Superconductivity at room temperature??

[Teemu]

In this case the problem probably isn't just other people not understanding Prins' genius because of communication issues.
http://rtn.elektronika.lt/mi/0304/2prins.pdf
Prins seems to get out of his equations that electron density increases to infinity, and claims that because of this eventually the average distance between electron will be smaller than Heisenberg uncertainty for individual electron, thus forcing them to form Bose-Einstein condensate to avoid Pauli exclusion.

However, the electron density increasing to infinity is "fundamental property" of the theoretical ideal/perfect metal, that doesn't exist. Superconductor is not a perfect metal, it is not a perfect "normal conductor". So every time you use certain equations in a way that assumes the substance to be a perfect metal, you get the electron density increasing to infinity as a result. So since Prins through his use of equations assumed the vacuum to be a perfect metal, he got his results and did those conclusions from those results. One example why the vacuum of course is not a perfect metal is that ideal metal assumes electron's to form ideal gas, it assumes that there is no electron-electron scattering. However in reality in low enough temperatures this is the major if not main contributor for resisitivity for many materials.

For superconductors, with good experimental setup you can show that resistivity is at least hundred trillion times lower than resistivity of copper, apparently the experimental error margin was larger than resistivity of undoped silicon for Prins' demonstration.

New Scientist:

Physicist Johan Prins conducted an experiment to develop a superconductor that worked at room temperature. He used a layer of synthetic diamond doped with oxygen atoms, and by applying a voltage to the gold-plated probe above the surface of the diamond, he was able to draw electrons out of the diamond into the vacuum which completed the circuit. In opinion of Archie Campbell, Cambridge, UK it would be quite impossible to detect superconductivity with his measurements.

In his experiment Johan Prins found that the current through his crystal did not change detectably when the thickness of the vacuum gap between the diamond and positively charged probe was reduced to zero. Since he was applying 1000 volts and drawing only half a milliamp, the resistance of his circuit was 2 megohms. And since the noise in his current was at least 1 per cent, any resistance in the gap less than 20 kilohms would be undetectable.

If the gap were made of copper the resistance would be about 0.04 micro-ohms, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the resistivity of the electron gas is no greater than around 10^11 times that of copper. This cannot be regarded as evidence of superconductivity.

Also Prins' special relativity criticism seems to come mostly from his refusal to really go to Minkowski space. Rather he just uses hyperbolic rotation of Minkowski space, also know as Lorentz transformation, and compensates for the missing symmetries with lots of hand waving and verbal acrobatics.

 

[johanfprins]

My apolgies

I am sorry that I have been absent for so long. Unfortunately I am so overwhelmed with work that I will have to postpone returning for a few months more. I have not had time to go through all the posts on this thread since I stopped returning to it two months ago. I have, however, noticed that the name Archie Cambell came up. It is amazing that he can argue that one can prove superconduction by doing IV measurements. You always need additional proof that there is no actual electric field within the material while a current is flowing. In fact, this has NEVER been directly proved by any experiment until my discovery of the formation of a superconducting phase by electrons extracted from a highly doped n-type diamond surface.

The reason why it is in my case conclusive that there is no electric field present, is that the electron phase that forms is one half of a dipole layer that across the diamond surface. The other half is a depletion layer just below the surface. Such a dipole layer forms only for one reason, and that is to try and cancel any existing electric field within it. Obviously, not all dipole layers succeed in doing so completely: For example, when you have a metal with a large workfunction contacting an n-type semiconductor, you obtain a Schottky barrier. If you, however, dope the surface of the n-type semiconductor to a vey high density with donors, you obtain an ohmic contact. The reason for this is that the depletion layer can now be so thin, and supply so many electrons, that the dipole layer does totally cancel any electric field within it. Thus when now applying an electric field, the dipole adjusts to also cancel this extra applied electric-field and the electrons can easily tunnel through the depletion layer into the metal.

In my experiment the near diamond-surface is HIGHLY doped with donors and because the vacuum level is lower than the energy of the donors, a dipole layer is formed across the diamond surface to cancel the electric field caused by trhe offset between the energy of the donors and the vacuum level. When now applying an electric field with an anode, this extra field is also cancelled by an increase in then widths of both the depletion layer and the electrons outside in the vacuum. For as long as the depletion layer stays thin enough so that electrons can tunnel through it, the external electron layer can be pulled towards the anode. If you stop increasing the voltage, the dipole layer will stabilize by TOTALLY cancelling the applied electric field within it. You can thus extract the electrons to be just outside the anode while the electric fiekld within the dfipole stays totally cancelled.

When now pulling the electrons into the anode, a field is set up by the difference in energy of the worfunction of the anode, and the energy of the electrons on the inside of the diamond (below the depletion layer). Electrons are then accelerated from the diamond into the anode. This causes Bremstrahlung as it must when the electrons decelerate within the anode. However, the current is erratic since the electrons within the gap diminish when some of them is accelerated into the anode. The current thus increases and falls away, then increases and falls away. Everytime when it falls away the depletion layer injects more electrons into the space between the diamond and the anode. Equilibrium is only reached after the electron density within the gap between the diamond and the anode becomes high enough so that the applied electric field is AGAIN totally cancelled within the depletion layer and within the electron-phase within the gap between the diamond and the anode.

At this point the erratic current and the acompanying Bremstrahlung stops. The electron phase now has the possibility to stop conveying a current since there is no electric field within it. But if it does, what happens to the electrons within the gap. If they start to leave an electric field will appear within the gap and the depletion layer will keep injecting electrons to cancel this field. What I found experimentally is that the electrons do NOT flow out of the gap but forms a small black rod which allows charge transfer from the diamond to the anode EVEN THOUGH THE DEPLETION LAYER MUST KEEP ON CANCELLING THE ELECTRIC FIELD BY TOPPING UP THE DENSITY OF THE ELECTRONS WHEN NEEDED. SO FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE THE DISCOVERY OF SUPERCONDUCTION MY EXPERIMENT PROVED THAT CHARGE CAN BE TRANSFERRED THROUGH A PHASE WHILE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE THAT THERE CAN BE A NET ELECTRIC FIELD WITHIN THIS PHASE. THERE IS NO OTHER SUPERCONDUCTING PHASE WHICH HAS EVER DIRECTLY PROVED THAT THE ELECTRIC FIELD IS AND MUST BE ACTUALLY ZERO. Of course do not try and explain this to an Archie Cambell. Simple dipole physics, which my first year students can do with ease, is far to difficult for poor Archie to understand. What has happened with Cambridge University? It is shocking!!!

 

[leonAzul]

In my experiment the near diamond-surface is HIGHLY doped with donors and because the vacuum level is lower than the energy of the donors, a dipole layer is formed across the diamond surface to cancel the electric field caused by trhe offset between the energy of the donors and the vacuum level. When now applying an electric field with an anode, this extra field is also cancelled by an increase in then widths of both the depletion layer and the electrons outside in the vacuum. For as long as the depletion layer stays thin enough so that electrons can tunnel through it, the external electron layer can be pulled towards the anode. If you stop increasing the voltage, the dipole layer will stabilize by TOTALLY cancelling the applied electric field within it. You can thus extract the electrons to be just outside the anode while the electric fiekld within the dfipole stays totally cancelled.

In order to come to these conclusions we first need to examine the methodology and instrumentation—in short, the quality of the observations.

 

[Reality Check]

The reason why it is in my case conclusive that there is no electric field present, ...

The fact remains that no superconductivity was seen in your experiment.
All you have is evidence of enhanced conductivity. It has been suggested that this happens because of the formation of a dusty plasma.
The extraordinary interpretation is that your experiment demonstrated a room temperature perfect conductor. To get from a perfect conductor to a superconductor, you need to demonstrate additional effects such as the Meissner effect.
And like all extraordinary interpretations - it needs extraordinary evidence.

 

[Teemu]

The problem is that basically all "simple physics" of phenomena involving lots of electrons is based on electron gas assumption, it is assumed that electron-electron scattering can be ignored. The ideal electron gas assumption gives you the "ideal metal" result of electron density increasing to infinity in Prins' calculations.

 

[ben m]

Simple dipole physics, which my first year students can do with ease, is far to difficult for poor Archie to understand. What has happened with Cambridge University? It is shocking!!!

Then you must ask what has happened to Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, MIT, Yale, Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, Chicago, UCSB, UIUC, NIST, MPG, CNRS, ETHZ, Leiden, Ioffe, Lebedev, Tokyo, Weizmann, Pretoria, etc. etc. etc..

 

[sol invictus]

Then you must ask what has happened to Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard, MIT, Yale, Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley, Princeton, Chicago, UCSB, UIUC, NIST, MPG, CNRS, ETHZ, Leiden, Ioffe, Lebedev, Tokyo, Weizmann, Pretoria, etc. etc. etc..

Simple - they're all wrong, and Johan is right!

The problem is that basically all "simple physics" of phenomena involving lots of electrons is based on electron gas assumption, it is assumed that electron-electron scattering can be ignored. The ideal electron gas assumption gives you the "ideal metal" result of electron density increasing to infinity in Prins' calculations.

The problem is much, much worse than that. Prins gets literally everything in physics wrong, from the simple physics of a classical particle moving in a potential to classical electrodynamics to quantum mechanics to even the basic definition of superconductivity. Read the thread if you don't believe me.

 

[johanfprins]

The fact remains that no superconductivity was seen in your experiment.
And like all extraordinary interpretations - it needs extraordinary evidence.

Are you really only able to think in terms of cliches?

As usual you cannot see the wood for the trees. The best and TOTALLY CONCLUSIVE proof for superconduction is to prove that there CANNOT be an electric field within a material while charge is transported through the material. This has NEVER been proved in the past for any of the phases which are claimed to be superconductors. This is why it has been suggested that the Meissner effect must also be measured. This is based on the erroneous assumption that only a superconducting phase can cancel a magnetic field within it. But let us not go down that avenue now. Let me rather ask you to answer a simple question:

If you have impeccable proof that it is physically impossible that there can be a net electric field within a material, and though this is so, you measure that charge which is injected at a contact is transported to be ejected at a nother contact. Do you have absolute proof that you have a superconducting phase or do you not have such a proof?

Do you then really need any other measurement to be sure? This does not mean that extra measurements would not be nice to do if I have had the money to do them. But the Meissner effect would be the last measurement that I will consider as definite. Although there is strong evidence that magnetic powder floats external to my phase after it has formed. Just recently Stuart A. Wolf and Vladimir Kresin, found that they can measure the Meissner effect within a ceramic superconductor at temperatures above the critical temperature. They, of course, ascribed this to inhomogeneity in their material. IT IS NOT. The fact is that the Mott orbitals which form at higher temperatures within the pseudogap can also expel a magnetic field, although this phase will NEVER superconduct unitl it is cooled to below the critical temperature.

BTW: The idea of a "dusty plasma" comes from a severely deluded, and not very bright physicist here in South Africa. A few years ago (2007) I raised this possibility as an explanation for my experiment with a world expert on dusty plasmas. He was here to give a plenary lecture at the yearly conference of the South Africa Institute of Physics. He nearly collapsed laughing at the stupidity of anybody who can come to such a conclusion. Furthermore, a "dusty plasma" cannot remain after you turned off the power supply and removed this "dusty plasma" from the vacuum. My phase does not change at all. Only a cerifiable IDIOT will claim that my phase is a "dusty plasma".

 

[ben m]

As usual you cannot see the wood for the trees. The best and TOTALLY CONCLUSIVE proof for superconduction is to prove that there CANNOT be an electric field within a material while charge is transported through the material.

You're a bit confused about the theory experiment issue. You hypothesized that there was zero electric field in your gap phase. You constructed a calculation which, if correct and applicable, would predict that there is zero electric field in the gap phase.

You label this calculation as "impeccable", but this thread has shown you to be capable of massive misunderstandings of E&M and quantum mechanics. If I remember correctly, you also think quantum mechanics itself is incorrect, and you use a self-invented but otherwise unpublished, untested, and unproven version. How sure are you that your calculation is flawless?

a) As sure as you were that an electron emits a 2eV photon when tunneling down a step of height V?

b) As sure as you were about how "E can never change magnitude when charge is moving"?

c) As sure as you were about polarization energy in a dielectric?

 

[Reality Check]

Are you really only able to think in terms of cliches?

Wrong - that is not a cliché, it is a requirement in science (first stated by Pierre-Simon Laplace) that if you claim something extraordinary then you have to have good ("extraordinary ") evidence for it.
Your claim: room tempertaure superconductivity.
Evidence for superconductivity: Nothing convincing (just a drop in resistivity). Charitably we can consider this evidence for a perfect conductor.
Evidence against superconductivity: Superunlikely a letter? in New Sceintist by Archie Cambell
Bigger quote in this post.

As usual you cannot see the wood for the trees. The best and TOTALLY CONCLUSIVE proof for superconduction is to prove that there CANNOT be an electric field within a material while charge is transported through the material.

And where did you measure that thare was no electric field in your material?
Oh yeah NOWHERE!
Thus you have NO TOTALLY CONCLUSIVE proof for superconduction ion your experiment.

This has NEVER been proved in the past for any of the phases which are claimed to be superconductors. This is why it has been suggested that the Meissner effect must also be measured. This is based on the erroneous assumption that only a superconducting phase can cancel a magnetic field within it.

You are showing your ignorance here. It is the combination of measurements that are taken to be the signature of superconductivity:

1. The transition from a normal level of resistivity to an extremely low level of resistivity.
2. The Meissner effect.

BTW: The idea of a "dusty plasma" comes from a severely deluded, and not very bright physicist here in South Africa.

BTW: Insulting someone instead of presenting your evidence that they were wrong, is totally distasteful. It is what wesee from deluded, ignorant Internet physics cranks. You should not taint yourself with their lunacy.

Going onto anecdotal evidence is also bad.
Where did your "world expert on dusty plasmas" publish his statement that no such plasma was possible in your experiment?

So only scientist (Terry Doyle) that tried to replicate your experiment is "severely deluded, and not very bright".
I guess this means that your experiment has never been replicates competently !

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”.

Your experiment has been ignored by the scientific community for at least 8 years now. That tells us something about the validity of the experiment - few scientists think that it is valid (conspiracy rant in 3, 2, 1 .... ).

 

[sol invictus]

If you have impeccable proof that it is physically impossible that there can be a net electric field within a material

You have no such proof. Not even close. You have a set of wrong arguments based on a series of basic misunderstandings and logical errors.

You don't have a superconductor, Johan. You never had one, and I'm very confident you never will. You're ignored for a very good reason.

 

[johanfprins]

Let us go step by step through it: Not to confuse your limited intellectual abilities any further I will post one deduction at a time and ask you to tell me what is extraordinary to each deduction so that it requires an extraordinary proof?

Deduction 1: A polarisation field ensues when charges rearrange in an attempt to cancel an existing electric field or an applied electric field

 

[johanfprins]

It was pointed out to me that the post by Reality Check above might be interpreted as if I called Prof. Terry Doyle an idiot. This is not so. Prof Doyle is a competent experimental physicist; even though I disagree with some of his interpretations.

 

[ben m]

Let us go step by step through it: Not to confuse your limited intellectual abilities any further I will post one deduction at a time and ask you to tell me what is extraordinary to each deduction so that it requires an extraordinary proof?

Deduction 1: A polarisation field ensues when charges rearrange in an attempt to cancel an existing electric field or an applied electric field

That's not a deduction, that's a definition. You are attempting to define the term "polarization field".

Your definition is inexact and nonstandard. If I charge up a capacitor, then jab a screwdriver into the terminals, charge certainly "rearrange" in a way that results in the electric field going to zero, but you would never say "a polarization field ensues when you discharge a capacitor." (Normally we restrict this term to *bound* charge. And we don't anthropomorphize it---the charges are not "attempting" anything.)

 

[johanfprins]

That's not a deduction, that's a definition. You are attempting to define the term "polarization field".

Your definition is inexact and nonstandard. If I charge up a capacitor, then jab a screwdriver into the terminals, charge certainly "rearrange" in a way that results in the electric field going to zero, but you would never say "a polarization field ensues when you discharge a capacitor." (Normally we restrict this term to *bound* charge. And we don't anthropomorphize it---the charges are not "attempting" anything.)

Again blustering nonsense from somebody who has time and again demonstrated on this thread that he does not understand simple electrodynamics.

Why does a polarisation field form other than in an attempt to cancel an existing and/or applied electric field? This is NOT a definition since it can be experimentally demonstrated by using dfifferent intensity electric fields.

 

[Ziggurat]

Again blustering nonsense from somebody who has time and again demonstrated on this thread that he does not understand simple electrodynamics.

Why does a polarisation field form other than in an attempt to cancel an existing and/or applied electric field? This is NOT a definition since it can be experimentally demonstrated by using dfifferent intensity electric fields.

What, you've never heard of pyroelectrics or ferroelectrics? They have an electric polarization even without any applied or existing electric field.

When you want to accuse someone of demonstrating ignorance, it helps to not demonstrate your own in that very post.

 

[ben m]

Why does a polarisation field form other than in an attempt to cancel an existing and/or applied electric field?

Lots of reasons; piezoelectricity (polarization, and therefore electric field, caused by mechanical strain) most obviously.

I can pick up a +charged quartz rod in one hand and a -charged amber ball in the other, and move my hands apart. Is this a polarization field?

This is NOT a definition since it can be experimentally demonstrated by using dfifferent intensity electric fields.

It is a fact that bound charges separates in dielectric under an applied electric field. I have no objection to that, it's an experimental fact.

I'm being pedantic about it because you have previously exhibited a dramatic misunderstanding about the relationship between bound charge, free charge, polarization, and Gauss's Law. If you're going to try to state what a polarization field is and call it "deduction 1" ... well, now's as good a time as any to insist that you state accurately what polarization is, and state it in clear terms that you'll adhere to later when you get confused.

 

[ben m]

Thus you are arguing that in this case the mechanical strain does not cause a movement in the positions of the charges which in turn causes electric-fields which in turn causes the charges to re-arrange in an attempt to cancel the field being applied by applying mechanical strain?

No.

I'm arguing---well, stating, really---that the physics term for displaced-but-bound charge is "polarization". You seem to recognize that the original, applied strain already displaces (bound) charge. That's called "polarization". In this case it is not caused by an electric field.

Yes, there's also an electric field, which also acts to displace bound charge, and that would also be called "polarization".

 

[Ziggurat]

NO! If there were not initially non-equilibrium electric fields that require a relaxation to equilibrium, polarisation will not occur. Everything has a cause in physics you know.

You're wrong.

The typical BS you have been spouting all along on this thread

Yes, my typical BS consists of presenting you with well-established experimental FACT, which you refuse to accept because you can't wrap your head around it. You haven't bothered to even try to present any alternative explanation for ferroelectricity or pyroelectricity, you simply deny that they exist. Which is your typical BS: refuse to accept facts which are inconvenient for whatever version of your "theory" you're working with today.

"Spontaneous" formation of polarisation without any reason whatsoever!! My my!! If this is "thinking" then I prefer "not to think".

Once again, I never said there was no reason. Quite the reverse, in fact. But that reason isn't because of an electric field.

Statement: A dipole layer forms across an interface because there would be an electric field across the interface if such a dipole did not form. Thus the dipole forms to cancel (or attempt to cancel) an existing momentary field that is there at the instant that the interface is formed.

Do I need extraordinary proof to convince you that this is the case? Or do you want to rephrase it into simpler words that are in line with your "ability to think".

I gave you two examples which explicitly contradict your claim, since they require no field to create a polarization, and the only field which exists is due to that polarization. Rather than address those examples (which, again, are very well established experimental realities), you have simply refused to believe they even exist.

But go on, tell us your revolutionary theory of ferroelectricity. I mean, you're revolutionizing everything else about physics, you might as well throw those in too.

 

[johanfprins]

Once again, I never said there was no reason. Quite the reverse, in fact. But that reason isn't because of an electric field.

It is hopeless to argue with a person who does not realise that any polrization field forms in response to an electric field which would have been there if the polarisation response did not occur.

I gave you two examples which explicitly contradict your claim, since they require no field to create a polarization, and the only field which exists is due to that polarization.

Your examples do NOTHING of the sort. You are just again demonstrating you inability to understand simple undergraduate physics.

So you reject the following statement?

A dipole layer forms across an interface because there would be an electric field across the interface if such a dipole did not form. Thus the dipole forms to cancel (or attempt to cancel) an existing momentary field that is there at the instant that the interface is formed.

Consider the interface between an n-type semiconductor and a metal with a large workfunction. Is it correct that you are arguing that the dipole layer that forms across this interface after creating this interface does not form to cancel an initial electric field across the interface, which is there just before the dipole forms? Yes or no?