Artificially-engineered material pushes the bounds of superconductivity

Mar 03, 2013 by Renee Meiller

A multi-university team of researchers has artificially engineered a unique multilayer material that could lead to breakthroughs in both superconductivity research and in real-world applications.

The researchers can tailor the material, which seamlessly alternates between metal and oxide layers, to achieve extraordinary —in particular, the ability to transport much more than non-.

The team includes experts from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Florida State University and the University of Michigan. Led by Chang-Beom Eom, the Harvey D. Spangler Distinguished Professor of and physics at UW-Madison, the group described its breakthrough March 3, 2013, in the advance online edition of the journal .

Superconductors, which presently operate only under extremely cold conditions, transport energy very efficiently. With the ability to transport large electrical currents and produce high magnetic fields, they power such existing technologies as and , among others. They hold great potential for emerging applications in electronic devices, transportation, and power transmission, generation and storage.

Carefully layered superconducting materials are increasingly important in highly sophisticated applications. For example, a , or SQUID, used to measure subtle magnetic fields in magnetoencephalography scans of the brain, is based on a three-layer material.

However, one challenge in the quest to understand and leverage superconductivity is developing materials that work at room temperature. Currently, even unconventional high-temperature superconductors operate below -369 degrees Fahrenheit.

An unconventional high-temperature superconductor, the researchers' iron-based "pnictide" material is promising in part because its effective operating temperature is higher than that of conventional superconducting materials such as niobium, lead or mercury.

The research team engineered and measured the properties of superlattices of pnictide superconductors. A superlattice is the complex, regularly repeating geometric arrangement of atoms—its crystal structure—in layers of two or more materials. Pnictide superconductors include compounds made from any of five elements in the nitrogen family of the periodic table.

The researchers' new material is composed of 24 layers that alternate between the pnictide superconductor and a layer of the oxide strontium titanate. Creating such systems is difficult, especially when the arrangement of atoms, and chemical compatibility, of each material is very different.

Yet, layer after layer, the researchers maintained an atomically sharp interface—the region where materials meet. Each atom in each layer is precisely placed, spaced and arranged in a regularly repeating crystal structure.

The new material also has improved current-carrying capabilities. As they grew the superlattice, the researchers also added a tiny bit of oxygen to intentionally insert defects every few nanometers in the material. These defects act as pinning centers to immobilize tiny magnetic vortices that, as they grow in strength in large magnetic fields, can limit current flow through the superconductor. "If the vortices move around freely, the energy dissipates, and the superconductor is no longer lossless," says Eom. "We have engineered both vertical and planar pinning centers, because vortices created by magnetic fields can be in many different orientations."

Eom sees possibilities for researchers to expand upon his team's success in engineering man-made superconducting structures. "There's a need to engineer superlattices for understanding fundamental superconductivity, for potential use in high-field and electronic devices, and to achieve extraordinary properties in the system," says Eom. "And, there is indication that interfaces can be a new area of discovery in high-temperature superconductors. This material offers those possibilities."

Explore further: New terahertz device could strengthen security

Related Stories

Stripes offer clues to superconductivity

May 17, 2010

New images of iron-based superconductors are providing telltale clues to the origin of superconductivity in a class of ceramic materials known as pnictides. The images reveal that electrons responsible for ...

Secrets behind high temperature superconductors revealed

Feb 22, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists from Queen Mary, University of London and the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) have found evidence that magnetism is involved in the mechanism behind high temperature superconductivity.

Pinning Down Superconductivity to a Single Layer

Oct 29, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Using precision techniques for making superconducting thin films layer-by-layer, physicists at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory have identified a single layer ...

Recommended for you

New terahertz device could strengthen security

15 hours ago

We are all familiar with the hassles that accompany air travel. We shuffle through long lines, remove our shoes, and carry liquids in regulation-sized tubes. And even after all the effort, we still wonder if these procedures ...

CERN makes public first data of LHC experiments

19 hours ago

CERN today launched its Open Data Portal where data from real collision events, produced by experiments at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) will for the first time be made openly available to all. It is expected ...

User comments : 56

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Lurker2358
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2013
How sad it is that computer models for materials science (given standard model related physics and math,) have been shown to be wrong with regards to predicting these properties, else one could discover superconductors by simply programming a computer search all possible configurations (at least within certain size constraints,) for the desired properties.
axemaster
3 / 5 (4) Mar 03, 2013
How sad it is that computer models for materials science (given standard model related physics and math,) have been shown to be wrong with regards to predicting these properties, else one could discover superconductors by simply programming a computer search all possible configurations (at least within certain size constraints,) for the desired properties.

Actually, a computer would have an incredibly difficult time calculating these systems because of their quantum nature (i.e. it would be extremely slow). Otherwise they would have done it already.
ValeriaT
1.4 / 5 (17) Mar 03, 2013
These calculations aren't so extremely slow and computing many systems was not done because it's slow, but because there was no need to do it. BTW If the physicists would be really interested about high-temperature superconductors instead of their jobs, publications and salaries, they would already replicate for example Joe Eck's experiments, which had lead into finding of room temperature superconductors already. It's the similar situation like with magnetic motors or cold fusion experiments, many of which were never replicated from 1926 year in peer-reviewed press.
gmurphy
3.4 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2013
@ValeriaT, are you suggesting that scientists are deliberately ignoring evidence of room temperature superconductors to protect their jobs?, why don't you crawl back under the rock that spawned you, troll.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Mar 03, 2013
I'm not suggesting it, I'm just announcing it as a bare fact. The ten years old finding of J.F.Prins wasn't attempted to replicate as well, despite it was announced as a "hottest finding" in popular journals. A negativist review was published later without attempt for experimental confirmation - and the whole effort of mainstream physics just ended with it. All last findings or recent era followed the very same dismissal scheme.
BishopBalderdash
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2013
Any research into the possibility that there may be a dimensional confinement effect (of the electron wave function) that simulates the Cooper pair effect to achieve a BCE?
Egleton
3.2 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2013
Umm. . . What temperature did it operate at?
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 04, 2013
These calculations aren't so extremely slow and computing many systems was not done because it's slow, but because there was no need to do it.

I have a friend who used to run physics simulations on the University of Rochester supercomputer. I can tell you with absolute confidence, searching for superconducting materials using quantum simulations would be incredibly slow. You'd be very lucky to finish checking even one material per day. More likely, it would take a week per material, or even a month or more.

Until supercomputers get a lot more powerful, that kind of approach is infeasible.
billyswong
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2013
Fahrenheit again?!
Not everyone are American!
lib
3 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2013
Only conventional (phonon-mediated) superconductors can currently be described with more-or-less ab initio methodology. It indeed takes tens of thousands of CPU hours (weeks on a 100-core cluster) to run a full-scale Tc calculation for a single medium-size crystal structure.
Anda
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2013
Fahrenheit again?!
Not everyone are American!


-222,7778C
You're welcome lazy one.

Waterripples you're an authority in non-demonstrated science! Keep on it.
Pas2
4 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2013
Whenever Fahrenheit is used in a scientific article universe creates a black hole.
Steven_Anderson
1 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2013
This is cool
FastEddy
1 / 5 (7) Mar 04, 2013
What is the deal with Maglev trains? No one and no g'ment is ever going to build a successful one. The real deal here with anything that is a Superconductor or a more "Perfect Conductor" is As A Conductor of Power.

Considering that the US national power grid is less than 60% efficient, that is The Big Deal that is broken and needs to be fixed = A 10% improvement here would eliminate about 100 train loads of coal = a US$ Trillion Dollar Industry!
axemaster
5 / 5 (1) Mar 04, 2013
What is the deal with Maglev trains? No one and no g'ment is ever going to build a successful one.

You are aware that maglev trains are successful and in use all over the world, right?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
How sad it is that computer models for materials science (given standard model related physics and math,) have been shown to be wrong with regards to predicting these properties,


As long as the mainstream believes that one MUST have pair-formation for SC to occur, their models will ALWAYS be wrong.


else one could discover superconductors by simply programming a computer search all possible configurations (at least within certain size constraints,) for the desired properties


I have such a model, but cannot get it published since it is not based on "pair-formation" and "must therefore be wrong", even though my model can predict what the properties must be for superconduction to occur at a given temperature T. The model is summarized here: http://www.cathodixx.com See the extract from book "The Physics Delusion"; titled "A Single Mechanism".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2013
How sad it is that computer models for materials science (given standard model related physics and math,) have been shown to be wrong with regards to predicting these properties, else one could discover superconductors by simply programming a computer search all possible configurations (at least within certain size constraints,) for the desired properties.

Actually, a computer would have an incredibly difficult time calculating these systems because of their quantum nature (i.e. it would be extremely slow). Otherwise they would have done it already.


Not true: You only need to solve a simple quadratic equation. You do not even need a computer if you want to do do "long hand". As had already been pointed out many years ago, the "pairing-models" have NO PREDICTIVE POWER. That is why it is useless to even try and get predictions from these mainstream models, even when you couple all the computers on earth!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2013
These calculations aren't so extremely slow and computing many systems was not done because it's slow, but because there was no need to do it.
Why was there no need? It will be foolish not to do this if you have a predictive theory. They did not do this because they know that their theories are not predictive and thus useless!
BTW If the physicists would be really interested about high-temperature superconductors instead of their jobs, publications and salaries, they would already replicate for example http://www.superc...tsc.htm, which had lead into finding of room temperature superconductors already.
Eck's results are debatable: Why does he not produce a phase through which he can send a supercurrent at room temperature from the one contact to the other; as I have done? See: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf
johanfprins
1 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2013
Only conventional (phonon-mediated) superconductors can currently be described with more-or-less ab initio methodology. It indeed takes tens of thousands of CPU hours (weeks on a 100-core cluster) to run a full-scale Tc calculation for a single medium-size crystal structure.


It is so since the phonon-mediated models are wrong! Pair formation is NOT needed, and even if you could create Cooper pairs by means of phonon-mediation, these pairs cannot be responsible for superconduction. They will be accelerated and will scatter.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2013
What is the deal with Maglev trains? No one and no g'ment is ever going to build a successful one.

You are aware that maglev trains are successful and in use all over the world, right?


Not! Unless you measure success by a lab demonstration of feasibility. Yes, MagLev trains are possible, but never, ever will they work on a large scale without an exorbitant waste of energy ... Not green at all, ever.

Look at the real world physics of MagLev: huge electrical energies dumped into floating heavy hardware above the surface of a very specially manufactured track = a huge g'ment boondoggle just waiting for massive subsidies, displacement and seizures of public and private real estate ... and the thing still can't outrun the petro-powered airlines.
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2013
... Not green at all, ever.

So? Was that the point? The point of maglevs is that they can be very fast - not that they're particularly energy efficient.
(Well, if we ever get ambiente temperature superconductivity to work then they would be quite green. Especially since with maglevs you're able to run them on green sources of energy if you want to.)
As for operational systems looka here:
http://en.wikiped...e_public
El_Nose
5 / 5 (1) Mar 05, 2013
Wow -- alot of talking with no substance...

Look if you wished for a computer model to show you a room temp superconductor, and you say you will not restrict the domain, by how many atom types , or how many atoms period, then this is a huge problem.

And by huge I mean more combinations than the number of atoms in the Universe, known or otherwise. It is an impossible question to ask a computer a question like that and expect it to brute force find the answer in under a few octillion years.

Now if you reduce the domain .. you could get a quantum computer to get you an answer .. but once again a very reduced domain of say how many atoms in the answer of less than 100, or however many qubits you have to work with in coherence.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
if you wished for a computer model to show you a room temp superconductor, and you say you will not restrict the domain, by how many atom types , or how many atoms period, then this is a huge problem.


This would be the stupid way to try and do it. What is much simpler, and which I have done, is to use he correct mechanism and calculate the values that the most important parameters must have to allow SC at room temperature.

Superconduction occurs when you have an energy gap E(S) within the electronic energy spectrum of a material, and localized orbitals of a high enough density within this energy gap. It is as simple as that: The density of orbitals is determined by an activation energy which is equal to the energy-gap at T=0.

To obtain SC at a temperature T, the density of orbitals must be higher than a critical amount as determined by the magnitude of the energy-gap. The larger the energy gap, the higher the critical temperature..
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2013
The larger the energy gap, the higher the critical temperature..
; but this also requires a higher critical density of the orbitals.

If the density of orbitals, which is required at a temperature T to have SC, is higher than the atomic density, then obviously, SC is not possible within that material. My analysis of the ceramics indicate that the maximum energy-gap that can have a critical density of orbitals, occurs at about 250 K. Thus unless, one can generate orbitals within the ceramics which are not known at present to form within the ceramics, the ceiling for SC in the ceramics is about 250 K: Exactly where we have been stuck for the last twenty years.

One can, however, generate suitable orbitals along surfaces of other materials, specifically diamond (but not just diamond), which do cause SC above room temperature.

I cannot get these results published anywhere since the mainstream "experts" on SC wrongly believe that pair-formation is a prerequisite for SC to occur!
Requiem
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2013
johanfprins:

If you really had any useful ideas about feasible room-temperature SC materials you would be sipping mojitos on your newly-purchased atoll somewhere scenic in the cook islands or something, not blabbing here about "if only somebody would publish it!"
johanfprins
2 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2013
johanfprins:

If you really had any useful ideas about feasible room-temperature SC materials you would be sipping mojitos on your newly-purchased atoll somewhere scenic in the cook islands or something, not blabbing here about "if only somebody would publish it!"


That is what should have been the case; but if the mainstream scientists want to believe that planets perform epicycles and do not circle the Sun, they will block your publications and ensure that you end up being excommunicated and placed under house arrest.

In other words it is impossible to publish any manuscript on superconduction which is not based on pair-formation.

Galileo did not end up sipping mojitos on his newly-purchased atoll somewhere scenic in the cook islands or something! Mainstream physicists who peer-reviewed in the time of Galileo have not changed since then: Mainstream peer-reviewers are still just as bigoted!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 09, 2013
That a current can flow when there is NO electric-field driving the charge-carriers has NEVER been proved experimentally; since there is no voltmeter which can accurately measure ZERO voltage!

Of all the superconducting phases EVER "discovered" there is not a single one where it has been impeccably proved that it is TOTALLY impossible that there can be an electric-field present.

If superconduction only occurs while there is no electric-field present, then since 1911 there was NO PROOF whatsoever that the materials which are claimed to be superconductors are REALLY transferring charge without an electric field being present: For the phase I discovered in 2000, there is FOR THE FIRST TIME IMPECCABLE PROOF that there cannot be an electric-field present! It might thus be the ONLY REAL superconducting phase EVER discovered!

See: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2013
Joe Eck is using a different approach - he is layering the oxides of various metals, which differ only slightly by their lattice constant, which leads into spontaneous formation of sparse periodic structure (2D quasicrystals). This technique leads into superconductors with critical temperature high above room temperature ("warm superconductors").
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
http://www.superconductors.org/35C_sil.htm is using a different approach - he is layering the oxides of various metals, which differ only slightly by their lattice constant, which leads into spontaneous formation of sparse periodic structure (2D quasicrystals).


He is on the right track but for the wrong reason: He has not yet developed a phase within which the electrical field between the injection and ejection contact is ZERO everywhere. Unless you can prove this, you do not have impeccable proof that you REALLY have a superconductor!

The only superconducting phase for which the latter has been proved, is the one I formed by extracting electrons from an n-type diamond. This does not mean that in the cases where this cannot be proved (i.e. in ALL the other cases to date) the electric-field is not zero, but it does leave some doubt as to whether these materials are really superconductors. For my electron-phase there is no doubt that the electric-field MUST be zero!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
has not yet developed a phase within which the electrical field between the injection and ejection contact is ZERO everywhere
This is property of every superconductor, or not? Why for example niobium should be different from diamond layer in this matter?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
has not yet developed a phase within which the electrical field between the injection and ejection contact is ZERO everywhere
This is property of every superconductor, or not?


Correct! According to definition this MUST be so for a material to be a superconductor. But there has not been a single material which has been "identified" as being a superconductor, for which it has been proved in terms of known physics that the electric-field is actually zero while the current is flowing: Except in the case of the electron-phase which I have extracted in 2000.

The proof that this MUST be so in the case of my electron-phase has been published already in 2003 in "Semiconductor S & Tech"; but has been ignored since it is inconvenient for the mainstream scientists working on SC to admit this: I have recently simplified the explanation why it must be so in my case:

See http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
ValeriaT:
Why for example niobium should be different from diamond layer in this matter?


If niobium is a SC the electric-field must also be zero. But in this case it is impossible to prove in terms of known physics that in niobium the electric-field IS actually zero when a current flows.

In the case of my electron-phase the proof is clear-cut that it is physically impossible that there can be an electric-field. This is so since the electrons form the negative part of a dipole layer across the surface of the diamond with the positive layer being a depletion layer below the surface of the diamond. As long as the depletion layer is thin enough, any electric field within the dipole layer MUST be cancelled by an opposite polarization field. Thus when increasing the applied electric-field, the depletion layer increases its width to cancel this increase in electric-field. Thus, as long as electrons can tunnel through the depletion layer there cannot be a net electric-field.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
Thus, as long as electrons can tunnel through the depletion layer there cannot be a net electric-field.
And since tunneling through the depletion layer occurs, one has charge-transfer through the dipole, and thus through the electron-phase between the diamond's surface and the anode, while it is physically impossible that there can be an electric-field within this electron-phase.

Can you give a proof in terms of incontrovertible physics that it is impossible that there can be an electric-field within niobium when a current is flowing through this material: YOU CANNOT!

In which material is superconduction thus REALLY convincingly proved to occur: In niobium or my electron-phase? Obviously more convincingly for my electron phase: And in addition this happens through my electron-phase up to temperatures of 400 to 500 Celsius at which the diamond itself deteriorates. If the diamond did not deteriorate, even higher temperatures might have been possible.

ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
it is impossible to prove in terms of known physics that in niobium the electric-field IS actually zero when a current flows

How is it possible it's not possible? If you make superconducting ring and detect the magnetic field around it, then it's evident, some current is circulating in it without external voltage. How do you think, Kamerlingh Onnes did prove the superconductivity in lead and mercury before one hundred years? We already talked about it many times but your thinking didn't change at least a bit from this time... You're living in illusion, the physicists have no idea about it.
ValeriaT
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
in addition this happens through my electron-phase up to temperatures of 400 to 500 Celsius at which the diamond itself deteriorates
Maybe yes, maybe not. Work, finish, publish your experiments.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
it is impossible to prove in terms of known physics that in niobium the electric-field IS actually zero when a current flows

How is it possible it's not possible? If you make superconducting ring and detect the magnetic field around it, then it's evident, some current is circulating in it without external voltage.


Where are the injection and ejection contacts across which you measure the voltage? Only a fool will conclude that it is the same situation.

Kamerlingh Onnes did prove the superconductivity in lead and mercury before one hundred years?;


The ring experiment ONLY proves that there is no scattering: Not that there cannot be an electric field between two contacts. It is easy to prove that with no scattering, one can have a constant current flowing around a ring even when the ring is not a superconductor. In fact this has been measured for small rings of copper and gold! The latter are not superconductors!
johanfprins
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2013
ValeriaT:
We already talked about it many times but your thinking didn't change at least a bit from this time... You're living in illusion, the physicists have no idea about it.


YOU are the one living in an illusion with a brain that got stuck in repeating AWT, AWT, AWT. Obviously you do not know physics and I am sure you will not ever understand it.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
in addition this happens through my electron-phase up to temperatures of 400 to 500 Celsius at which the diamond itself deteriorates
Maybe yes, maybe not. Work, finish, publish your experiments.


I have already done so! The first conclusive experiments have already been published in 2003 in Semiconductor Science and Technology. Since then the SC Vatican has blocked ALL my subsequent manuscripts on SC. I was thus forced to write two books. They are available on my website http://www.cathodixx.com

Furthermore, on this forum I have posted numerous mathematical derivations, and threads to my website that explain every aspect in detail. You, however, refuse to read them and to come back to argue REAL physics; probably because you realize that you will never be able to think logically!

So why do you advise me to: "Work, finish, publish your experiments", when I have already done so and provided numerous links that you could follow up. Have you got NO SHAME whatsoever?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
Obviously you do not know physics and I am sure you will not ever understand it.
Of course...;-) So is it possible to judge the current without external voltage by its magnetic field or not?
on this forum I have posted numerous mathematical derivations
Yes, the astronomers derived the epicycle models multiple-times.. Yet they were wrong at the end. After all, wasn't your beloved Copenhagen quantum mechanics derived mathematically as well? You're attacking the mainstream physicists, but your's still depending on their formal thinking, separated from reality. Not to say about covering of older findings, which you do consider as your private inventions (eternal current in magnetized superconductor ring as an example). You're not exactly the sublimated crystal of ethic and morality, I can tell ya...;-)
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
So is it possible to judge the current without external voltage by its magnetic field or not?


If you have a current you have a magnetic field whether the current is driven by voltage or not driven by a voltage! So what the hell are you trying to say! It would have helped so much if you at least had an understanding of elementary high school physics!

After all, wasn't your beloved Copenhagen quantum mechanics derived mathematically as well?


What do you mean by "Copenhagen quantum mechanics"? There is NO SUCH THING!! There is the Copenhagen interpretation of the mathematics of quantum mechanics; which is Voodoo!

]
You're attacking the mainstream physicists, but your's still depending on their formal thinking, separated from reality.


I am not attacking the mathematics of QM (which is basically only the Schroedinger equation) but only when Voodoo like "wave-particle duality" and "Cooper pairs" etc. are advocated.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
ValeriaT
Not to say about covering of older findings, which you do consider as your private inventions (eternal current in magnetized superconductor ring as an example)


Where have I EVER considered an "eternal current in a magnetized superconductor ring" as "my private invention"?

All I am saying is that this DOES not prove that charge-carriers injected at a contact will experience no electric field while moving to the ejection-contact at which they exit! There are no injection and ejection contacts for the current flowing around the ring.

The two situations, when charge-carriers are injected and when charge-carriers are NOT injected are obviously NOT the same: Only a fool will claim that they are the same. For example: With the contacts a current flows immediately when charge-carriers are injected. Around the ring, a current only starts to flow once the applied magnetic field reaches a critical value.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 10, 2013
If you have a current you have a magnetic field whether the current is driven by voltage or not driven by a voltage! So what the hell are you trying to say!
So if we have a magnetic field around closed loop, then we have an evidence of current without external voltage - and this current was observed at 1909 in this way already. Are you still believing, you were first, who observed it? It's not surprising, you were ignored with mainstream physics for decades.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2013
So if we have a magnetic field around closed loop, then we have an evidence of current without external voltage - and this current was observed at 1909 in this way already.


When you apply a magnetic field you induce a circular electric field INSIDE the ring: There is NO externally applied voltage! Since a superconducting current is NOT "driven" by an electric-field, why does a superconducting current start to flow? It cannot be initiated by the induced electric-field since the SC charge-carriers MUST immediately cancel it; just as I have now proved that they do when you have two external contacts.

In the latter case a current flows BECAUSE charge-carriers are INJECTED, even though the electric-field is cancelled. You are not injecting charge-carriers along the ring; so why does a superconducting current occurs?

A fool will argue that it is generated by the induced electric-field which accelerate the charge-carriers: However, if the charge-carriers can be accelerated ...

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2013
However, if the charge-carriers can be accelerated ...
the resultant current CANNOT be a superconducting current!

Assume that the charge-carriers can be accelerated by the induced electric-field, then these charge-carriers must be NORMAL charge-carriers which are wave-packets formed by the presence of the electric-field. Further assume that for some "magic reason", although they can be accelerated, they do not scatter (which is impossible according to Ohm's law); then after the magnetic-field has reached its maximum value, the induced electric-field will become zero; NOT because of superconduction, but because this happens within ALL materials.

Since there is now no electric-field, the wave packets will start to spread and this will reduce the magnitude of the induced current as well as the magnetic-field it is sustaining. It will become less than the applied magnetic-field, and this change in magnetic field will induce an electric-field which sustains the non-SC current.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
In simpler terms:

The electric-field around ring becomes zero in ALL materials when the applied inducing magnetic-field becomes constant. Thus, if a current keeps on flowing, this does NOT prove that this absence of an electric field is caused by superconduction and that, therefore, an electric-field applied by a battery must also become zero between two contacts where a current is injected at one contact and ejected at the other contact. The battery maintaining the applied electric-field does not, in this case, switch off the electric-field as in the case when the applied magnetic-field does IN ANY RING when it reaches its maximum value!

Thus, as usual, your argument that the absence of an electric field around a ring proves that the electric-field between two contacts must be zero, is a brainless argument!
Requiem
1 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2013
There was no global-scale commercial or industrial demand for Galileo's findings and capitalism trumps dogma in 2013 anyway.

If you're right who cares what "mainstream science", whatever the heck that is, thinks about it? You don't need them to agree with you, all you need is for one person who is interested in funding production to believe you.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
who cares what "mainstream science", whatever the heck that is, thinks about it

Because I'm forced to pay for it via taxes. If the scientists would pay their research from their own money, the usefulness of their research would escalate precipitously (Edison, Tesla or Yildiz motor as an example). And nobody would take a shit about what they think about world in which I'm living.

Nobody denies the usefulness of science, but I'm not so sure about contemporary scientists. From AWT follows, every approach will hit its natural limit, if it exceeds certain scale. So we should pay some research from our taxes, but we shouldn't introduce a communism for substantial portion of society in this way.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
There was no global-scale commercial or industrial demand for Galileo's findings and capitalism trumps dogma in 2013 anyway.


Unfortunately you are wrong! Ideally it should have been that way, but we live in Orwell's Animal Farm during 1984. If you REALLY believe in what you just posted, you are an even bigger fool than anybody who have EVER posted on this forum!

If you're right who cares what "mainstream science", whatever the heck that is,


Unfortunately ALL the "capitalists" who I have approached during the past 10 years contacted the "mainstream scientits" on SC to advise them: YOU are again talking through your (thick?) neck!

thinks about it?


I do NOT have to THINK about it, I have the PROOF accumulated over 10 years that you are arguing like a Stahl-FOOL!

You don't need them to agree with you, all you need is for one person who is interested in funding production to believe you.


I have been looking for that person for 13 years now!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
ValeriaT
Because I'm forced to pay for it via taxes. If the scientists would pay their research from their own money, the usefulness of their research would escalate precipitously (Edison, Tesla or Yildiz motor as an example)...


This statement by ValeriaT is as usual foolish. The days are long past where you can develop a thingamagic in your garage and build on your own from there further. Unless you are already a very rich person!

What a poor man can do is to prove the physics, and then look for financial support to do the technology. If you have a breakthrough, as I have had with room temperature SC, the probability that it adheres to mainstream dogma is VERY SMALL; or else it would already have been discovered YEARS AGO.

This is disconcerting for those who have published WRONG mainstream dogma for nearly 100 years, because it makes them look like idiots; which they unfortunately are. So they just suddenly refuse to know how Ohm's law and a capacitor work!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
The days are long past where you can develop a thingamagic in your garage and build on your own from there further. Unless you are already a very rich person!
Well, this is just the problem of mainstream physics, that the most fundamental findings of recent era (cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel, magnetic motors, experiments with scalar waves and various ZPE devices) are principally very easy and cheap to build. In contemporary science it's often easier to organize huge expensive experiments (LHC, ITER, gravitational wave detectors), than the small and cheap ones, because such an huge experiments enable to drain the money from governmental budget and they're supported with lobby or private companies involved. With money spent for ITER we could replicate the cold fusion or magnetic motors ten thousand-times...

So on the contrary, we should return to the Faraday era of physics, if we really want to find something new.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
After all, it's no secret for me, that your finding of superconductivity above diamond layers is very easy to replicate as well. It's not garage physics, but its feasibility is way higher than most of contemporary experiments maintained at the Academy. So even just you can serve as an evidence, we don't need a huge and expensive equipment for doing a fundamental findings.

The high energy physics is the remnant of cold war era, when the physicists got the relative social credit from construction of nuclear weapon. From this reason every government supported the expensive physical experiment just from fear, the enemy could get a technological advantage. But this adventurous approach has lead into disproportion of progress of physics - many trivial but fundamental phenomena were neglected, just because the high energy lobby and complex experiments got full attention and grant support. BTW It's not just my private feeling.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
Well, this is just the problem of mainstream physics, that the most fundamental findings of recent era (cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel, magnetic motors, experiments with scalar waves and various ZPE devices) are principally very easy and cheap to build. In contemporary science it's often easier to organize huge expensive experiments (LHC, ITER, gravitational wave detectors), than the small and cheap ones, because such an huge experiments enable to drain the money from governmental budget and they're supported with lobby or private companies involved. With money spent for ITER we could replicate the cold fusion or magnetic motors ten thousand-times...


For once I must agree that you are making a good point!

So on the contrary, we should return to the Faraday era of physics, if we really want to find something new.


Not possible anymore after the Royal Society of London has betrayed the ideas and dreams of its founding fathers. Unless we execute ALL FRS's.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
So even just you can serve as an evidence, we don't need a huge and expensive equipment for doing a fundamental findings.


Correct! But it still remains useless for as long as the mainstream physicists are more interested to control funding than to do honest and truthful research! Therefore they have to censure new and novel ideas. It is at present worse than it was in the time of Galileo: In fact physics has been in the darkest ages EVER since 1927! Just like Carver Mead also asserts.

ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
For once I must agree that you are making a good point!
It's not my intention to waste my and yours time with bad points...;-) If we would invest into trivial findings like the cold fusion and magnetic motors, we could afford even these expensive and fancy toys, like the colliders (even without risk for human civilization, i.e. at free cosmic space). But not vice-versa. Now we are just doing nearly everything in the wrong way: the paradigms, which worked well exhausted their potential and they become counterproductive instead because of their overgrown scale. The science, physics in particular transformed into dinosaur, which spends whole its energy for slow breathless progress. But the first mammals already emerged.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2013
physics has been in the darkest ages EVER since 1927
I really don't share your negativism regarding mainstream theories, quantum mechanics in particular. IMO there are just two strictly deterministic ways, in which the hyperdimensional reality can be described with low-dimensional models in optimal way: the relativity and quantum mechanics. These two approaches minimized the ratio of number of postulates needed and precision achieved. These two models are dealing with dimensional scales of reality, at which all objects are composed from simple spheres. Everything else in our universe is just more complex by now.

So now we can develop only more complex and poorly conditioned theories (like the stringy and loopy theories) or simpler but similarly fuzzy models (AWT). In this sense the mainstream physics did its job and did it well. Of course, we should move further and to attempt for more general models, but the role of existing theories in physics will remain untouched.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2013
I really don't share your negativism regarding mainstream theories, quantum mechanics in particular.


Sometimes you post something that gives me a glimmer of hope that there might be synapses firing in your head; but then you immediately spoil it with your next post! What do you mean by "mainstream quantum mechanics"? Schrodinger's equation which we know works; or "wave-particle duality" and the "probability interpretation" which are both obviously Voodoo concepts!

IMO


It would be better if you have no opinions on physics until after you have studied it up to at least MSc level! You obviously do not even know high school physics!

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.