Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Reality Check]

Which question?

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Real problem there: What does this say about your published papers?

You cannot have it both ways: either the peer review process works in which case your papers are grain, or it does not in which case it is likely that some of your papers are chaff.

But maybe you have been publishing dogma all of these years !

To put it another way: If the peer review process does not work then how can you, me or anyone else be sure that your published papers were correct?
Maybe all of your work is wrong because it fits the dogma of the reviewer !

To put it yet another way:
How did you determine that the dogma of the reviewers that accepted your papers waas correct while the dogma of the reviewers that rejected your papers was wrong?

As it is it looks like a case of sour grapes. You label wth reviewers who rejected your papers with 'dogma' when what they are really doing is saying that you have not presented a strong enough case.

(1) When I first tried to publish my model of superconduction, this was the response from a referee: “The microscopic mechanism for the description of low temperature superconductors (s-pairing) is known since 1957. This mechanism describes well all known experimental data on low-temperature superconductors (the latter cliam is obviously a blatant lie) and it is text book material. Therefore there is no need to consider a new mechanism for the low temperature superconductors”.

Is this the complete response?
That the existing mechanism is text book material and explains the known experimental data (maybe not all) is a blatant truth.

(2) After trying many other journals and getting similar responses, I was advised to try Proc. Roy. Soc. A, since the Royal Society supposedly has impeccable integrity, and “will” thus only judge my manuscript on its own merit. This is the response: “In the conventional pairing theory the description of electromagnetism of superconductors is remarkably complicated and goes far beyond the London approach. Being not an expert of this theory, I can’t say how this formalism explains the cancellation of a static electric-field, but I would be very surprised if it really can’t do so.”

All this says is that this was the wrong person to review your paper.

Did the two peer reviewers that I have quoted above examined my manuscripts “on its own merit”, and then rejected it by giving scientifically well motivated reasons why?

So you just got 2 responses from 2 submissions? That seems strange - where are the other responses?

The second referee only refers to my discussion of the London model in my manuscript, totally ignoring my discussion of the BCS model etc. and my alternative model: And reject my manuscript by admitting that he/she “is not an expert”. But since he would be "surprised" my manuscript must be wrong.

He did not reject your manuscript. The editor rejected your manuscript. Hopefully he ignored the reviewer because of the mistake in passing the paper to them.

 

[Reality Check]

More questions.
As far as I can see the last experiments that indicated superconductivity in room temperature doped diamond were done by you in 2003. That was just a resistivity measurement (so you may have discovered the first perfect conductor not a superconductor!). To show superconductivity you needed further measurements, e.g. of the Meissner effect. However you retired before this was done.

Has anyone else in the scientific community in the last 8 years duplicated your results?
Have they shown that there is actual superconductivity?

 

[Loss Leader]

I admire your willingness to argue physics; and hope you will never give up thinking about it.

I have conducted further experiments along the lines that have been suggested and would be glad to post my results if you are interested.

 

[Perpetual Student]

I have conducted further experiments along the lines that have been suggested and would be glad to post my results if you are interested.

First, face the reality that your conductor caused the batteries to last longer because less power was drawn, meaning there was less current, which (because of Ohm's law) tells us that the resistance was higher (not lower) for your conductor.
Then, post more results that show you understand this.

 

[johanfprins]

Originally Posted by johanfprins
Which question?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reality Check
Real problem there: What does this say about your published papers?

You cannot have it both ways: either the peer review process works in which case your papers are grain, or it does not in which case it is likely that some of your papers are chaff.

And then I explained to you in detail that the peer review system DOES NOT WORK when you have results that threaten accepted dogma. It seems that you have a severe comprehension problem. Not in a single case have any of my manuscripts on superconduction been rejected by pointing out any mistake in my physics. The rejection has always been based on claiming that the BCS model is the final word on the subject. Thus all the reviewers proved that they are not real physicists: A real physicist (which you are not) will NEVER, NEVER, NEVER assume that ANY model is EVER the final word. Even if the existing model does explain all the experimental facts (which the BCS model does not) then any other model which also explains the facts must be published, or else you are not reviewing but censoring.

But maybe you have been publishing dogma all of these years!

I have explained very clearly and in length above why I succeeded to publish excellent papers during the 1980's and 1990's, since it was a new field and there did not yet exist dogma that the so-called "experts" wanted to protect. But as the field grew and certain schools, like the Technion and its associates worldwide, gained control of the field and propagated their dogma as the final word, I found it more and more difficult to get any results published which are at variance with what the Technion and similar “experts” wanted the scientific community to believe.

To put it another way: If the peer review process does not work then how can you, me or anyone else be sure that your published papers were correct?

Obviously, you will not be able to judge if this is so since your knowledge of physics is appallingly non-existent. But any person who knows his/her physics, like I do, will be able to read the manuscripts and judge for themselves; and where they do not agree they will contact me and we can have a high-level discussion. Unfortunately it is not possible to follow this route with somebody like you who knows less about physics than an ape knows about religion.

Maybe all of your work is wrong because it fits the dogma of the reviewer !

If you publish in a new field, like I have done between 1982 and 2002, then there is initially no dogma which the reviewers want to protect: But as I have already pointed out above, as this field developed it became more and more difficult to publish results at variance with the self-appointed "experts" in the field. From 1995, I have had great difficulty to get my best papers published since the peer reviewers consistently rejected it for spurious reasons. Fortunately, during the middle 1990's, there were still a few editors with brains. Now the editors are mostly lightweights like Dr. Karen Southwell of Nature, Dr. Ian Osborne of Science, and Sir Professor Michael Berry of Proc. Roy. Soc A.

To put it yet another way:
How did you determine that the dogma of the reviewers that accepted your papers was correct

At that stage the dogma was still being developed

while the dogma of the reviewers that rejected your papers was wrong?

Since my results proved that what they are protecting by rejecting my manuscripts, is wrong: But more convincing is the fact that in these cases they never rejected my manuscripts in terms of their scientific content, but always by actually arguing that my results cannot be correct since it is at variance with accepted established dogma (as in the examples I gave above). NOT in a single case was there ANY argument based on REAL physics to motivate the rejection.

As it is it looks like a case of sour grapes. You label wth reviewers who rejected your papers with 'dogma' when what they are really doing is saying that you have not presented a strong enough case.

If you want to believe this without first verifying all the facts, then you are a dangerous fool. But this has been your profile all along on this thread: You want to believe what you want to believe and do not want to be confused with facts.

Is this the complete response?

The rest of the response is based on this main argument.

That the existing mechanism is text book material and explains the known experimental data (maybe not all) is a blatant truth.

It is a blatant lie since, as I have pointed out and proved in all my manuscripts on my model for superconduction, the text book mechanism cannot explain where the kinetic energy for the charge carriers come from when there is no electric field to accelerate them. This is the defining characteristic of superconduction (LONG before the Meissner effect was discovered for certain superconductors), and this defining characteristic cannot be, and has NEVER been modelled by the text book material. Thus the text book material is fundamentally totally flawed.

All this says is that this was the wrong person to review your paper.

Yes and this is the rule when you try and publish any results, no matter how compelling the results are, which are at variance with the accepted dogma in an established field: You then always get a "wrong person". This is why "anonymous" peer review is corrupt. It allows the same situation that occurs when a person is sitting on a tender board as well as anonymously submitting a tender to the same tender board.

The only way to remove this corruption, which is endemic in anonymous peer review, is for the reviewer not to know who the author is while the author knows who the peer reviewer is; and to make the name and comments of the peer reviewer accessible for everybody to quote in future.

So you just got 2 responses from 2 submissions? That seems strange - where are the other responses?

I wrote above that I have many more: Are you now calling me a liar? I also told you that many of these cases are summarised in my book: But of course you will not read what is in my book unless these same peer reviewers that I expose in my book allow you to read it: You obviously need their permission since you must be realising that your own insight in physics is so pathetic that you are unable to decide for yourself what is good and what is bad physics.

He did not reject your manuscript. The editor rejected your manuscript.

How do YOU know this? Have you been party to what has happened? Would the editor have rejected it if the peer reviewer accepted it?

Hopefully he ignored the reviewer because of the mistake in passing the paper to them.

The reviewer did recommend that it should not be published because he/she would be "surprised" if the BCS model cannot explain how a current can flow without an electric field generating kinetic energy. Furthermore, he/she claimed he/she "is not an expert". But still felt "expert" enough to recommend that it should not be published. And the editor followed his/her advice.

 

[Ziggurat]

First, face the reality that your conductor caused the batteries to last longer because less power was drawn, meaning there was less current, which (because of Ohm's law) tells us that the resistance was higher (not lower) for your conductor.
Then, post more results that show you understand this.

I think Loss Leader is engaging in a sort of forum performance art. Leave him be, and let's see what he does next.

 

[The Don]

So to parse this thread (I dip in about once a week for a few minutes)

• It started off assessing the likelihood of room temperature superconductivity based on Johan Prins' credibility and inability to be published and unwillingness or inability to reproduce the results
• It then went through a long period of actual physics in which Johan Prins' claims and knowledge of physics were torn to threads
• We have now returned to an assessment of Johan Prins' credibility and inability to be published and unwillingness or inability to reproduce the results

Please let me know when we cycle back to the physics portion again, I'll recycle some of the more erudite posts, and claim them as my own

My first post in this thread:

He may have found room temperature conductivity (sic) but......

- Why is he (self) publishing books rather than papers ?
- Why isn't he prominently associated with a major university or other research institute ?
- Why is he promoting via a website ?

If he has found room temperature superconductivity or made major steps towards it, the world would be beating a path to his door.

....and the answer is that he has found nothing but a dodgy experiment and rather than admitting this he would prefer to re-invent physics badly from the ground up.

 

[Loss Leader]

First, face the reality that your conductor caused the batteries to last longer because less power was drawn, meaning there was less current, which (because of Ohm's law) tells us that the resistance was higher (not lower) for your conductor.

I freely admit that I did not understand enough electrical engineering to properly conduct my experiment. I would ask that you please disregard my results. I no longer consider the experiment successful in any way.

Then, post more results that show you understand this.

I have conducted a further experiment. I wound my wire tightly into a flat spiral. It measured 1.8" in diameter (including a 0.2" hole in the center. I connected the wire to a 6 Volt lantern battery and a flashlight bulb. I then busted the magnet out of a small micro-cassette tape eraser of this sort.

Placed above my coil, the magnet floated free about 1.5" above. Such lasted for as long as I cared to experiment - about 22 hours when I grabbed the magnet.

When I placed the magnet down directly on the coil, it just sat there and was not repelled.

I hope this experiment proves more useful in demonstrating the properties of my wire.

 

[tsig]

I freely admit that I did not understand enough electrical engineering to properly conduct my experiment. I would ask that you please disregard my results. I no longer consider the experiment successful in any way.





I have conducted a further experiment. I wound my wire tightly into a flat spiral. It measured 1.8" in diameter (including a 0.2" hole in the center. I connected the wire to a 6 Volt lantern battery and a flashlight bulb. I then busted the magnet out of a small micro-cassette tape eraser of this sort.

Placed above my coil, the magnet floated free about 1.5" above. Such lasted for as long as I cared to experiment - about 22 hours when I grabbed the magnet.

When I placed the magnet down directly on the coil, it just sat there and was not repelled.

I hope this experiment proves more useful in demonstrating the properties of my wire.

I'd like to point out a few errors.

You need to use a half wave DC power supply rather than a battery in order to achieve the ripple effect. You really need to use a voltmeter across the power supply and the coil to account for electron level variance. An ammeter would be helpful to show the coulombs per second aren't interfering with the current flow. Lastly, though not essential, a wattmeter with precision readout would help and add another column of data(makes your report that much more impressive).

I hope you take these suggestions in the spirit they're offered (_{I'm so superior to you I feel like I'm talking to an amoeba).}

Yours in professional courtesy, tsig.

 

[randman]

johan, you are absolutely correct about certain fields and subfields becoming dominated by an existing paradigm and political mentality that basically just seeks to protect the existing paradigm.

In some cases, peer-review is broken. We may need something a little better. Some have argued for a more interdisciplinary approach they call peer to peer review where those not directly in the subfield also review papers. With the recent global warming scandals where a very small group of scientists had undue influence over what would be published and eventually were unmasked outside of the peer-reviewed process by those in other fields as well as some peer reviewed work in the field, a broader review of data helped correct some horrible science. Of course, it also took some hacker to illegally obtain and spill email communications.

 

[johanfprins]

More questions.
As far as I can see the last experiments that indicated superconductivity in room temperature doped diamond were done by you in 2003.

Not correct. Although I have not had funding I did do more experiments and are planning more if money and time allows.

That was just a resistivity measurement

NO!!! It was not “just a resistivity measurement”. Only a fool like Archie Campbell at the University of Cambridge will think that a resistance measurement is enough, or that my experiment was based on a resistance measurement. A resistivity measurement on its own CAN NEVER prove that the electric-field within the phase is zero. WHY? Because to measure resistivity you must in the first instance measure voltage and there is no voltmeter anywhere in the universe that can be used to measure an absolute zero voltage.

You must thus prove by other measurements that the electric field MUST be zero. The “experts” think that a measurement of the Meissner effect proves that this is so; but this not the case. It has NEVER been proved that a superconductor MUST always have a Meissner effect. Neither has it been proved that a material with non-zero resistance cannot ever have a Meissner effect. Thus the Meissner effect does not prove that there is no electric-field when an equilibrium current is flowing; and therefore it does not prove that superconduction is actually occurring.

(so you may have discovered the first perfect conductor not a superconductor!)

What is the difference between a “perfect conductor” and a “superconductor”? Please define this if you are able to do so; which I suspect you cannot. Kamerlingh Onnes discovered a sudden drop in voltage and concluded that the voltage must be zero even though the Meissner effect was only discovered after his death. I agree that he had no proof that the voltage was actually zero: But since then, there is only one fundamental definition for a superconduction: Namely, it is a phase through which a current can flow without any electric field driving the current. If you can prove this, you have REAL PROOF that you have a superconductor, even if you might find that the material does NOT show a Meissner effect; or any other effect that the low-temperature superconductors show.

To show superconductivity you needed further measurements, e.g. of the Meissner effect. However you retired before this was done.

Firstly to measure a Meissner effect I would have had to redesign my apparatus and I could not raise any sponsorship to date in order to do this. But why do I need to prove the Meissner effect? All that one has to prove is that an electric field cannot be anything else BUT ZERO when an equilibrium current flows through such a material. If you can do this, you do not need ANY other experimental measurement: And my experiment is the very first in the history of superconduction that proves that it is impossible that there can be an electric field within the electron phase between the diamond surface and the anode while an equilibrium current is flowing through the circuit that contains this phase as an element of the circuit. This has NEVER been done for any other “superconducting” material before. But my result is being ridiculed instead of all the other results that could not prove this defining characteristic.

Why can I claim that the electric field must be zero in my experiment? Since the conduction-band electrons within my n-type diamond is at a higher energy than the vacuum level outside when there is no surface to the vacuum. Thus, when generating a surface to the vacuum, these electrons will experience an electric-field across the surface (owing to the difference in energy between the conduction-band and the vacuum level) which attracts them to flow out and to leave positive charges behind within a depletion-layer just under the surface. This depletion-layer grows in width as more and more electrons flow out; which can happen as long as they can tunnel through the positive depletion-layer. The extracted electrons are attracted back to the surface by the positive charges within the depletion-layer and thus form a layer of electrons outside the surface. A dipole thus forms across the surface which generates a polarisation-field that opposes the outflow of the electrons. Once the depletion-layer becomes too wide (so that tunnelling becomes impossible) electron-flow to the outside will stop. But since there is now a polarisation field across the surface caused by the positive depletion layer and the external electrons outside the surface, this polarisation-field cancels part of the original electric field which initially caused the electrons to flow out.

However, if you have a high enough density of donors below the surface, the electrons will keep on tunnelling out until the polarisation field caused by the depletion layer and the external electrons totally cancels the original electric field which was generated at the instant that the surface was generated: THIS MEANS THAT THERE IS NOW NO ELECTRIC-FIELD WITHIN THE DIPOLE: I.E THERE IS NO ELECTRIC-FIELD WITHIN THE DEPLETION LAYER AND ALSO NOT WITHIN THE EXTERNAL LAYER OF ELECTRONS! Can you follow this simple argument or is it, as I suspect, waaaay above your intellectual capacity.

Now guess what happens when you next apply an electric-field by means of an external anode. The equilibrium ZERO electric-field within the dipole is now disturbed and more electrons are extracted. As long as the depletion layer stays thin enough so that internal electrons can tunnel through it, more electrons will be added to the external layer of electrons: The dipole size increases and this increases the polarisation field generated by the dipole until it now also cancels the applied anode field. If you now increase the anode field further, more electrons will be ejected to also cancel this increase in the anode field; and as long as the depletion layer stays thin enough to allow tunnelling, the external electron-layer will become thicker; and can even be extracted right up to the interface of the anode. When stopping at this point you still have a dipole with no electric-field within it since its polarisation field cancels the original surface field as well as the applied anode field.

If you now slightly increase the anode potential, the electrons will enter the anode and a current will start to flow. But, since the Fermi-level within the anode is at a lower energy than the energy of the electrons outside the anode (just before they are pulled into the anode), this current flow results in an electric field appearing between the diamond surface and the anode. Thus, electrons are now accelerated from the diamond into the anode, and this increase in kinetic energy during their passage from the diamond to the anode causes measurable Brehmstralung. But it also causes the number of electrons within this gap to suddenly decrease when the current initiates. Thus the current initially jumps up, and then switches off. But since there is now an electric-field within the gap, the depletion layer (as long as tunnelling can occur through it) grows in width and dumps more electrons into the space between the diamond and the anode. The current then jumps again and falls away, and more electrons are dumped into the gap. This unstable non-equilibrium current jumps can be easily measured and they proceed until equilibrium is reached. And the latter is only reached when there is no electric field present within the gap anymore.

You then have an element within the electric circuit in which it is totally impossible to have an electric field present. So what happens? Should this absence of an electric field not stop current flow altogether. But what then happens to the electrons within the gap? They will start pushing each other out of the gap; and the depletion layer will immediately dump more electrons into the gap. So they have no choice but to find a way to form a stable configuration within the gap. What is observed is that a black rod forms “instantaneously” between the diamond and the anode and an equilibrium current flows even though it is impossible that there can be an electric-field; since the presence of such a field must cause erratic jumping in the current. Furthermore, there is now no Brehmstraalung which shows that the electrons within the gap are transferring a current without being accelerated. Thus, this is the first proof ever, that a current is flowing through a phase while it is impossible that there is an electric-field within the phase.

Has anyone else in the scientific community in the last 8 years duplicated your results?

Yes! Our electric utility company ESKOM funded Prof. Terry Doyle, who for many years did research on superconduction here in South Africa, to build his own apparatus and repeat the measurements on diamonds that they asked me to prepare for him. He did not just repeat my results but it was also he who first measured the Brehmstralung-spectrum. He is also the first to take photographs of the black rod. At one point he made the “mistake” to use a magnetic-steel for his anode, and found that powder was being sputtered from this steel which floated around the black rod. This can be explained by the Meissner effect.

But Terry Doyle refuses point blank to write a report on his findings since he wants to believe that it cannot be superconduction but contamination caused by “dusty plasmas”. I contacted an expert on ”dusty plasmas” who is of the opinion that it can never be a “dusty plasma”. Furthermore, in all my experiments I NEVER found enough residual contamination to justify any interpretation in terms of contamination. In my apparatus the anode is spring loaded and can thus be gently lowered onto the diamond surface. Terry Doyle did not add this feature to his apparatus and thus “crunches” his anode into the diamond surface. Naturally he thus has more contamination, but it is still not enough to ascribe the effect to contamination. Taking cognisance of the fact that just before the formation of the phase, there are definitely electrons accelerating from the diamond to the anode; it is highly unlikely that a rod will suddenly form from anything else than the electrons. Furthermore, when you suddenly increase the gap, the rood breaks and its parts are sucked back into the diamond and the anode.

But even of Terry Doyle wants to interpret his results as “a dusty plasma”, why does he not write a report for his highly frustrated sponsors as originally agreed? To me there is only one explanation: To write a report he must commit himself one way or the other. He does not want to commit himself to agreeing that it is, or even might be, superconduction since this means that most of his own publications on superconduction during the past 50 years, and those of his close friends at Cambridge University must then be wrong. So this will badly dent his “expertise” which might result in being ostracised as being a crackpot. Neither does he want to report that it is not superconduction, since he is too afraid that this conclusion will be proved wrong with time. So it seems that he is just wishing that the whole issue will go away, or that he dies from smoking too many cigarettes before he has to commit himself one way or the other.

Have they shown that there is actual superconductivity?

As explained above, I have already proved ten years ago that it must be so since if it is not so, all the models used to calculate interface interactions in Solid State Electronics must be wrong: And we know that this is the best established field in modern physics ever.

 

[Reality Check]

And then I explained to you in detail that the peer review system DOES NOT WORK when you have results that threaten accepted dogma.

Wrong: That is your assertion, not explanation.
In fact the per review process DOES WORK when there are results that 'threaten accepted dogma'. The reason that this happens is that the authors have the competence to produce evidence that overturns the accepted theories.
For example, high temperature superconductivity was thought to be ruled out by BSC theory. So according to you the papers reporting it should have been rejected. They were not rejected because they showed conclusively that superconductivity was happening. Interestingly the first paper (J. G. Bednorz, K. A. Mueller (1986). "Possible high TC superconductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system". Zeitschrift für Physik B 64 (2): 189–193. Bibcode 1986ZPhyB..64..189B. doi:10.1007/BF01303701.) reports a 3 orders of magnitude decrease in resistivity at ~30K but no other signature of superconductivity.

The rest of the response is based on this main argument.

And the rest of the response is where?

It is a blatant lie since, as I have pointed out and proved in all my manuscripts on my model for superconduction, the text book mechanism cannot explain where the kinetic energy for the charge carriers come from when there is no electric field to accelerate them.

Thta is a blatent lie bacuse that is not what the reviewer stated: "This mechanism describes well all known experimental data on low-temperature superconductors". That is nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the charge carriers.




I would think that it is obvious where the kinetic energy comes from in a superconductor that has a current: the original electric field that created the current.

1. Freeze the superconuctor unitl it superconducts.
2. There is no current.
3. Apply an electric field.
4. The charge carriers (Cooper pairs) are accelerated by the electric field producting a current. They have kinetic energy.
5. Remove the electric field.

I wrote above that I have many more: Are you now calling me a liar?

That is idiotic: I am just asking you where the other responses are.
I am not going to waste my money buying your book though. The extracts are enough to show how bad the sceince in it is and that a bit of it is just an excuse for you to insult the reviewers of your papers.

How do YOU know this?

Really dumb - it is always the editor who actually rejects a paper. The responses from the reviewers are an aid to the editors decision. The editor though usually follows the advice of the reviewers.

 

[Reality Check]

NO!!! It was not “just a resistivity measurement”.

Can you cote the published results of your further rxperimenat that are not "just resistivity measurements"?

It has NEVER been proved that a superconductor MUST always have a Meissner effect.

Citations that a superconductor need not show the Meissner effect?

What is the difference between a “perfect conductor” and a “superconductor”?

Perfect conductor

All known materials that are perfectly conductive also happen to be superconductors. The latter, in addition to having no electrical resistance, exhibit quantum effects such as the Meissner effect and quantization of magnetic flux through closed loops.

So the differences include

1. the Meissner effect
2. quantization of magnetic flux.

Yes! Our electric utility company ESKOM funded Prof. Terry Doyle
...But Terry Doyle refuses point blank to write a report on his findings since he wants to believe that it cannot be superconduction but contamination caused by “dusty plasmas”.

IOW: No !
An unpublished result is not confirmation of your results.

As explained above, I have already proved ten years ago that it must be so since if it is not so, all the models used to calculate interface interactions in Solid State Electronics must be wrong: And we know that this is the best established field in modern physics ever.

As explained in Solid State Electronics textbooks, you have not proved that your material is a superconductor. You may have shown that your material is a perfect conductor. That does not mean that it is a superconductor. You assume that it is a superconductor because you are following the dogma (assumption) that all perfect conductors are superconductors.

 

[Reality Check]

why should Dirac's equation's not be used for an electron

You missed this question, johanfprins:

Dirac's equation

1. is relativistically invariant.
2. is the correct equation to use for an electron because it describes a spin 1/2 particle.

So why should Dirac's equation's not be used for an electron?

(emphasis added)

 

[Reality Check]

Citation to your 'correct' equation for the electron

And related to the last question:
Can you cite

• your 'correct' relativistically invariant equation for an electron that is somehow better than Dirac's equation?

A link to the PDF and the pages where the equation is derived and shown to be relativistically invariant would be best.

 

[johanfprins]

johan, you are absolutely correct about certain fields and subfields becoming dominated by an existing paradigm and political mentality that basically just seeks to protect the existing paradigm.

You are far too generous to assume that there can be fields within which this will not happen. The anonymous peer review makes it inevitable that it must happen within all fields. And it has been consistently the case since 1927.

At present it is a roaring epidemic which is stopping scientific progress during an age where our very survival on this planet depends on new innovative ideas, even if in future it turns out that some of these ideas are wrong. If a referee cannot find obvious flaws in the physics and mathematics, but even so blocks publication because it questions accepted dogma, such a person is committing treason against everything science should maintain as being sacrosanct. In fact, this is such a criminal act that it should mandate the death penalty.

In some cases, peer-review is broken.

Eventually it is always the case for any scientific field. The peer review system makes it impossible to be otherwise.

We need something a little better.

A “little better” will not solve the problem: We need a massive turnaround and one of the first acts must be to close down in disgrace institutes, like the Royal Society of London, which committed treason against the ideals of its venerable founding fathers.

Some have argued for a more interdisciplinary approach they call peer to peer review where those not directly in the subfield also review papers.

I doubt that this would work: Persons outside a field are too scared to question the “wisdom” of the “experts” in the field. You will be surprised who I have approached and who could not find any mistake in my manuscripts, but refused to stand up for me since “it is outside his field”.

With the recent global warming scandals where a very small group of scientists had undue influence over what would be published and eventually were unmasked outside of the peer-reviewed process by those in other fields as well as some peer reviewed work in the field, a broader review of data helped correct some horrible science. Of course, it also took some hacker to illegally obtain and spill email communications.

Yes, this is only the tip of the iceberg. That hacker should be given a Nobel Prize for what he has done for science.

Add to this the notorious fact that through the ages it has been consistently the experts which got it wrong. For example, the “expert” in the USA on flight stated (after the Wright brothers demonstrated their flying machine) that the public must not think that one day there will be large flying machines carrying millions of passengers across the Atlantic Ocean. Flying will remain the hobby of the rich. Thank God the people did not all have the mentality of Reality Check or else we would not at present have had Boeing 747's and Airbuses ferrying millions of people across the Atlantic.

The one I enjoy the most about “experts” is the study that had been done in England, quite a few years ago, in which people doing different jobs were asked to predict the economy within three years time. After three years it was found that the economists (the “experts”) fared the worst, while the garbage collectors fared the best. It seems that you can tell more about the economy by looking at what people throw away, than using mathematical models. No wonder that professors in Economy can use exactly the same examination questions year after year; since the answers change every year.

Another incident that I enjoy is the following headline in a newspaper: “Plane crashes: Something went wrong says expert”. I suppose that if the expert did not say this, Reality Check would have believed that the plane crashed without anything having gone wrong.

 

[johanfprins]

Wrong: That is your assertion, not explanation.

What you are claiming is that you have had more experience than I have had? I am sorry but I did not know that if one lives in New Zealand and has written a mediocre paper under the supervision of a mediocre supervisor (who nobody of repute has ever heard of) and published in a backwater journal, you have more insight than a person who has submitted many manuscripts over many years. Can you not see how insane you really are?

In fact the per review process DOES WORK when there are results that 'threaten accepted dogma'.

Examples please? Or do you think that your mediocre manuscript “threatened accepted dogma”?

The reason that this happens is that the authors have the competence to produce evidence that overturns the accepted theories.

The fact that the authors have the real competence to produce evidence that overturns accepted dogma, is exactly the reason why such authors, with very few exceptions, are consistently prevented from publishing.

For example, high temperature superconductivity was thought to be ruled out by BSC theory. So according to you the papers reporting it should have been rejected. They were not rejected because they showed conclusively that superconductivity was happening. They were not rejected because they showed conclusively that superconductivity was happening. Interestingly the first paper (J. G. Bednorz, K. A. Mueller (1986). "Possible high TC superconductivity in the Ba-La-Cu-O system". Zeitschrift für Physik B 64 (2): 189–193. Bibcode 1986ZPhyB..64..189B. doi:10.1007/BF01303701.) reports a 3 orders of magnitude decrease in resistivity at ~30K but no other signature of superconductivity.

They DID NOT prove conclusively that superconduction was happening: Neither did they even claim conclusive superconduction and present arguments against the BCS model. If they claimed right from the start that their results prove that the BCS theory is wrong (which is in actual fact the correct decuction), they would not have had a snowball’s change in Hell to get their results published. So what are you trying to say?

And the rest of the response is where?

So you are again questioning my integrity. I am at the moment in Cape Town on holiday and the rest of the response is on my home computer. If other people on this thread also ask for it, I will post the whole response on this thread when I am back home in two weeks time: But I will not do so to satisfy your insulting behaviour and insane arguments.

Thta is a blatent lie bacuse that is not what the reviewer stated: "This mechanism describes well all known experimental data on low-temperature superconductors". That is nothing to do with the kinetic energy of the charge carriers.

So you are again mouthing off without having all the details! I am slowly getting tired of your buffoonery. What the reviewer stated is a blatant lie since the BCS model cannot explain how an electric field is cancelled, and how the charge-carriers can then convey charge without being accelerated. The fact that the reviewer is too stupid to figure this out does not mean it is not a blatant lie.

I would think that it is obvious where the kinetic energy comes from in a superconductor that has a current: the original electric field that created the current. [*]Freeze the superconuctor unitl it superconducts.
[*]There is no current.

How can it superconduct when there is no current? Superconduction IS the passing of a current.

[*]Apply an electric field.
[*]The charge carriers (Cooper pairs) are accelerated by the electric field producting a current. They have kinetic energy.

Why do they then stop being accelerated when a steady-sate current is flowing? If an electric-field accelerates charge-carriers, such charge-carriers can NEVER cancel the applied electric-field. This is primary school physics, my boy.

remove the electric field.

How do you remove the electric-field? By switching off the power supply? If you do this so that charge-carriers which can be accelerated are not being accelerated any more, the current will stop in its tracks even if there is no scattering of the charge-carriers.

That is idiotic: I am just asking you where the other responses are.
I am not going to waste my money buying your book though.

I do not expect you to buy my book. I agree it will be a waste of you money since your knowledge of physics is so appallingly mediocre that you will not be able to follow even the simplest arguments in this book. So your decision not to buy it is correct in your case.

The extracts are enough to show how bad the sceince in it is and that a bit of it is just an excuse for you to insult the reviewers of your papers.

So you claim that you have read the abstracts and did not see that the extract of section 23 already has many of the other “responses” you are asking for. Thus YOU ARE NOT ONLY INSANE YOU ARE ALSO A BLATANT LIAR!!! It is clear that you have NEVER even looked at the extracts on my website.

Really dumb - it is always the editor who actually rejects a paper. The responses from the reviewers are an aid to the editors decision. The editor though usually follows the advice of the reviewers.

And an editor will rarely IF EVER ignore the opinions of the reviewers. So you are again deliberately arguing misleading nonsense. Please try and really learn physics from a competent teacher, if you have such persons in New Zealand, or rather concentrate on tending sheep; if you are capapble of doing this simple task.

 

[johanfprins]

Can you cote the published results of your further rxperimenat that are not "just resistivity measurements"?

Not one of my experiments have been based on resistivity measurements since only a fool like for example Archie Campbell at Cambridge University will believe that you can prove superconduction my “measuring” a “zero voltage”. It is difficult not to insult you: Can you not get it through your thick skull that I cannot quote publications which have been consistently blocked from being published since 2003!

Citations that a superconductor need not show the Meissner effect?

Citations that prove that a superconductor must show the Meissner effect. The onus is on you not on me to prove this since it is YOUR claim that a superconductor must show the Meissner effect, not mine.

Perfect conductor

So the differences include

1. the Meissner effect
2. quantization of magnetic flux.

What this really states is that there could be superconductors which do not show the Meissner effect and the quantization of magnetic flux. And these are defined for some insane reason by an illogical moron as “perfect conductors”. This is not physics but idiotic semantics.

IOW: No !
An unpublished result is not confirmation of your results.

More semantics! You have asked if anybody has EVER repeated my results; which I supplied.

Why would unpublished results not be a confirmation of my results when the unpublished results reproduce my results? You ARE really insane.

As explained in Solid State Electronics textbooks, you have not proved that your material is a superconductor. You may have shown that your material is a perfect conductor. That does not mean that it is a superconductor.

Any material that conducts a current without an electric field driving the current IS according to the original definition by Kamerlingh Onnes, a superconductor. If such a material shows additional effects than a zero electric-field, like, for example, the Meissner effect, such a material belongs to a subclass of the definition of superconductors.

You assume that it is a superconductor because you are following the dogma (assumption) that all perfect conductors are superconductors.

All materials which conduct a current without an electric-field accelerating the charge-carriers are, according to Onnes’ original definition, superconductors. Where is the dogma involved? You are espousing unproved dogma that a superconductor must show the Meissner effect.

 

[johanfprins]

You missed this question, johanfprins:

(emphasis added)

The obvious relativistic property that a wave equation for an electron must have is that when solving it within different inertial reference frames which are moving with different speeds relative to the inertial reference frame within which the electron is stationary, the solutions must have different de Broglie wavelengths. The Dirac equation does not transform in this manner and must thus be relativistically wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

What this really states is that there could be superconductors which do not show the Meissner effect and the quantization of magnetic flux. And these are defined for some insane reason by an illogical moron as “perfect conductors”. This is not physics but idiotic semantics.

The standard definition of words is not "just semantics". It's a requirement for any coherent communication. You may not like the convention, but that's irrelevant: it's well-established and well-defined. That you continue to protest against the very definition of words is not a good sign.