it's also superconducting in the x-y plane (along the surfaces).

I first wanted to answer the other posts before concentrating on new posts, but I have to make an exception when a person makes crackpot claims and propose crackpot ideas; as you have obviously decided that you will do; come what may. The rod is less than 5 microns in diameter but you are such an "expert" that you "just know" that it must also be superconducting in the xy plane. On both sides of the rod there are positive charges which keeps it in a ground-state and thus facilitate it being superconducting; but you just know that there must also be such charges "around the rod". Before making such inane claims YOU should first prove that what you suppose is experimentally possible; or stand out as THE crackpot of crackpots: Even surpassing Archie Campbell, which is nigh impossible.

Turn on your effect, then slowly move a small permanent magnet into place behind your substrate.

See what I mean? You are deliberately talking ********. I have just given impeccable proof to you that the resistivity of the phase is less than the resolution of the best electrometer: But like all crackpots you just ignore such information and offers advice based on assumptions that you have not proved by experiment.

Let me restate my objection. You have been talking about a whole lot of theory and very very little data.

. So the simple experimental fact that charges polarize is "a lot of theory which you cannot understand";

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

Basically, one I-V curve of a device that you claim has a 10um gap in series with the obvious 1MOhm resistor.

So you just look at the pictures when reading a manuscript? This does not surprise me; crackpots usually do.

No Meissner measurement (but excuses for why not), no electrometer measurement (but excuses for why not), no spectroscopy, no XPS, no Wheatstone bridge, no temperature or B field scan, etc.

Electrometer measurements have been done, and spectroscopy measurements also: To propose Wheatstone measurements for my experimental setup is another proof that you are a crackpot. The senile crackpots in charge of superconducting physics would not even allow me to publish further papers papers in which I can explain results they conceded that they cannot. Do you think that after the insane comments by the crackpot Archie Campbell they would allow anything more to be published? And please explain to me why the Meissner effect proves that there is no electric field; and why one can levitate a live frog which is not superconducting (ask our Nobel Laureate Andre Geim to demonstrtate this to you). You see, you just do not know your physics.

It's sort of like claiming to have discovered cold fusion, and presenting an elaborate nuclear theory of it, based on readings from one thermocouple. (ETA: I still haven't had time to read the theory carefully.)

This is exactly the type of arguments I have experienced for 10 years from crackpots.

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for civility.

 

[ben m]

Since in this case the wave does not exist of separate electrons, the injected electron "disappears" at the injection contact and an electron appears at the other contact without a specific electron having moved from one contact to the other: Non-local transfer of charge occurs in this case.

I don't care if a "specific electron" moves from one contact to the other---that's a nonsense statement, even in an ordinary conductor (since electrons are indistinguishable). It is important that the conserved quantity charge moves from one contact to the other. If it "disappears" in one place and "reappears" in the other, without appearing as a current in between, then you're violating local charge conservation.

What is done is to assume that the phase has resistivity and then using a measurement technique for the voltage and current in a manner that allows one to subtract the other resistances like contact resistances etc.; and by using the most sensitive electrometers available.

Great: so, what's the upper bound on the resistance that you obtained using a the most sensitive electrometer available?

Therefore, the mainstream crackpots argue that the final proof that the electric-field is zero is to measure the Meissner effect. This is of course mind-boggling ...

Whatever. Does your funny apparatus expel B-fields, or does it not expel B fields?

A linear relationship will be obtained, giving you the value of (rho) on the vertical axis. When you do this for my data and you use least squares fit to this line, you find that the line passes through the origin with an accuracy that is greater than the accuracy of the current measurements. The resistivity of the phase is so small that it cannot be measured directly.

a) First, please give me the number, in ohms, with an error bar, for the upper bound on the resistance obtained this way.

b) Second:

(rhoa)=(rho)+R(c)/L

does not look like any resistivity equation I recognize. It's got the wrong L dependence---when L is large, you should have an open circuit with huge resistivity. It should be rho_total = rho_contacts + rho_gap*L.

 

[johanfprins]

You think your data proves superconductivity better than materials in which currents have been circulating untouched for years without degrading? Really?

I have not claimed that at all. I will give you an more elaborate answer on this false accusation of yours after you have told me how a circulating current is generated around a ring when the charge-carriers cannot be accelerated by an electric-field.

You see you do not even understand what causes superconduction, and therefore it is really a waste of time to argue with you about circulating currents. What I am claiming is that my proof for zero resistivity between two contacts is just as good as for any other superconductor. And that my claim for zero electric-field is based on polarization is impeccably correct. Prove this to me for any other superconductor; even when a circular current is flowing, before we discuss it any further.

Do I understand correctly that you are saying your "superconductor" is not a conductor?

Yes, at last!: A superconducting phase is an insulator! Therefore you will find that in all the low temperature "metal" superconductors the metal must first go through a metal-insulator phase before it becomes superconducting. When you apply an electric-field over a superconductor without injecting any charges, there are no free charges that can move. The applied electric field is cancelled at every charge-carrier by dielectric polarization. If this is not the case an applied electric-field will not be cancelled while charge-carriers are injected; since it is well known that a material that have "free" charge carriers can NEVER cancel an applied electric field while a current is flowing through it. This is primary school physics, my man!

 

[ben m]

"just know" that it must also be superconducting in the xy plane.

Between your probe and your surface, your model says there is a flat plate of weird-phase, 5-10um thick and ~50-60um in radius---right?

So you're saying this is an anisotropic superconductor? It only conducts in the 5um direction, and can sustain E-fields parallel to the surfaces?

This is your experiment, Johann, and your model. If this is an anisotropic superconductor, I didn't know that until you said so. Don't insult me for asking. I always ask. I've been going to physics colloquia two or three times a week for a decade. I have learned far more from the stupid questions I've asked, the questions far outside my field, the questions that I barely understand the premises of, etc., than from the (rare) smart questions.

 

[johanfprins]

I don't care if a "specific electron" moves from one contact to the other---that's a nonsense statement, even in an ordinary conductor (since electrons are indistinguishable). It is important that the conserved quantity charge moves from one contact to the other. If it "disappears" in one place and "reappears" in the other, without appearing as a current in between, then you're violating local charge conservation.

If N electrons have entangled to form this single wave, the charge of Ne is distributed over the whole wave: There are no local charges that need to be conserved.

Great: so, what's the upper bound on the resistance that you obtained using a the most sensitive electrometer available?

For the first measurements the cut-of was below the origin, giving an upper bound of -2x10^(-16) ohm-m. Pretty low is it not! But usually it lies within an interval of about plus minus 10^-14 ohm-m From the origin.

Therefore, the mainstream crackpots argue that the final proof that the electric-field is zero is to measure the Meissner effect. This is of course mind-boggling ... . Does your funny apparatus expel B-fields, or does it not expel B fields?

Does a superconductor with a small volume expel magnetic fields? How must I measure it within my equipment? And even though I wanted to measure it I could not find financial support to rebuild the equipment so that it would be possible since crackpots like Archie Campbell spouted their mouths off not knowing what they are talking about. What has been noticed in subsequent experiments by another person with better equipment is, when you use a magnetic anode and keep the voltage at the position where you have erratic currents, powder is being sputtered from the anode which then seem to float around the superconducting phase.

a) First, please give me the number, in ohms, with an error bar, for the upper bound on the resistance obtained this way.

I have done that above

b) Second: does not look like any resistivity equation I recognize. It's got the wrong L dependence---when L is large, you should have an open circuit with huge resistivity. It should be rho_total = rho_contacts + rho_gap*L.

You clearly do not understand primary school physics: If you did you would know that resistivity is independent of the length of the resistor.

 

[johanfprins]

Between your probe and your surface, your model says there is a flat plate of weird-phase, 5-10um thick and ~50-60um in radius---right?

No the diameter of the rod is less than 5 microns and the length is anywhere from near zero to 20 and even up to 150 microns.

So you're saying this is an anisotropic superconductor? It only conducts in the 5um direction, and can sustain E-fields parallel to the surfaces?

This is your experiment, Johann, and your model. If this is an anisotropic superconductor, I didn't know that until you said so. Don't insult me for asking. I always ask. I've been going to physics colloquia two or three times a week for a decade. I have learned far more from the stupid questions I've asked, the questions far outside my field, the questions that I barely understand the premises of, etc., than from the (rare) smart questions.

Sorry Ben I apologize again: But the way in which you ask your questions gets me worked up. As if I am a liar and as if I am not a competent scientist. I can assure that I am far more competent than Kamerlingh Onnes was; but you do not care to insinuate the opposite above. So please let us keep this civil. If you are not sure of facts then ask rather than suppose that the phase is isotropic or suppose that I will not very carefully calibrate micrometer movement to exactly know when the probe clears the surface..

 

[ben m]

No the diameter of the rod is less than 5 microns and the length is anywhere from near zero to 20 and even up to 150 microns.

No, your paper says that the probe is a 500um hemisphere. A 500um hemisphere, whose tip is 5um from a flat surface, has a 50um radius "near-contact patch" with a thickness in the 5-10um range.

I can assure that I am far more competent than Kamerlingh Onnes was

Humble too!

 

[Dilb]

since it is well known that a material that have "free" charge carriers can NEVER cancel an applied electric field while a current is flowing through it. This is primary school physics, my man!

So I can make metal transparent by running a current through it?

 

[Ziggurat]

And please explain to me why the Meissner effect proves that there is no electric field

You don't already know? That doesn't speak well.

If there's an electric field, electrons will accelerate. They will continue to accelerate, increasing the current, unless there's a resistance. But if there's resistance, then it's not superconducting.

So either you have a current which is increasing (not a steady state solution), or you've got resistance (not a superconductor by definition).

and why one can levitate a live frog which is not superconducting (ask our Nobel Laureate Andre Geim to demonstrtate this to you).

Are you really unfamiliar with atomic diamagnetism? Surely you can't be. Surely you cannot be unaware that atomic diamagnetism produces a very small negative susceptibility (typically on the order of -10^-5), whereas superconductivity produces a diamagnetic susceptibility of -1. And that the requisite fields for levitation in the former case are orders of magnitude larger than the requisite fields in the latter case, so that they can be easily distinguished.

You are, after all, quite versed in superconductivity. You must already know this.

 

[ben m]

But usually it lies within an interval of about plus minus 10^-14 ohm-m From the origin.

A 5x100x100 micron slab of 10^-14 ohm-m material would contribute about one picoohm to the total series resistance of the circuit.

Really, Johan? You took a sequence of DC resistance measurements, on a circuit with a largeish resistor (the substrate) in series; you fit a line through the results and trust its intercept to picoohm precision? Resistance metrology is something I know a thing or two about, and that sounds completely insane. Professional YCBO-tape-splicing outfits only deal in tens of nanoohms, and they do that by running hundred-amp currents.

 

[jhunter1163]

Do not personalize your arguments.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: jhunter1163

 

[sol invictus]

You think your data proves superconductivity better than materials in which currents have been circulating untouched for years without degrading? Really?

I have not claimed that at all.

Yes you have:

To me it has been clear for 10 years that my data proves superconduction better than any other data that had been published for other materials.

I will give you an more elaborate answer on this false accusation of yours after you have told me how a circulating current is generated around a ring when the charge-carriers cannot be accelerated by an electric-field.

You really don't know how to do that? You're aware that there's an entire subfield of electrical engineering that deals with superconducting circuits, aren't you? Circuits with current running through them, but with zero resistance?

You see you do not even understand what causes superconduction, and therefore it is really a waste of time to argue with you about circulating currents. What I am claiming is that my proof for zero resistivity between two contacts is just as good as for any other superconductor. And that my claim for zero electric-field is based on polarization is impeccably correct. Prove this to me for any other superconductor; even when a circular current is flowing, before we discuss it any further.

As far as I can tall, you're claiming that you have an extremely thin layer of material that might have zero field in it, maybe, even though there's a current flowing through it. You call this a superconductor - and at the same time, assert that it only superconducts in one direction but not in the other two, and at the same time that it cannot conduct at all.

Pardon me if I'm having trouble making sense of your posts.

 

[johanfprins]

After my last post #111 many crackpot comments have been made that primarily prove that these respondents do not know elementary high school physics. Nonetheless, one is obliged as a scientist to prove by impeccable logic and experimental data that an idea is a crackpot one: I will thus answer these posts in due course; but not at this point as a priority since there are people on this thread like davefoc who consistently raised valid arguments without being crackpot. I should thus first attend to people like him before returning to the crackpots.

I'd like to thank johanfprins for taking the time to respond to the posts in this thread.
As a result of this thread, I spent a little time looking around for what was going on with cold cathodes. The first thing I found out was that my buddy (well not really) Philo T. Farnsworth had a patent for one back in 1936.

One must distinguish between two types of devices both which are being referred to as "cold cathodes". The "cold cathodes" used in vacuum meters generate a plasma between the cathode and anode. The "cold cathodes" which are really coveted are those which act as pure electron sources. One can generate such cold cathodes in different ways; For example by generating sharp points (so called Spindt tips) but the latter devices do not deliver large currents and the tips blunt very quickly owing to sputtering.

In 1979 an experiment was reported that showed that photo-excited electrons within a p-type diamond with hydrogen on its surface are above the so-called "vacuum-level": i.e. they can easily be extracted from a diamond. It was then naively reasoned that all you need to do is to dope a diamond n-type, and then it will be easy to accelerate electrons from the diamond into an anode and you will then have the cold cathode of all cold cathodes.

When I heard about this for the first time I immediately knew that it is a crackpot idea to think that you must be able, in such a case, to accelerate an electron from such a diamond through the vacuum into the anode. I tried to convince people working on cold cathodes, like Dr. Robert Nemanich the Editor of "Diamond and Related Materials", that this will not be as easy as they anticipated, since the electrons will flow out of the diamond and accumulate outside the surface, thus leaving ionized donors behind: A dipole layer will form consisting of a layer of external electrons and a depletion layer of ionized donors below the surface; and if this dipole layer is too wide, it will cause a strong barrier through which the electrons will be extracted with great difficulty. Nonetheless the race was on to dope diamond n-type and millions of dollars were spent over the world

It was during this race that Ken Okano (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v381/n6578/pdf/381140a0.pdf ) claimed in 1992 that he had succeeded to dope diamond n-type by using nitrogen during CVD growth; and he did show curves proving that electrons can be extracted from his diamond surfaces using very low voltages, and that these electrons can then be accelerated through the vacuum. I immediately knew that it cannot be n-type doping since his measurements can only occur if there is no dipole layer being formed by the extracted electrons and charged donors below the surface. It was thus not surprising that it was soon proved that this extraction was not related to actual donors within the diamond but to graphite islands on the surface. These islands concentrate the electric-field and then act similar to Spindt tips.

In 1997 the Japanese doped diamond n-type by growing in phosphorous donors. And lo and behold, as I expected, they could not extract electrons from the diamond surface for electric fields below dielectric breakdown. To explain this, the "experts on diamond physics" ended up fudging together models to prove that it is not possible for the electrons within n-type diamond to be above the vacuum level: These models are mostly crackpot.

There is, however a way to extract electrons through such a dipole barrier. One must ensure that the depletion layer under the surface is thin enough for the electrons to tunnel through. This requires that the donor density must be much higher than what can be obtained by growing in phosphorus. I thus looked at different ways to achieve a higher density of donors and found that I could generate n-type diamond with a VERY high donor density by implanting oxygen and annealing below 500 Celsius. Of course the crackpots in charge of diamond physics immediately claimed that it is not possible since it will violate their crackpot models which supposedly explains why one cannot extract electrons from phosphorous doped diamond.

This stance they have maintained for over 10 years already, to the extent that they prevented Chinese Scientists in Beijing, who reproduced my oxygen doping results (and added to the proof) from getting their results published in our so called "peer-reviewed" journals. Now who are the crackpots? I or these crackpot peer reviewers. The first journal these poor Chinese scientists tried, was the one edited by Robert Nemanich. Of course it was rejected. It is quite astonishing how the crackpot "experts" in a scientific field can see to it that data, they do not like, is consistently suppressed. No wonder mainstream physics has become the cornucopia of crackpot ideas.

In my experiment I was thus the first to extract electrons from an n-type doped diamond, and this occurred because electrons within the diamond can tunnel through the thin depletion layer when applying an electric-field. As soon as the depletion layer becomes too wide for tunneling to occur, further extraction of electrons cannot occur. But while the tunneling layer is thin enough an applied electric field will extract electrons through the depletion layer. These electrons add to the external layer of electrons for as long as there is a field within the dipole. Electron extraction stops as soon as the field within then dipole layer becomes zero owing to the polarization field caused by the extracted electrons and the positive charges below the diamond's surface.

When now increasing the applied electric field, more electrons are added until the increase in applied electric field is again cancelled. If it should happen that the depletion layer becomes too wide, so that tunneling cannot occur through it anymore the applied electric field cannot be cancelled anymore. BUT AS LONG AS THE TUNNELING LAYER HAS A SMALL ENOUGH WIDTH ELECTRONS WILL BE EXTRACTED UNTIL THE ELECTRIC FIELD WITHIN THE DIPOLE LAYER BECOMES ZERO.

But by keeping on extracting electrons the widths of both the depletion layer and the external electron layer keep on increasing. Thus provided that the depletion layer does no become too wide, one can extract the external electron layer to enter the anode. But since the depletion layer is still thin enough to allow tunneling, equilibrium can still only be reached when the electric field within the dipole is zero and nothing else but zero. Thus if after you have pulled the electrons into the anode, an equilibrium current is flowing this can only be happening when the electric field within the dipole is zero and nothing else but zero. The only way in which it can be non-zero is when the depletion layer becomes too wide. When this happens one does not have electrons tunneling through it anymore and the current drops to zero.

Thus the fact that in my experiment an equilibrium current is flowing proves that electrons can still tunnel through the depletion layer. It also proves that there are no electrons being added to the electrons between the diamond surface and the anode; since if electrons are being added the charge carriers between the diamond and the anode will increase with time so that a constant current will not be flowing. And since electrons are not being added by the depletion layer it means that there is no resultant electric field within the dipole. This means that electrons are transferred from the diamond to the anode through a phase within which the electric field is, and must be zero.

Thus my experiment is the very first experiment in the history of physics that proves that charge can actually be transferred through a material while there is no resultant electric field present. It is this the very first proof that superconduction is actually possible.

(I'm not knowledgeable in any of the following and not everything below may be correct.)
More recently people have been messing around with them for the purposes of their use in displays and for their use in minature vacuum tubes. (They call them CNT's for carbon nanotube triodes).

In the case of CNT's no subsurface donors are involved. They are in effect super-duper Spindt tips. They will thus not form a superconducting phase.

It seems that the diamond is most commonly doped with nitrogen.

A nitrogen atom on a substitutional site is a very deep donor: By this I mean that such donors do not release significant electrons at room temperature to be extracted.

The fields to get these things emitting electrons seem to be substantially less than the fields in johanfprins' device. One informal report talked about about turn on field strength at around .5 V/um. A formal report talked about turn on field strength of about 7V/um.

As I have pointed out above, the claims that nitrogen-doped diamond emits electrons owing to nitrogen donors being present have been disproved. It should have been obvious that substitutional nitrogen donors cannot be involved.

I have, however, proved that when implanting nitrogen and annealing below 500 Celsius one can generate donors which are similar to the oxygen donors which were used for my first experiments. In fact I can extract electrons from such a "nitrogen-doped" diamond in exactly the same manner as in the case of the oxygen-doped ones. This proves that in both these cases the implanted atoms are not substitutional atoms. They are most probably atom-vacancy complexes which act as donors.

I wonder if johanfprins believes these devices are also exhibiting superconduction in the region between the anodes and cathodes.

No I do not believe it since these materials do not contain a high density of donor centers below their surfaces.

Of course superconduction in a normal vacuum tube or CRT is ruled out because the electrons are accelerated.

Precisely: The electrons in this case do not come from donors but are "boiled out" from a hot filament.

report on cold cathode devices
Forms and behaviour of vacuum emission electronic devices comprising diamond or other carbon cold cathode emitters by Davidson, et al.
(Available on-line but only with a license I think).

I know Jimmy Davidson personally. His diamond devices use sharp point and are thus akin to Spindt tips. I do not know his latest devices though. Unfortunately Jimmy allows himself to be duped by the crackpots in charge of diamond physics.

 

[johanfprins]

I'm thinking of two experimental results in particular that I'm curious about. The first is the linear relationship between incommensurability and Tc in various doped samples of La2CuO4, which you can find in figure 10 of this paper:
http://prb.aps.org/abstract/PRB/v57/i10/p6165_1
I'm also curious about how to explain the magnetic-field-induced magnetic order in electron-doped NCCO, seen here (for example, the insets on Fig. 3a):
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6939/full/nature01641.html
How does your theory explain these results?

Yes this is a non-crackpot posting that requires a priority answer. Sorry I cannot say this of you latest posting.

Nonetheless, I have not analysed these two papers in depth, because I cannot afford to buy them, but know about them and am quite sure that I will, for a start, be able to explain the results qualitatively, and if I have the time also quantitatively. The latter is, however, not a priority in my life anymore since all other papers, which could not be explained by the mainstream crackpot theories like BCS, on which I spent lots of time to model quantitatively, have been rejected outright for publication

For example, the paper by Keimer's group in Science on Pb which a friend of mine kindly mailed to me. The reference is: Science 330 (2008) 1509. Although Doug Scalapino commented in the same issue that these results cannot be explained in terms of the accepted mainstream theories like BCS, and although my model fitted the results perfectly, it was rejected ouright. When I sent it to Scalapino for his comments he wrote back: "The BCS theory of superconductivity has been clearly established and Pb is essentially the poster child for the electron-phonon mechanism. Thus I believe that what Keimer et al have found will be explained within a framework that explains essentially all that is seen in Pb. This is the BCS theory as expressed in the Eliashberg formulism.

Is this not a mind boggling comment? He just recently acknowledged that he cannot see an explanation in terms of BCS, but when I send him an alternative explanation which fits the results perfectly, he refuses to even consider it, since he wants at all costs that the explanation must be in terms of the BCS model. Can you now see why mainstream physics has become crackpot?

There are many other papers on superconducting materials like YBCO, highly-doped p-type diamond, super-insulating effect, for which it is acknowledged that they cannot be explained by the traditional models like BCS, but when I send in my models which explain these results perfectly, they are rejected outright because the BCS model must be correct. A similar mentality which caused the Vatican to reason that Ptolemy's model of the universe must be correct.

The time is overdue that we must remove the real crackpots who are in charge of main stream physics. This should already have happened more than 80 years ago before the crackpots of all crackpots, Bohr, Heisenberg, and Born, led physics into crackpot-land. Einstein tried valiantly to take a stand but was then branded behind his back that he has become an old crackpot who just do not know his physics anymore. They should have heeded Einstein before they embraced the Copenhagen crackpot-physics so wholeheartedly.

I am really spending a lot of time on this thread and will have to now attend to other matters: But as the Terminator said: "I will be back".

 

[ben m]

Nonetheless, I have not analysed these two papers in depth, because I cannot afford to buy them, but know about them and am quite sure that I will, for a start, be able to explain the results qualitatively, and if I have the time also quantitatively.

I hope you meant to add: " ... if my theory is right. Of course, if my theory is incorrect then perhaps these experimental results will help falsify it." Right?