Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Ziggurat]

BS!! There are no Cooper pairs

Whether or not that claim is true, it's indisputable that the article that you linked to doesn't claim that they don't, nor does it demonstrate that they don't, nor does it even support the notion that they don't.

I did not ignore the contents.

I believe you.

You just didn't understand the contents.

Time will prove who the treal crackpots are! You and Doug Scalapino are in the front of the line!

Then we'll ALL rue the day we challenged you!

We're quaking in our boots.

 

[Ziggurat]

Well why do you attack before reading what I have written?

Experience. The pattern is now well established.

 

[ben m]

I made the mistake to argue that the localised fermion-orbitals that are responsible for superconduction can polarise while a current flows through the superconductor. I cannot believe that I could have argued in this manner except to state that I was still thinking within the wrong paradigm that Brian Josephson has posulated when he modelled tunnelling.

That's remarkable. Previously, you told us all about Description #1 of superconductivity that you assured us was obviously correct; that you were insulted by the suggestion that you hadn't thought it out carefully. Moreover, you were so confident in your description that you could use it to disprove Schrodinger's Equation as well as BCS theory.

But no, now it's all wrong and "you can't believe" you made such a silly mistake. This is exactly the same reaction you had to your energy-conservation nonsense earlier in this thread.

But you expect us to take flaws in your theory as minor misunderstandings, that you have "fixed" after another day's thought so that your new understanding is declared to be Right and Perfect.

Compare that to your treatment of BCS theory. You've misunderstood several things about it, but for some reason "fixing" such a misunderstanding does not make you think of BCS as any more right. In fact, you claimed earlier in this thread that your New Superconductivity Model had proven BCS wrong. That's a model that you discarded four or five errors ago, but you're still acting as though the BCS-is-wrong "proof" stands.

In other words, it seems as though there is no possible accumulation of errors that could convince you that your superconductor model-of-the-moment is wrong. And there is no possible level of correctness that could convince you that BCS theory is right.

 

[ben m]

BS!! There are no Cooper pairs

You linked to an article, saying that this article supports your theory.

For recent experimental evidence that Cooper pairs do not exist, see:

http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-...-unmasked.html

The article says there are Cooper pairs.

Physorg:

Superconductivity in a material arises when two electrons bind together into so-called Cooper pairs. This pairing leads to a gap in the energy spectrum of the superconducting material, which makes the electrons insensitive to the mechanisms causing electrical resistance. Electrons can bind into Cooper pairs in different ways, leading to different categories of superconductors.

...

“Our work establishes the electron orbitals as a third kind of pairing glue for electron pairs in superconductors, next to lattice vibrations and electron spins,” explains Shimojima

The linked Science article:

"We expect that the pairing mechanism
is not purely of phonon mediation but is closely
related to the spin fluctuations and/or orbital fluctuations."

Don't link to this article and tell me it says there are no Cooper pairs.

 

[!Kaggen]

Yay! Johan's back! I've been stuck reading religious crazy people posting, it's about time for some science.

You've got the right!!!

 

[johanfprins]

You linked to an article, saying that this article supports your theory.

The article says there are Cooper pairs.

I did not dispute the latter sentence: What I maintain is that it supports my model since suddenly all the hoo-ha about must have phonons and then must have spins evaporate. Obviously the authors are brainwashed and indoctrinated like all the "experts" on superconduction are. I do note that the authors are not able to give a model to explain how "orbitals" can now suddenly act as the "glue". If they had any brains they should have asked whether this result does not prove that no "glue" is needed. But I suppose that physicists having such an open mind have all died off after Einstein.

Don't link to this article and tell me it says there are no Cooper pairs.

Until they can model how these so-called Cooper pairs are being "glued" together, the results are also supporting the option that Cooper pairs do not exist. It is quite logically simple; but I suppose it is above your intellectual capacity. Which does not surprise me one bit!

 

[ben m]

I did not dispute the latter sentence: What I maintain is that it supports my model since suddenly all the hoo-ha about must have phonons and then must have spins evaporate.

Nonsense.

First, there is no "must have phonons" "hoo-ha". Non-phonon models suffered some neglected between 1957 and 1986, but that was a long time ago. Cuprates and pnictides have always been viewed as likely non-phonon-mediated.

Second, there is still "must have spins" "hoo-ha". This paper perpetuates that idea, not "evaporates" it.

Again, Johan, what's up? I cannot believe that you didn't know about this. If I'm being charitable, I'd say you oversimplified it to score a rhetorical point. You failed.

Obviously the authors are brainwashed and indoctrinated like all the "experts" on superconduction are.

Your only evidence for this is that they agree with each other and disagree with you. You know another reason that might happen? That's what would happen if you were wrong and they were right.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again, Johan, what's up? I cannot believe that you didn't know about this. If I'm being charitable, I'd say you oversimplified it to score a rhetorical point.

That's being extremely charitable.

 

[johanfprins]

Nonsense.

First, there is no "must have phonons" "hoo-ha". Non-phonon models suffered some neglected between 1957 and 1986, but that was a long time ago. Cuprates and pnictides have always been viewed as likely non-phonon-mediated.

Second, there is still "must have spins" "hoo-ha". This paper perpetuates that idea, not "evaporates" it.

I disagree: It does not perpetuate this idea.

Again, Johan, what's up? I cannot believe that you didn't know about this. If I'm being charitable, I'd say you oversimplified it to score a rhetorical point. You failed.

Please read my model and stop trying to score rhetorical cheap points.

Your only evidence for this is that they agree with each other and disagree with you. You know another reason that might happen? That's what would happen if you were wrong and they were right.

If you want to believe this go ahead. If you are a REAL scientist, read my model on Josephson tunnelling and try and reason science: Although I despair.

I will be back on Saturday.

 

[Reality Check]

I disagree: It does not perpetuate this idea.
Please read my model and stop trying to score rhetorical cheap points.
If you want to believe this go ahead. If you are a REAL scientist, read my model on Josephson tunnelling and try and reason science: Although I despair.

I will be back on Saturday.

johanfprins, why would anyone bother to read the works of someone who has shown himself to be mistaken about some basic physics?
For example, your inability to understand that the Schrodinger Equation for a single particle is obviously for a single particle because it has only the coordinates for a single particle in the wave function.

A REAL scientist does not waste their time reading whatever physics cranks demand that they read.

A REAL scientist uses their time productively by reading actual published sceince that is valid enough to have convinced a couple of experts in the field that there are no obvious mistakes.

 

[Ziggurat]

If you want to believe this go ahead. If you are a REAL scientist, read my model on Josephson tunnelling and try and reason science: Although I despair.

I skimmed it. It's complete and utter nonsense. It suffers the same fatal flaws which we've pointed out to you time and time again. Internal contradictions like claiming the presence of an electric field even with zero voltage. Basic mechanics fails like claiming circular motion without acceleration. You've learned nothing. And likely forgotten a hell of a lot from your more youthful days.

Whatever capacity to do physics you once had, it's now gone. That's actually quite tragic. I'm honestly sorry for your loss. But stop turning that tragedy into a farce.

 

[ben m]

I skimmed it. It's complete and utter nonsense.

Yep, skimming it now. It's godawful.

I don't see any super in your superconductor, Johan. It looks like you wrote down a vague sketch of what physicists would call a tight-binding model, then simply assert, without any worthwhile calculations, that this model has zero resistance, and sometimes an isotope effect, and a critical temperature.

There's so little physics there, it's hard to find something detailed enough to criticize.

 

[CaveDave]

I AM NOW DEEPLY IN MOURNING FOR THE EVIDENT DEATH OF READING COMPREHENSION IN WHAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE INTELLIGENT PEOPLE...R.I.P.

...
To see that my mechanism can model ALL superconductors EVER discovered; and does not require Cooper pairs to do so::

www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/SingleMechanism.pdf

For recent experimental evidence that Cooper pairs do not exist, see:

www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-superconductivity-side-unmasked.html
...

However, at the very top of the page YOU linked to was a diagram of 3 types of Cooper pairing mechanisms with this caption:

Superconductivity's third side unmasked

Figure 1: The three types of glue for superconducting electrons: lattice vibrations (top), electron spin (middle), and fluctuations between two electron orbitals (zx and yz) (bottom). The yellow spheres represent Cooper pairs of electrons. © 2011 Shik Shin

Then the VERY FIRST paragraph said:

Superconductivity in a material arises when two electrons bind together into so-called Cooper pairs. This pairing leads to a gap in the energy spectrum of the superconducting material, which makes the electrons insensitive to the mechanisms causing electrical resistance. Electrons can bind into Cooper pairs in different ways, leading to different categories of superconductors.

---

I couldn't help noticing the first pair of comments seem to be from some disciple of jfp's, as WE KNOW he would never post under any false name, don't we?.

It is amusing (and perhaps instructive) that there is Vitriol aimed at MAINSTREAM SCIENCE in these replies PLUS an added bonus of:

cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel with S. Foccardi

.

These gave me some chuckles.

orgon
Jun 17, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (6)
The solid state physics still suffers with cognitive bias of BCS theory in concept of "gluing". These electrons are repulsive, they must be compressed mutually and just this compression is, what makes the pairing and gluing of electrons in various orbitals. For example J.F.Prins revealed, above surface of semiconductor the free electrons can be compressed with electric field into superfluid even at room temperature.

In general, when some phenomena manifests with at least three different reasons, then it's already apparent, the common deeper origin of these three mechanisms is somewhere else. The causality arrow must be traced in direction from many to single explanation.

Mainstream physics is not particularly good in mutual reconciliation of its theories from psychosocial reasons: the theorists have strong egos and the more theories they maintain, the more people can keep their jobs (as R. Wilson, a former president of APS recognized before many years).

And:

orgon
Jun 17, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
IMO the finding of Prins is analogous to finding of cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel with S. Foccardi before twenty years. The twenty years, which we wasted in useless research, while burning the rest of fossil fuel sources.

http://www.lenr-c...xces.pdf

The finding of Prins opened whole new way, how to think about superconductivity. The important is, this way is much more opened to practical applications, then the theoretical studies above. For example, we could prepare a superconductive layer of electrons just with attracting them to the well insulated wire with high external voltage. The electrons will form a compact layer above the surface of insulator, which can be even switched on and off with external voltage. We shouldn't bother with some superconductors at all - we just need a sufficiently compact insulator. J.F.Prins used the diamond layers by accident, but his finding was never attempted to reproduce in peer-reviewed press.

Other replies mentioned Prins, but I don't know if they were supporters or neutral; one of them, at one point, said:

There is a name for the explanations given by the commentators:
Rorschach.
Stuff happens during free association.

Which then brought on a long back-and-forth that seemed to be about the"ignorance" of some posters.

It also appears that jfp himself posted a couple of replies, seemed like more of the same as in this thread, though.

Overall: Instructive.

Cheers,

Dave

 

[Cuddles]

There has been a lot of nonsense posted on this thread

Yes. Yes there has.

 

[johanfprins]

For example, your inability to understand that the Schrodinger Equation for a single particle is obviously for a single particle because it has only the coordinates for a single particle in the wave function.

Again you jump in without defining what a "single particle" is: And you call yourself a scientist? The coordinates are those for a single wave which occupies a region in space and is therefore a field NOT a particle; whatever this undefined term means.

A REAL scientist does not waste their time reading whatever physics cranks demand that they read.

A REAL scientist does not use undefined concepts and is always willing to consider new ideas; no matter how crackpot he/she might find them at first.

A REAL scientist uses their time productively by reading actual published sceince that is valid enough to have convinced a couple of experts in the field that there are no obvious mistakes.

A REAL scientist always questions the validity of any accepted dogma or else he/she is a religious fundamentalist. Experts can be wrong and have been wrong many times in the past: Remember tectonic plates?

 

[johanfprins]

I skimmed it. It's complete and utter nonsense. It suffers the same fatal flaws which we've pointed out to you time and time again.

I suppose you are talking about SingleMechanism.pdf?

Internal contradictions like claiming the presence of an electric field even with zero voltage.

Please quote from the manuscript where I have done this? Page number etc. please.

Basic mechanics fails like claiming circular motion without acceleration.

I did not discuss this topic in SingleMechanism.pdf So you are again blatantly lying as you have done time and again on this forum. Have you got no shame whatsoever?

 

[johanfprins]

Yep, skimming it now. It's godawful.

I don't see any super in your superconductor, Johan. It looks like you wrote down a vague sketch of what physicists would call a tight-binding model, then simply assert, without any worthwhile calculations,

so you admit that you are not able to understand the equations I have derived from Heisenberg's relationship for energy and time: It figures: You obviously have never encountered a quadratic rquation in your life!

that this model has zero resistance, and sometimes an isotope effect, and a critical temperature.

only in my model does the charge-carriers move without generating a permanent increase in kinetic energy that has to be dissipated. This is not the case for the BCS model or any other previous model.

There's so little physics there, it's hard to find something detailed enough to criticize.

An intellegent mind only needs half a word: An idiot needs an infinite number of words and still does not understand. And in your case it is not being an idiot but being unwilling to have an open mind. My book was not written to be a text book. If you are not intellegent enough to follow it and fill in gaps, then blame your own intellectual shortcomings not mine!

The fact is that the phase-transition to form a superconductor is a metal-insulator phase transition. You first form a Mott-type insulator. Within a metal it occurs when the Fermi-level moves through a mobility-edge, and in the ceramics the Mott-insulator forms gradually until it reaches a high enough density of orbitals; hence a pseudogap.

 

[johanfprins]

However, at the very top of the page YOU linked to was a diagram of 3 types of Cooper pairing mechanisms with this caption:
Then the VERY FIRST paragraph said:

So what? If they are not able to interpret their results correctly it surely does not bar me from giving the correct interpretation.

I couldn't help noticing the first pair of comments seem to be from some disciple of jfp's, as WE KNOW he would never post under any false name, don't we?.

Correct! I will not post under another name and will most definitely not use different names as if I am different persons. I will never stoop so low but leave it to persons like Ben m, ziggurat etc. They can obviously live with a bad conscience: I cannot.

 

[Ziggurat]

I suppose you are talking about SingleMechanism.pdf?

Yes.

Please quote from the manuscript where I have done this? Page number etc. please.

That's really the problem, isn't it? You don't even know the meaning of what you wrote. Oh, and by the way, you made this a secured PDF, which makes quoting a pain in the rear. I don't know why you did that either.

Page 1:

When a superconducting-current flows, the voltage measured across any two contacts to the material through which the current flows becomes identically zero while the charge-carriers move with a constant average speed

That claim is plainly wrong (again, induction. Do you have any idea how superconducting magnets actually operate?), but that wasn't my point. My point was that you contradicted yourself, so I will now demonstrate that. On page 2, you said,

Each charge-carrier must be a matter-wave (orbital) which is anchored by an opposite charge at a localised position so that it becomes polarized when an electric-field is present within the material: Only in this way can such an electric-field not accelerate these charge-carriers. If the charge-carriers are not anchored, they will always be accelerated by an applied electric-field: Superconduction which mandates the movement of charge-carriers without being accelerated by an electric-field can then not occur.

But if there's no electric field at all, which is what you previously claimed, then why are you looking for an explanation of how you can prevent an electric field from accelerating charge carriers? You just said that THERE IS NO FIELD! You contradicted yourself.

I did not discuss this topic in SingleMechanism.pdf So you are again blatantly lying as you have done time and again on this forum. Have you got no shame whatsoever?

Page 7:

It should, however, be crystal clear that the only way in which an electric current can keep on flowing around a ring without requiring continuous acceleration, must be by means of perpetual motion!

So not only is this statement ridiculously wrong (ANY circular motion requires constant acceleration, or it's not circular), you're not even aware that you wrote it. But despite not knowing what you yourself wrote, you feel confident in calling me a liar. Have you got no shame whatsoever?

 

[johanfprins]

Yes.That's really the problem, isn't it? You don't even know the meaning of what you wrote. Oh, and by the way, you made this a secured PDF, which makes quoting a pain in the rear. I don't know why you did that either.

I apologise that it is secure: I will check with my webmaster as soon as possible.

Page 1: "When a superconducting-current flows, the voltage measured across any two contacts to the material through which the current flows becomes identically zero while the charge-carriers move with a constant average speed"That claim is plainly wrong (again, induction.

Where did they measure a voltage? Please supply experimental proof

Do you have any idea how superconducting magnets actually operate?), but that wasn't my point.

Do you?

My point was that you contradicted yourself, so I will now demonstrate that. On page 2, you said, "Each charge-carrier must be a matter-wave (orbital) which is anchored by an opposite charge at a localised position so that it becomes polarized when an electric-field is present within the material: Only in this way can such an electric-field not accelerate these charge-carriers. If the charge-carriers are not anchored, they will always be accelerated by an applied electric-field: Superconduction which mandates the movement of charge-carriers without being accelerated by an electric-field can then not occur."

Where did I contradict myself: If you have "free" charge-carriers and an electric-field is present, they will be accelerated; and unless you are an utter fool, you must know that when charge-carriers are being accelerated by an electric-field they will generate kinetic energy which MUST dissipate: So NO superconduction!!

But if there's no electric field at all, which is what you previously claimed, then why are you looking for an explanation of how you can prevent an electric field from accelerating charge carriers?

Because if they are free charge-carriers an electric-field will accelerate them and then superconduction will be impossible.

You just said that THERE IS NO FIELD! You contradicted yourself.

There is no field when a superconducting current is flowing: But there is an electric-field when there is no current flowing AND in order for the material not to be a normal conductor, the charge-carriers must under these conditions remain stationary when there is an electric-field without the simultaneous injection of charge-carriers. The material must then be an insulator: This is also demonstrated by Josephson-tunnelling: When there is no current flowing between zero-voltage and the voltage at which normal conduction kicks in, the superconducting layers are insulators. The voltage at which normal conduction kicks in marks an insulator-to-conductor transition.

Page 7: "It should, however, be crystal clear that the only way in which an electric current can keep on flowing around a ring without requiring continuous acceleration, must be by means of perpetual motion!".So not only is this statement ridiculously wrong (ANY circular motion requires constant acceleration, or it's not circular),

Prove this wrong: You cannot.

you're not even aware that you wrote it.

I am aware that I wrote this, but it has nothing to do with acceleration caused by a centripetal force as you want to claim. Such accelleration WILL radiate away energy and the current can then not proceed indefinitely.

But despite not knowing what you yourself wrote, you feel confident in calling me a liar. Have you got no shame whatsoever?

I decided to remove the last sentence and apologise if you found it offensive.