Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

Johan,
You have claimed that this experiment is replicable.
Where does one get the procedure for this replication?

Which experiment are you talking about? The fact that you can have an SIS sandwich through which a current can flow without any voltage over the insulator, and then measure light emission from the junction when placing an external voltage V over the junction is so replicable that it can be found in elementary text books. See pages 1334 to 1335 in Serway.

If Ben m wants to go ahead with his ridiculous claim that this is not possible, he should go to the original publications during the 1960's; prove that the circuits they used could not have worked, and then collect his well earned Nobel Prize. But up to that time, I do not want to waste my time anymore trying to explain to him circuit diagrams, and how the scientists during the 1960's connected their circuits to get this reproducible data. Some of these scientists are still alive and I suggest that Ben m should accost them directly.

Is your main contention with BCS only the cooper pair condensate?

I do not know what you mean with "only". Do you imply that there are parts of the BCS model that can be correct? The model is solidly based on the postulate that there is a boson-condensate: This is wrong; which implies that everything that has been derived in terms of this postulate must also be wrong, even after it has been fudged to fit experimental data. If you look carefully at the literature, you will find the the accepted main stream model based on BCS, is a Heath-Robinson construction that must collapse.

Although the BCS model seems to give a reason why the charge-carriers do not scatter, it cannot explain the defining characteristic of superconduction: namely, how an applied electric field is cancelled to become zero within the superconductor while a current flows through the superconductor.

 

[johanfprins]

Thanks for the drawing Skwinty.

Sorry Ben m, I do not have the time to explain physics to you which you can look up in elementary text books! No insult intended. But if you are not happy with what is already in text books, you should engage the main stream physicists. If you can prove them wrong, I will be the first to nominate you for the Nobel Prize.

 

[Skwinty]

Johan,
Thanks for the replies to my questions.
I am not a physicist, only a light current electrical engineer.

I found your paper on "The diamond-vacuum interface: II. Electron extraction from n-type diamond: evidence for superconduction at room temperature:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/18/3/319/pdf/0268-1242_18_3_319.pdf

I am in the process of digesting this paper and figure 1 shows a more accurate schematic ( opposed to the schematic I drew from the text in this thread).

I will probably have more questions once I have read the paper more thoroughly.

 

[johanfprins]

Johan,
Thanks for the replies to my questions.
I am not a physicist, only a light current electrical engineer.

I found your paper on "The diamond-vacuum interface: II. Electron extraction from n-type diamond: evidence for superconduction at room temperature:

http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/18/3/319/pdf/0268-1242_18_3_319.pdf

I am in the process of digesting this paper and figure 1 shows a more accurate schematic ( opposed to the schematic I drew from the text in this thread).

Although that paper is correct, the results can be explained in a much simpler manner. I will be in Melkbosstrand from 21 to the 29 December. If you have time we can meet up and discuss the experimental results.

 

[Skwinty]

Although that paper is correct, the results can be explained in a much simpler manner. I will be in Melkbosstrand from 21 to the 29 December. If you have time we can meet up and discuss the experimental results.

I will pm my contact number and we can meet at your convenience.

 

[marplots]

Sorry Ben m, I do not have the time to explain physics to you which you can look up in elementary text books! No insult intended. But if you are not happy with what is already in text books, you should engage the main stream physicists. If you can prove them wrong, I will be the first to nominate you for the Nobel Prize.

It strikes me that this also describes your position precisely and the problem you are having engaging mainstream physics.

 

[sol invictus]

If Ben m wants to go ahead with his ridiculous claim that this is not possible, he should go to the original publications during the 1960's; prove that the circuits they used could not have worked, and then collect his well earned Nobel Prize.

Where in this thread have I, or ben, or Zig, said that any of the standard superconductivity experiments are impossible?

Please quote one of us, verbatim.

Sorry Ben m, I do not have the time to explain physics to you which you can look up in elementary text books! No insult intended. But if you are not happy with what is already in text books, you should engage the main stream physicists. If you can prove them wrong, I will be the first to nominate you for the Nobel Prize.

You're communicating on this forum with (at least) three people who are very knowledgeable on physics, fairly patient, and willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. And yet, at least so far, you have failed completely to explain to us what seems like your most basic and simple claim (that the energy emitted by a charge q going though a Josephson junction with voltage V should be 2qV). As we both said earlier - if we can't come to an agreement on that, there's no point in discussing anything further.

If you would answer my (very simple) question - a question about what is one of the most standard experiments in the physics of Josephson junctions, found in fact in every textbook - I think I could quickly show you that you are mistaken, which is why I'm focussing on it.

You told me that a voltage source that "injects charge carriers" would create a voltage V across the junction, while one that doesn't would create no voltage. You never responded to my question about what type of voltage source a chemical battery is (or what more information you need than "chemical battery" to decide), or what type of source a standard lab powered voltage source is, or provided the reference you said exists.

But even without that - if you accept that this situation

V ---|--- 0

can exist at all ever, we can go on. Please answer the following questions:

What's the minimum amount of work required to move a charge q against a voltage V?

What's the maximum amount of work that can be extracted after a charge q moves with a voltage (i.e gains energy) V?

 

[Cuddles]

What's the minimum amount of work required to move a charge q through a voltage V?

I think it's somewhere between the work required to lead a horse to water, and that required to make it drink.

 

[johanfprins]

It strikes me that this also describes your position precisely and the problem you are having engaging mainstream physics.

Not at all. As I have said time and again, I have not at any stage of my life made these measurements an I am thus not an expert on the circuits used. I know from discussion with an ex-colleague of mine who did such measurements during the 1960's that the circuitry is finicky and you must know your tricks. All I am pointing out to Ben m is that I am not expert enough to answer his questions which relate to the circuitry involved. That he should get it from a person who is an expert since I will probably tie myself into knots.

The experimental facts, as had been accepted by referees who understand the measurements better than I do and which you can find in text books, are what I have already stated above:

1. When you send a super-current current through such SIS by using a source voltage V_main you measure no voltage across the SIS and also not over the insulator.

2. When you place a voltage V across the insulator and sends the super-current through, the junction emits EM-radiation with frequency 2eV.

These facts have been known for 50 years. Ben's questions revert about the circuit connections required to place this extra voltage V over the insulator. I do not want to get involved in his questions on this topic since I do not have the practical experience; and since I believe that it is dangerous to teach other people what you yourself do not understand in depth.

So why do you want to insinuate in an insulting manner that my acknowledgement that I need more insight to explain a method causes the main stream physicists to become p---- off with me.

 

[sol invictus]

1. When you send a super-current current through such SIS by using a source voltage V_main you measure no voltage across the SIS and also not over the insulator.

That is literally nonsense. One way to send a current through the junction is to put a voltage across it, yes... but if you put a voltage across it, it cannot then have no voltage across it!

What you are thinking of is using a current source. It's true that for small enough current, there will be no voltage across the junction (and the reason is very simple - it's that charge carriers can tunnel across even when the voltage is equal on both sides).

You are evidently confusing the AC and DC Josephson effects - or rather, it seems that you don't know what the AC Josephson effect is.

I do not want to get involved in his questions on this topic since I do not have the practical experience; and since I believe that it is dangerous to teach other people what you yourself do not understand in depth.

Let me make sure I understand: you admit you don't understand this physics in depth, and yet you are comfortable claiming that the theory accepted for more than 50 years to explain it is totally wrong? Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?

 

[johanfprins]

Where in this thread have I, or ben, or Zig, said that any of the standard superconductivity experiments are impossible?

All three of you have argued consistently that if you have two wires connected to a superconductor with a source voltage V across the wires and sends through a charge Q, the charge will come out with a higher energy QV on the other side. Go back on your postings and read it yourself. This means that you are arguing that the actual superconductivity experiments which prove that the charge goes in and comes out with the same energy must be wrong!

You're communicating on this forum with (at least) three people who are very knowledgeable on physics, fairly patient, and willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe you are knowledgeable on the physics you are doing, but if you claim that a charge Q being injected into a superconductor by a source voltage V will appear on the other side with an energy QV higher, then you obviously are not knowledgeable on superconduction.

And yet, at least so far, you have failed completely to explain to us what seems like your most basic and simple claim (that the energy emitted by a charge q going though a Josephson junction with voltage V should be 2qV). As we both said earlier - if we can't come to an agreement on that, there's no point in discussing anything further.

Well if you do not want to accept the experimental fact that a charge q moving through a superconductor cannot be accelerated to gain energy qV_main, where V_main is the source voltage injecting the charge (since there is no electric-field within the superconductor): And if you do not want to accept the experimental fact that when you place a voltage over a Josephson junction it shifts the energy levels on opposite sides of the junction by qV: And if you do not want to accept the fact that when the charge carrier now moves through the junction it must also be accelerated to gain energy qV: And if you do not want to add that 1+1=2: i.e. that the shift in energy levels plus the increase in energy owing to the acceleration come to 2qV. Then you just do not want to accept the experimental facts and the simple fact that when a charge moves through a voltage that it can "see" it will be accelerated to gain energy qV.

If you would answer my (very simple) question - a question about what is one of the most standard experiments in the physics of Josephson junctions, found in fact in every textbook - I think I could quickly show you that you are mistaken, which is why I'm focussing on it.

I did answer it in detail.

You told me that a voltage source that "injects charge carriers" would create a voltage V across the junction,

You see you do not read what I am writing: It is just the other way around: Look at the simple IV characteristics of a Josephson junction in any elementary text book.

while one that doesn't would create no voltage.

Again the other way around.

You never responded to my question about what type of voltage source a chemical battery is (or what more information you need than "chemical battery" to decide), or what type of source a standard lab powered voltage source is, or provided the reference you said exists.

Because it is obviously irrelevant whether it is a chemical source or a DC source plugged into a socket which injects the charge carriers; and irrelevant what type of source is used to place an extra field over the junction without injecting charge carriers.

I do not want to insult you but your arguments do not display any knowledge about the experimental results which had been measured, and confirmed time and again, for Josephson junctions.

But even without that - if you accept that this situation

V ---|--- 0

can exist at all ever, we can go on.

Is the voltage V injecting charge which moves through the superconductor SIS? Then the situation is 0----I---0; since the voltage is cancelled everywhere. Is the voltage V applied by two capacitor plates across the SIS so that no charge-carriers are injected, then it is V---I---0 across the insulating junction.

What's the minimum amount of work required to move a charge q against a voltage V?

If the voltage is placed over a normal conductor, the minimum amount of work is qV. If it injects the charge q into the superconductor, the minimum amount of work is zero.

What's the maximum amount of work that can be extracted after a charge q moves with a voltage (i.e gains energy) V?

In a normal conductor with a voltage V across it, it is qV. For a superconductor where V injects a charge q, the maximum amount of work is still zero. If you place an extra voltage V over the Josephson junction, the energy levels on opposite sides of the junction is shifted by qV, and in addition the charge, when moving through the junction, is accelerated to gain a further amount of energy qV. Thus to become part of the superconducting phase on the other side, after it has moved through the junction, it has to radiate away 2qV.

 

[johanfprins]

That is literally nonsense. One way to send a current through the junction is to put a voltage across it, yes... but if you put a voltage across it, it cannot then have no voltage across it!

You see your problem is that you do not know what superconduction is; but and then falsely proclaim that you are a knowledgeable physicist with patience. I am the one with patience here. When Onnes discovered superconduction he was sending a current through mercury while measuring a voltage V over the contacts. As soon as the mercury was cooled through its critical temperature V became ZERO!! So there is NO VOLTAGE over the contacts to superconductor while a current flows through it.

Let me make sure I understand: you admit you don't understand this physics in depth, and yet you are comfortable claiming that the theory accepted for more than 50 years to explain it is totally wrong? Doesn't that strike you as a little odd?

You are adept at twisting words. You should rather have been an assistant of Jopseph Goebbels than a physicist. I understand the physics in depth not the experimental circuit arrangements that were used. You can understand the physics without being able to know an apparatus well enough to make the measurements! If this were not so, we should ban theoretical physics. I take the experimental results that they reported and show that on the quantum level it is commensurate with singly charged charge carriers, while, in contrast, the accepted main stream model use classical EM radiation to model a quantum mechanical effect to obtain doubly charged charge carriers. The later is obvious nonsense.

 

[sol invictus]

All three of you have argued consistently that if you have two wires connected to a superconductor with a source voltage V across the wires and sends through a charge Q, the charge will come out with a higher energy QV on the other side.

That's a short circuit. None of us ever said anything about that.

If the voltage is placed over a normal conductor, the minimum amount of work is qV. If it injects the charge q into the superconductor, the minimum amount of work is zero.

Very well - according to you, the work required to move a charge through a voltage V is zero under certain circumstances. That is an explicit violation of conservation of energy, and leads directly to perpetual motion.

All I need to do is move a charge against the voltage through the superconductor (doing no work, according to you), and then let it return along a different path, extracting work qV. Repeat ad infinitum.

 

[sol invictus]

You see your problem is that you do not know what superconduction is; but and then falsely proclaim that you are a knowledgeable physicist with patience. I am the one with patience here. When Onnes discovered superconduction he was sending a current through mercury while measuring a voltage V over the contacts. As soon as the mercury was cooled through its critical temperature V became ZERO!! So there is NO VOLTAGE over the contacts to superconductor while a current flows through it.

That is perfectly consistent with what I said. Read it again: "It's true that for small enough current, there will be no voltage across the junction..."

You are adept at twisting words. You should rather have been an assistant of Jopseph Goebbels than a physicist.

Yes, clearly I am a Nazi since I don't agree with you.

 

[johanfprins]

That's a short circuit. None of us ever said anything about that.

Only a complete idiot will not use a ballast resistor when working with a superconductor. When the superconductor is above its critical temperature, with the ballast resistor in series, there will be a voltage V across it, and when sending in a charge q it will gain energy qV. But as soon as the superconductor is below its critical temperature this voltage is cancelled and a charge q moving through the superconductor will not gain any energy at all.

Very well - according to you, the work required to move a charge through a voltage V is zero under certain circumstances. That is an explicit violation of conservation of energy, and leads directly to perpetual motion.

Where have I ever said this? I clearly stated that once material becomes superconducting the voltage across it is cancelled. It is thus ZERO so that a charge q moving through it cannot gain any energy! I am starting to think you are just out to exhaust me with irrelevant arguments. After all you claim that you are a knowledgeable physicist: You should thus know that when a charge moves through a region with zero voltage it cannot gain any energy by acceleration.

All I need to do is move a charge against the voltage through the superconductor (doing no work, according to you), and then let it return along a different path, extracting work qV. Repeat ad infinitum.

Where will you obtain this voltage within a superconductor? Use a magic wand?

 

[sol invictus]

Only a complete idiot will not use a ballast resistor when working with a superconductor. When the superconductor is above its critical temperature, with the ballast resistor in series, there will be a voltage V across it, and when sending in a charge q it will gain energy qV. But as soon as the superconductor is below its critical temperature this voltage is cancelled and a charge q moving through the superconductor will not gain any energy at all.

None of us have ever said anything that disagrees with that.

Very well - according to you, the work required to move a charge through a voltage V is zero under certain circumstances. That is an explicit violation of conservation of energy, and leads directly to perpetual motion.

Where have I ever said this?

Right here:

What's the minimum amount of work required to move a charge q against a voltage V?

If the voltage is placed over a normal conductor, the minimum amount of work is qV. If it injects the charge q into the superconductor, the minimum amount of work is zero.

Now I think what you meant is that one cannot create a voltage drop across a piece of superconducting material (which is obviously true). But that's not what you said, nor does it answer the question I asked you.

Where will you obtain this voltage within a superconductor? Use a magic wand?

You cannot create a voltage inside the superconductor itself. But you can put a piece of insulating material between two pieces of superconductor, and then attach a voltage source across that junction. In other words, perform the experiment I've asked you about at least 6 times now, and you have failed to respond to.

 

[johanfprins]

That is perfectly consistent with what I said. Read it again: "It's true that for small enough current, there will be no voltage across the junction..."

What do you mean by "small" or "large" currents? As long as the currents are superconducting there will be no voltage across he Josephson junction unless you place one there. Obviously when the current becomes larger than the critical superconducting current, a voltage will appear over the whole SIS, since we now have no superconduction at all. But this not what we are discussing here. We are discussing superconduction.

Yes, clearly I am a Nazi since I don't agree with you.

Did I say you are a Nazi? Please grow up. You do not have to be a Nazi to be as adept as Goebbels to twist facts around. In fact Goebbels can probably learn from you even though you are not a Nazi.

 

[Ziggurat]

All three of you have argued consistently that if you have two wires connected to a superconductor with a source voltage V across the wires and sends through a charge Q, the charge will come out with a higher energy QV on the other side. Go back on your postings and read it yourself.

I have. And I have argued exactly the opposite: that the charge will lose energy QV. It is the rest of the system which will gain energy QV, by simple energy conservation.

This means that you are arguing that the actual superconductivity experiments which prove that the charge goes in and comes out with the same energy must be wrong!

If charge goes in and comes out with the same energy, then V = 0. So the charge still loses energy QV, but V=0. Which I've also said. The relevant voltage is the voltage across your device, not the voltage at the battery terminal if you've got a series resistor with it.

You are doing a very bad job of summarizing my argument. In fact, you're getting it so thoroughly wrong that I think you've failed to understand it at all. That would explain why your responses have failed to address my argument.

 

[sol invictus]

What do you mean by "small" or "large" currents?

Smaller than the critical current of the junction. The exact value depends on the junction.

As long as the currents are superconducting there will be no voltage across he Josephson junction unless you place one there.

The last bit of bold is what I (and Zig, and ben) have been asking you about for the last 200 posts or so.

Did I say you are a Nazi?

You owe me an apology, and you know it.

 

[Mashuna]

Did I say you are a Nazi? Please grow up. You do not have to be a Nazi to be as adept as Goebbels to twist facts around. In fact Goebbels can probably learn from you even though you are not a Nazi.

For someone so quick to take imagined offence, you're certainly not shy of throwing unpleasant analogies about.