Electrons are not enough: Cuprate superconductors defy convention

Mar 19, 2013 by Liz Ahlberg
Graph showing the breakdown of Luttinger's theorem in the normal state of cuprate superconductors. The horizontal axis is the expected number of mobile electrons while is the vertical axis is the measured number. The two should be equal if the theorem were true. Credit: Philip Phillips

(Phys.org) —To engineers, it's a tale as old as time: Electrical current is carried through materials by flowing electrons. But physicists at the University of Illinois and the University of Pennsylvania found that for copper-containing superconductors, known as cuprates, electrons are not enough to carry the current.

"The story of electrical conduction in metals is told entirely in terms of electrons. The cuprates show that there is something completely new to be understood beyond what electrons are doing," said Philip Phillips, a professor of physics and of chemistry at the U. of I.

In physics, Luttinger's theorem states that the number of electrons in a material is the same as the number of electrons in all of its atoms added together. Electrons are the sub-atomic particles that carry the current in a . Much-studied , such as metals and , hold true to the theorem.

Phillips' group works on the theory behind high-temperature superconductors. In superconductors, current flows freely without resistance. Cuprate superconductors have puzzled physicists with their superconducting ability since their discovery in 1987.

The researchers developed a model outlining the breakdown of Luttinger's theorem that is applicable to cuprate superconductors, since the hypotheses that the theorem is built on are violated at certain energies in these materials. The group tested it and indeed found between the measured charge and the number of in , defying Luttinger.

"This result is telling us that the physics cannot be described by electrons alone," Phillips said. "This means that the cuprates are even weirder than previously thought: Something other than electrons carries the current."

"Theorists have suspected that something like this was true but no one has been able to prove it," Phillips said. "Electrons are charged. Therefore, if an electron does not contribute to the charge count, then there is a lot of explaining to do."

Now the researchers are exploring possible candidates for current-carriers, particularly a novel kind of excitation called unparticles.

Phillips, U. of I. undergraduate student Kiaran Dave (now a graduate student at MIT) and University of Pennsylvania professor Charles Kane published their findings in the journal Physical Review Letters. The paper, "Absence of Luttinger's Theorem due to Zeros in the Single-Particle Green Function," is available online.

Explore further: First direct evidence that a mysterious phase of matter competes with high-temperature superconductivity

Related Stories

Black holes: a model for superconductors?

Mar 02, 2011

Black holes are some of the heaviest objects in the universe. Electrons are some of the lightest. Now physicists at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign have shown how charged black holes can be ...

Superconductivity's third side unmasked

Jun 17, 2011

The debate over the mechanism that causes superconductivity in a class of materials called the pnictides has been settled by a research team from Japan and China. Superconductivity was discovered in the pnictides ...

Recommended for you

Yellowstone's thermal springs—their colors unveiled

Dec 19, 2014

Researchers at Montana State University and Brandenburg University of Applied Sciences in Germany have created a simple mathematical model based on optical measurements that explains the stunning colors of ...

User comments : 127

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jalmy
3.3 / 5 (20) Mar 19, 2013
I have a feeling this is very important.
EyeNStein
1 / 5 (12) Mar 19, 2013
Interesting. Not entirely unexpected though- The wave functions of the atoms in the cold state will overlap and some BE statistical behaviour could result in flowing positive pseudo particle charge movement in addition to the actually moving electronic current. Still a nice revision to basic conduction theory though. It could also be a like the muonic-hydrogen having a 4% enlarged proton compared to normal hydrogen-protons, being more flexible than thought and their reshaping/movements causing current.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (9) Mar 19, 2013
It could also be a like the muonic-hydrogen having a 4% enlarged proton compared to normal hydrogen-protons, being more flexible than thought!

At those temperatures there is not much flexibility. There's no proton-current here.

The wave functions of the atoms in the cold state will overlap and some BE statistical behaviour could result

Not an asymmetric behavior unless there is an atom flow (which there is not).
vacuum-mechanics
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 19, 2013
"This result is telling us that the physics cannot be described by electrons alone," Phillips said. "This means that the cuprates are even weirder than previously thought: Something other than electrons carries the current."
"Theorists have suspected that something like this was true but no one has been able to prove it," Phillips said. "Electrons are charged. Therefore, if an electron does not contribute to the charge count, then there is a lot of explaining to do."

Actually there is a lot of simple things about electron which could not explain conventionally such as what electron is, how it works as a negative charge which attract a positive charge while repel another negative charge, etc. Understanding its mechanism as follow could help solving the matter.
http://www.vacuum...21〈=en
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2013
How about photons. When they're cooled, the electrons are in the same energy level so if one is excited, and releases a photon, it's the exact energy to excite the next one thus making the efficiency of the conductor dependent on heat loss (photon).

This article sounds like it's trying to make something from what is generally understood.
DarkWingDuck
1 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2013
So who is the 1 star hater? It has to do with the alignment of atoms and the efficiency of photon transfer from 1 electron to the next. It's not like the one electron you put into a conductor is the one you get out. If the electron is aligned to emit it's photon away from the conductor, it's lost. If the electron is aligned to pass it to another electron without scattering with loss off a proton, then it works.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
Try to imagine the analogy of superconductor like the pipe, the walls of which are formed with atoms, covered with mutually repulsive electrons. When you try to squeeze some conductive electron through it, then the movable electron will be attracted and repelled with fixed electrons, so that its motion will be jerky (the simulation requires the MSIE browser, sorry). The charged body radiates energy when it's subject of acceleration and deceleration - in this way the movable electrons will lose their energy via Ohmic loses gradually.

But when you force to move two or more connected electrons as a single body, then the situation will be quite different, because such a large body will propagate more smoothly. On this principle the Cooper pairs mechanism of superconductivity is based. The HT superconductors are extending this principle further with incorporating multiple electrons into propagation.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
The low temperature superconductors (like the niobium) differ from high-temperature ones (like the cuprates) in the mechanism of electron coupling. In LT superconductors the electrons are coupled spontaneously with the phonon vibrations of lattice (pull mechanism) with the shielding force, which is somewhat similar to mechanism of Casimir force in vacuum. Of course, this coupling force is too weak and it cannot explain the HT superconductivity. So I presume, in HT superconductivity the electrons are forcefully compressed mutually with geometrical configuration of material. Its layers are forming sorta pipes, which the conductive electrons are forced to squeeze through. This geometry is represented with layers of positively charged copper atoms, to which the electrons are attracted like the hens to the line of feeders. The high concentration of electrons and their mutual compression makes the conductive paths there, which enable the conduction of current without Ohmic loses.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
To engineers, it's a tale as old as time: Electrical current is carried through materials by flowing electrons.


Wrong! It is carried by wave-packets, each of which is a superposition of non-localized electron-waves which are present within a metal when no current is flowing.

But physicists at the University of Illinois and the University of Pennsylvania found that for copper-containing superconductors, known as cuprates, electrons are not enough to carry the current.


Wrong interpretation: In the ceramics the donor-states generate both free wave-packets within the conduction band AND localized, stationary electron-states between the crystallographic layers. When the density of the latter states becomes high enough they start to participate in the conduction by means of thermal hopping conduction and it then seems as if there are more wave-packets than there should be.

This increase in charge-carriers should correlate with the so-called "pseudogap".

johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
It is carried by wave-packets, each of which is a superposition of non-localized electron-waves which are present within a metal when no current is flowing.


It doesn't explain, why the small capacitors are discharging electron by electron


Why does it not explain it? Are the capacitors discharging without an applied electric-field? NOOOOOO!!! Stop being such a complete A-hole: You are really getting boring.

When there is an electric-field, the extended waves superpose to form localized wave-packets, each being a pseudo-electron: And these will discharge as localized charge-carriers as they must. Without an applied electric-field they DO NOT exist! So what is your beef?

Give me an experimental proof that there are separate electrons within a metal when there is no applied electric-field: Note that light is also an electric-field so that impinging light also forms wave-packets which are not there without the light: Hence the photo-electric effect.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2013
Give me an experimental proof that there are separate electrons within a metal when there is no applied electric-field
For example during photoelectric effect the individual electrons are released.


Again you are an A-hole: Before the light impinges the valence-electron-states are delocalized stationary waves: If you do not want to believe me solve the Schrodinger equation for the boundary conditions involved. When sending in light you CHANGE the boundary conditions, and these delocalized waves superpose to form wave-packets. And if the mass-energy of such a wave packet is larger than the rest-mass energy of an electron, it gets ejected as a free electron.

You're apparently believing, that the electrons are somehow dissolved within metals. ...but the individual particles are still present there.


There are no individual free electrons within an undisturbed metal in equilibrium. The wave-packets, after collision, spread to become delocalized stationary waves.
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2013
It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. I know, that these simple rules are getting annoying for theorists at times... But the physics is an experimental science, not a phillosophy.


Exactly! That is why it has NOTHING in common with plastic ducks paddling and farting bubbles below the surface!

The Schrodinger equation, which gives the correct orbitals for the hydrogen atom, does NOT give solutions of plastic ducks, but does give delocalised stationary waves for the valence electrons within a block of an ideal metal. Thus, this is what the valence electrons must BE when the block of metal is in an equilibrium state (ignoring any temperature excitations).

I am believing the solutions of an equation which has stood the test of time. Your duck and foam "particle" HAS NEVER BEEN PROVED EXPERIMENTALLY ANYWHERE! I find it rich that YOU want to preach to ME about experimental "evidence"!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2013
Nope, there is a mixture of both electrons, both deBroglie "wake" waves,
There are NO WAKE WAVES: Each moving object with momentum p=mv, has a de Broglie wavelength since this is demanded by Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity.

which surround them and which do behave like the delocalized quantum wave packets, you're describing. The electrons itself aren't reconstructed from these "wake" waves.
The electron itself is the wave as I have proved here: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

IMO you're adhering on Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics way too much. What you're saying is valid for photons only (and still a big "if" does exist here), but not for electrons and heavier particles.


It is valid for photons AND all moving objects with rest-mass. They all move being actual waves having a de Broglie wavelength (lam)=h/p. A coherent light-wave has the same wavelength as a photon with the same frequency, even when its energy is larger!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
Try to think logically, not theoretically for a while: do you know, what the boson condensate is?


Yes I do, but YOU do not! Firstly, a boson condensate DOES not ONLY form at a low temperature: It can form under any conditions when the separate boson-waves have to entangle to lose their separate existences in order to form a SINGLE HOLISTIC wave. This wave does NOT consist of separate bosons anymore: For example a laser beam.

At low temperatures the cold atoms are organize mutually into clusters, inside of which they're all getting the same quantum state.


If they are distinguishable such a cluster is NOT a Bose Condensate, but a Boltzmann Condensate.

Do you believe, these atoms are completely dissolved into quantum wave packets there?


Not if you can still distinguish them: But it is then WRONG to call this state a Bose Condensate since when they are distinguishable Boltzmann statistics apply! NOT Bose Statistics!
johanfprins
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2013
..the Schrodinger equation .. does give delocalised stationary waves for the valence electrons within a block of an ideal metal
Nope, the Schrodinger equation is just and only about probability of the occurrence of electrons around atoms.


This is Voodoo nonsense: Chemistry proves that it is Voodoo nonsense!

It does not say anything about actual state of electrons there...


Really!!! Then why do these wave intensities define chemical bonding so well, as one would expect when actual charged-waves overlap and mix their continuous charge-distributions? No "point-charges" involved!

Don't extrapolate the formal models outside of their applicability scope, for which they were derived originally.


No I am not! I am applying them correctly as any sane Solid State physicist and theoretical chemist have all along done since 1927; without being sidelined by the Copenhagen Voodoo interpretation.
jalmy
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2013
"Give me an experimental proof that there are separate electrons within a metal when there is no applied electric-field: Note that light is also an electric-field so that impinging light also forms wave-packets which are not there without the light: Hence the photo-electric effect."

Ok so drive your car around the block, get out and touch the door. See if you get a shock. Ever hear of this stuff called static electricity? There are "seperate electrons" aka static electrons in or "on" pretty much everything. Just a little, you know second grade science for ya there.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2013
@jalmy
Ok so drive your car around the block, get out and touch the door. See if you get a shock. Ever hear of this stuff called static electricity? There are "seperate electrons" aka static electrons in or "on" pretty much everything. Just a little, you know second grade science for ya there.


If you read carefully what I have written you will see that I am talking about a block of metal in an equilibrium state. In such a state there are not extra charge within the metal and you will surely NOT get a shock when you touch it.

If you change the boundary conditions by injecting extra charge, an electric-field is generated within the block of metal which in turn generates wave-packets that can be ejected when you touch the block.

But if you do not change the boundary conditions then, except for a few wave-packets generated by temperature fluctuations, the rest of the valence electrons are stationary waves, each of which stretches over the whole volume for a perfect crystal.
Minich
1 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2013
The mystery of superconductivity and superfluidity lies in "Modified Band Theory", developed by Minich.
http://love.minich.ru
See the message of M@2 on in physicsforums.com. The message of M@2 was deleted by moderators, but it is reproduced by M@2 at
http://physicsfor...sy.htm#5
Q-Star
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 20, 2013
The mystery of superconductivity and superfluidity lies in "Modified Band Theory", developed by Minich.
http://love.minich.ru


I can see why the moderators would delete that, AND why Nature would refuse to publish your article. Zeph, right? Nice try but the pathology is hard to disguise.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2013
I've nothing to do with Minich or JFPrins theories. When the theory is wrong, it's not difficult to argue it against at qualitative logical level. You cannot expect, your argumentation will be accepted with your opponent - but the other readers can indeed draw their own picture about it. As Planck once said, the new truth will be accepted when all its opponents will die out. And I can wait for it fifty years without problem.
Minich
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
The mystery of superconductivity and superfluidity lies in "Modified Band Theory", developed by Minich.
http://love.minich.ru


I can see why the moderators would delete that, AND why Nature would refuse to publish your article. Zeph, right? Nice try but the pathology is hard to disguise.

Zeph? What is it?

M@2 is my friend, who could read my paper to Nature.com
But i don't submitted this paper to Nature yet. So Nature could not "REJECT" my paper :)

Why are you so quick? :)

johanfprins
1 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2013
As Planck once said, the new truth will be accepted when all its opponents will die out. And I can wait for it fifty years without problem.


Even if you could have waited a billion years you will still be wrong! No ducks, no bubbles no crazy hallucinations can withstand the test of time! Planck spoke of rational ideas NOT honky-tonk illogical nonsense!
Q-Star
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2013
Why you are so quick? :)


I guess that would be my genes, with much help because "The Zephyr" is so very unique.
ValeriaT
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2013
No ducks, no bubbles no crazy hallucinations can withstand the test of time!
LOL...:-) Wanna bet?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2013
No ducks, no bubbles no crazy hallucinations can withstand the test of time!
LOL...:-) Wanna bet?


Any time for as much as you want: You have not yet published a single equation which can be fitted to ANY known data to substantiate your insane mindless babbling on this forum. And you never will be able to do this even if you could do mathematics which you obviously cannot do. Please do something that fits your abilities: Like cleaning toilets at stations!
VENDItardE
1 / 5 (4) Mar 23, 2013
everybody gets a 1....no exceptions, quit trying to explain something that no one understands yet.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2013
quit trying to explain something that no one understands yet
So should we explain only the things, which are already explained? If yes, why we should do it? In addition, from where you got the impression, no one understands the high temperature superconductivity yet?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Mar 24, 2013
Please note, that for example the solar system can be described with Kepler's model or with Ptolemy's epicycle model without problem and both models give the quantitative exact predictions. They were used for prediction of planetary conjunctions and solar eclipses for whole centuries. So that the fact, some situation can be described with multiple formal models equally well is not so exceptional in physics and the proponents of opposite models tend to fight obstinately each other.

But both the Kepler equations, both the epicycle equations don't contain the logical interpretation of the model. This logic is independent of math formulation and only one logical model can be correct. Because whole formal math is based on predicate logic, then the relevance of logic is always more fundamental and as such superordinated the formal description. So you can ignore easily the fight of theorists for their formal models - you should ask them for logic, in which these models are built.
ValeriaT
1.3 / 5 (6) Mar 24, 2013
Due the complexity and nontransparency of math involved most models of contemporary physics are nothing more, than just complex numeric regression of reality. It's relevant even for the most fundamental laws, like the Newton gravitational law or Maxwell's equations. We know, that the gravity is inversely proportional to square of distance, but we have no idea why it is so (until we ignore the LeSage model, which explains it logically). This is simply the way, in which physical reality is working: there are infinitely many ways, in which we can interpolate the experimental data with functional curve - and until you don't understand, what you're doing, you should be prepared for situation, that your regression is wrong.

So, if you don't understand your model, you're always in the role of proponents of epicycles and you should be prepared for the fact, the agreement of your model with reality is just a random coincidence and some other logical model could describe it more faithfully.
AntonKole
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
Great article. Cheers Liz!
johanfprins
2.7 / 5 (9) Mar 25, 2013
So you can ignore easily the fight of theorists for their formal models - you should ask them for logic, in which these models are built.


Exactly: The only problem with YOU is that the mainstream physicists, although wrong, have MUCH MUCH more logic in their models than the claptrap you are constantly posting on this forum! Do you know what the term "logic" means? I doubt it very much. If your logic is correct you will be able to formulate it in terms of mathematical equations instead of vomiting airy-fairy stories about paddling ducks!

At least epicycles gave the correct motion as viewed from earth! Your "logic" does not even achieve this!

johanfprins
1.5 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
The relevant superconductivity model is similar case,


No it is NOT: This case is very simple to model in terms of a quadratic equation which determines the spacing between the charge-carriers so that they can tunnel and replace one another.

because of hyperdimensional multiparticle interactions are involved.


Utter nonsense: Tunnelling is easy to model!

It enables to explain complex stuff trivially at logical level, but its still difficult to formalize it. Try to explain with your math, why for example the niobium is a good superconductor, whereas the sodium isn't.


That is easy: Niobium has a suitable energy-gap within which localized states increase in density when you decrease the temperature: And when the density of these states reaches a critical value, superconduction occurs by means of tunneling which can be quantitatively modeled in terms of simple equations.

No hand-waving "hyperdimensional multiparticle interactions" required whatsoever.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
As another example of controversy, where mathematical model fails is the decision, whether the heliocentric or geocentric model is correct. Both models have their math developed, but this math gives the same predictions.


And therefore, according to you one is better off not to have a quantitative model at all?! You are insane you know!

The formal models is always based on some reduction and simplification of reality,


That is the whole purpose of physics!

so they tend to converge mutually into singularity, when the solution of actual problem requires just not to ignore this simplification anymore.


This is not generally true: It is only true when your model is based on nonsensical postulates like paddling ducks!

The predicate logics is actually much more robust and powerful tool for judging of relevance of physical models for observable ..etc.


Nothing surpasses a quantitative mathematical expression that can be fitted to data.
johanfprins
1.4 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2013
Why it has a suitable energy-gap, whereas the sodium hasn't? This is just a point where difference between formal regression and actual understanding of the physical process begins.


This is how nature made different materials: For example, silicon is a semiconductor since it has an energy gap while copper is a near ideal conductor since it does not have an energy-gap. One can measure the energy gaps in a material in different ways. Energy-gaps already start to appear within the semi-metals and when you have a suitable metal with a suitable energy-gap, superconduction can occur within this metal. It is as simple as that.

If you know the energy-gap, and the energy of the stationary states that form within this gap below the highest energy of the gap, one can derive quantitative mathematical expressions which fit all the known data published to date on ALL the superconducting phases discovered to date: Also in the ceramics like YBCO. As I have shown already 8 years ago!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
Both niobium, both sodium are metals, they've both zero energy gap. They shouldn't therefore differ in superconductivity - and your theory is wrong after then.


Niobium DOES have a small energy gap that is suitable for superconduction: It is known that for superconduction to occur within these metals there must be an energy gap. The mainstream idiots doing research on SC believe that the gap only appears at the critical temperature. It does not. It is there all the time. The critical temperature is reached when the Fermi-level moves into the gap. That the gap is there BEFORE SC initiates has been very clearly measured for lead: See: Science vol 330, (2008) p. 1509.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
Until the niobium remains metal, it has zero energy gap.


Nope!

No voltage is generated in contact of niobium with another metals.


You should first take an elementary course in physics before trying to play in the main league! Have you EVER heard about a Kelvin probe? I thought not!

Could you provide the link to your story?


A link to what "story"? Anybody who has done an elementary course in Solid State Physics knows that the semi metals have gaps and that SC occurs within these metals and NOT within the "ideal" metals that do not have gaps!

Anyway, it still doesn't explain, why the niobium has such a gap, whereas the sodium hasn't. And how to measure that gap, if it doesn't exist?


Sodium is near to being an ideal metal and therefore it does not have gaps. Within Niobium the electrons are not so well screened from the positive ions and therefore it has gaps. This is simple high school physics my bro.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
Until the niobium remains metal, it has zero energy gap. ..Nope!
LOL. You may scream as you wish, but this is how the metals, semiconductors and insulators are defined. The metals have zero gap by their definition.
..Niobium the electrons are not so well screened from the positive ions and therefore it has gaps.
This is simply nonsense. For example, the sodium is an ideal metal and it doesn't form superconductor. The lithium is as ideal metal as sodium and it does form superconductor.

In addition, even if the niobium would have some gap, it should be measurable. How? The niobium is not semiconductor, it doesn't form semiconductor junction, you'll always measure zero gap for it. On the other hand, some insulators (including cuprates) have high energy gap, yet they're superconductors. Apparently your "theory" doesn't work not at least... Why? Because you're stupid egocentric guy and you're never checking facts. The ideas of yours are purely driven with your belief...
FastEddy
1 / 5 (5) Mar 25, 2013
I have a feeling this is very important.


Absolutely, and that is why this article is short of sight and info.
FastEddy
1 / 5 (6) Mar 25, 2013
quit trying to explain something that no one understands yet
So should we explain only the things, which are already explained? If yes, why we should do it? In addition, from where you got the impression, no one understands the high temperature superconductivity yet?


Although clues abound: Graphene, other than reasonable topographical/topological explanations, seems to be ...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
LOL. You may scream as you wish, but this is how the metals, semiconductors and insulators are defined. The metals have zero gap by their definition.


The ideal metals in which the valence electrons are well screened and have a near-spherical Fermi-surface which lies within the first Brillioun zone: But not for metals where the latter is not the case.

The lithium is as ideal metal as sodium and it does form superconductor.
If Lithium is an ideal metal in the same manner than sodium is, it will not be able to superconduct. Thus it is not!

In addition, even if the niobium would have some gap, it should be measurable. How?
In the metals these gaps are very small and difficult to measure. In the case of lead it was only measured by inelastic neutron scattering in 2008.

The niobium is not semiconductor, it doesn't form semiconductor junction, you'll always measure zero gap for it.


ALL different materials form a dipole layer across the interface
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
between them. Whether this dipole acts as a rectifying junction or not is determined by many factors, like the available charge carriers on both sides of the junction, the width of the dipole layer etc. It is easy to generate a dipole layer between a p-type and an n-type semiconductor which does not rectify: But this is, as usual, above your limited brainpower!

On the other hand, some insulators (including cuprates) have high energy gap, yet they're superconductors. Apparently your "theory" doesn't work not at least..


If you were able to understand simple English, you would have seen that there must be localized states within the bandgap, and that the energy of these states below the top energy of the bandgap and the density of these charge-carriers determine the critical temperature. Within the ceramics this energy is larger and the density of localized states is higher than in the metals: Therefore: Higher critical temperatures.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
For the same reason you can obtain superconduction in extrinsic superconductors when you increase the dopant density to a high enough level. The dopants then form an impurity band with localized states between the impurity band and the edge of the conduction band. When these localized states reach a high enough density superconduction occurs. It even works for holes in highly-doped p-type diamond.

Why? Because you're stupid egocentric guy and you're never checking facts. The ideas of yours are purely driven with your belief..
I have modeled superconductors, both low temperature metals, and ceramics with my model and found perfect correlation with published experimental data: Far better than the BCS model. The calculations are on my website in both the books I have written. YOU are the one who do not want to read this and YOU blame ME that I do not check my facts!!

I hope you are just troll: Because if you are not, you are THE IDIOT of ALL idiots on this planet!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
If Lithium is an ideal metal in the same manner than sodium is, it will not be able to superconduct. Thus it is not!
This is just the problem - you're explaining the behavior with itself. This is not an explanation, but a tautology.
The ideal metals in which the valence electrons are well screened and have a near-spherical Fermi-surface which lies within the first Brillioun zone: But not for metals where the latter is not the case
Now you got a point - the origin of superconductor behaviour is indeed not a energy band - but a geometry of their structure. Try to extrapolate it.
In the metals these gaps are very small and difficult to measure. In the case of lead it was only measured by inelastic neutron scattering in 2008.
So you shouldn't consider it, because the metals differ with their gaps a way less than with their superconductive behavior. We known about many insulators, which still become superconductive under cooling.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2013
Within the ceramics this energy is larger and the density of localized states is higher than in the metals
You got another point: the ceramic. What the niobium has in common with cuprates? It's indeed not a band gap at all: the first one is a metal with zero gap, the second one is an insulator with intrinsic gap well over 1 eV. It's their brittleness. What makes the materials brittle?
I hope you are just troll: Because if you are not, you are THE IDIOT of ALL idiots on this planet!
This is solely irrelevant in matter of discussion what you think I am.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
If Lithium is an ideal metal in the same manner than sodium is, it will not be able to superconduct. Thus it is not!


This is just the problem - you're explaining the behavior with itself. This is not an explanation, but a tautology.

Only a complete MORON like YOU will misunderstand what I have stated. The statement is clear that if Li can superconduct it CANNOT be an ideal metal. If ideal metals could superconduct then, then sodium, copper, gold etc should all have been superconductors: Which they are NOT.

but a geometry of their structure. Try to extrapolate it.
Extrapolate bloody WHAT???


So you shouldn't consider it, because the metals differ with their gaps a way less than with their superconductive behavior.


An absolutely senseless statement like all your statements have been all along!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
We known about many insulators, which still become superconductive under cooling


Where have I stated anything else? another senseless argument!

Insulators are insulators BECAUSE they have gaps and when localized states are present within this gap at a suitable energy below the top of the gap, and these states reach a high enough density, superconduction MUST occur. It is for this reason why within the low-temperature metals you have a metal-insulator transition accompanying the onset of superconduction.

An insulating state is formed when the Fermi-level moves within a gap: SC IS THUS CONDUCTION THROUGH AN INSULATING STATE IN ALL CASES WHEN IT OCCURS.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2013
You got another point: the ceramic. What the niobium has in common with cuprates? It's indeed not a band gap at all:


If it does NOT have this, it will not superconduct. Obviously the gap is much smaller but it is still an insulating gap: This is why in the metals a metal-insulator transition accompanies the onset of supercopnduction.

the first one is a metal with zero gap,
Nope! It is not.

the second one is an insulator with intrinsic gap well over 1 eV.
At least you got this right!

It's their brittleness. What makes the materials brittle?


Easy!! Gaps in their electronic energy spectrum which cause metal-insulator transitions when the Fermi-level moves into a gap: That is what makes the bonding stronger and the material more brittle!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2013
BTW, I just googled http://en.wikiped...ctorsTW:

They do not list lithium as a superconductor: Can you give a reference please?
agref
not rated yet Mar 25, 2013
To engineers, it's a tale as old as time: Electrical current is carried through materials by flowing electrons.


Wrong.

Current is a flow of charge. Electron flow in metal wires is a current. Ion flow in batteries, electrolytic capacitors, and neon lamps is a current. Proton flow in ice or fuel cells is a current. Hole flow in semiconductors is a current.

Engineers use conventional current to wrap up all these different charge carriers into a single convenient package, and just consider the net flow of positive charge around a circuit. Only noobs think electrons are the only type of charge that flows in circuits.
DarkHorse66
not rated yet Mar 26, 2013
@johanfprins: I used the keywords "superconducting lithium" and came up with:
http://physicswor...nductors
http://www.superc...i_sc.htm
http://www.nature...820.html
http://www.nature...181.html
mostly right at the top of the list. Was this the kind of thing that you might be looking for?
Best Regards, DH66
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2013
@DarkHorse66

Thank you very much for the references. I was not aware of the one where SC was observed in pure Li at ambient pressure below 4 milli-Kelvin. I am pretty certain that this was not obtained on a perfect crystal of lithium. As the crystallographic disorder in a material increases, one obtains more and more localized electronic states (Philip Anderson got a Nobel Prize for proving this). This also causes gaps to open up to accommodate these states and thus metal-insulator transitions occur (called Anderson transitions); and when such a gap and localized states fulfill the necessary criteria, as determined by my model, superconduction will occur.

Similarly when you put an ideal metal under high pressure, one expects the electron-energy distribution to change from that of an ideal metal to become more complex. When under pressure a suitable energy gap opens up with a high enough density of localized states in it superconduction will also occur in this case.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2013
To engineers, it's a tale as old as time: Electrical current is carried through materials by flowing electrons.


Wrong.

Only noobs think electrons are the only type of charge that flows in circuits.


Thank you agref: It is totally nonsense to state that "free electrons" carry the charge of a current through a material. A "free electron" must have an energy larger than its rest mass. An electron bonding atoms within a material has a lower energy than its rest-mass energy. Within a block of any material, there are NO freely moving electrons when there is no applied electric-field. In a perfect crystal (ignoring temperature effects) each electron is a stationary wave that fills the whole metal.

When applying an electric-field these delocalized waves superpose to form wave-packets which can then be accelerated by the field. Depending on the electron-energy distribution these wave packets can be negatively charged (n-type) or positively charged (p-type).

NO "particles"!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
NO "particles"!


Your superconductivity theory is based on so-called "Mott orbitals". Could you explain, how such Mott orbitals are formed?


They are localized "wave-packets" which are anchored by a localized opposite charge. This can happen in many ways. The most obvious, which has been modeled by Mott, is the formation of an electron-orbital at the position of a donor atom. Such orbitals can also form when there are lattice distortions (the Anderson mechanism) and they also form in non-ideal metals by the Wigner mechanism. Such Wigner-orbitals are isotope dependent and this explains the isotope effect in metals: Not the formation of Cooper pairs!

Localized states are not "particles" but are formed by the superposition of delocalized electron-waves. For this reason these localized states can also be positively charged as they are within a highly doped p-type diamond that superconducts at low temperatures.

Only a moron will call such an orbital a "particle".
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
..they are localized "wave-packets" which are anchored by a localized opposite charge...


How the wave can charged and how it can be anchored with opposite charge? Such a wave could freely escape anyway.


Any material consist of ions bonded by electrons. Jeesh, even my goldfish knows this! The electron waves are negatively charged so that when they superpose they form a wave-packet that is negatively-charged.

That this happens at suitable localized sites in a material can be found in any standard text book on Solid State Physics. Many text books have been written on how to model these states which can be experimentally measured to exist. See f.e. Theory of Defects in Solids by A Stoneham, Clarendon Press.

A negatively-charged orbital that is trapped at a positive charge CANNOT freely escape: The charges attract each other so that a "free escape" cannot occur unless the anchored orbital gains enough energy to break free from the attraction of the positive charge.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
The problem of yours is, you're taking the quantum wave concept too literally. You're really believing into physical reality of quantum waves.


Yes I do! It is not a "problem": It is the only reality which does not require Voodoo hand-waving to explain effects like double-slit diffraction and the photo-electric effect: I DO NOT believe in Voodoo!

Quantum mechanics is about probability of the occurrence of charged particle,


There exist absolutely NO reason to believe in this utter Voodoo BS: All the measured data to date can be perfectly modeled in terms of Maxwell's waves and their interactions. You do not need "particles" and Voodoo probabilities.

not about charged waves.


When calculating a chemical bond one HAS TO accept that the overlapping waves are charged and and that the overlapping of these distributed charges causes the chemical bond. So why the hell do you want to throw a "particle" into the works when it is not required and has NEVER been required
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
Because these particles are still present there


Prove it experimentally without changing the boundary conditions: YOU CANNOT!

and this is just what prohibits you in understanding/explanation of why brittle niobium or let say lithium becomes superconductive whereas the sodium not. The width of hypothetical band gap doesn't explains it


It explains it fully! It fits the experimental data for ALL superconductors discovered to date perfectly: See examples in http://www.cathod...nism.pdf where data, which cannot be fitted by any other model, is perfectly fitted by this energy gap and the density of localized states. Why do you refuse to look at what I have published and to then argue where I have made a mistake, if I have made one? You refuse to look through Galileo's telescope at the mountains on the moon.

It is indeed very sad that in the 21st century we still have people like YOU who act like the Cardinals did in Galileo's time!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2013
Try to explain the origin of this difference to your grandma and you'll see.


I have explained superconduction to many lay people with common sense who caught on immediately. After all the physics is VERY SIMPLE since it is the same as for localized donor states at an energy Ed below the conduction band within a semiconductor. The thermodynamics involved is well known and follows Boltzmann's statistics since the localized states are distinguishable. At T=0 the Fermi-level is at Ed below the conduction band (CB) and moves through the gap so that the activation energy becomes zero at a higher temperature when it moves into the CB. This behavior has been measured.

Try to explain first, what makes the niobium or cuprate ceramic brittle.


I am not going to give you a set of lectures on bonding in solids. If you have ANY brains you can read it yourself within elementary text books. But of course you must have an IQ of at least 100; which you obviously do not have.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2013
The epicycle model fitted the experimental data discovered to date perfectly as well.


It is possible that a wrong postulate can give a seemingly correct mathematical description. Usually you will find when this happens you have to prop up the model with Voodoo assumptions. For example for the epicycles you have to assume that there is a Voodoo-force which keeps the planet rotating around its path.

In this respect "wave-particle" duality is the same as the epicycle model. To keep it valid you have to invoke Voodoo, like assuming the the photons know when you are looking at them and when you are not looking at them when they pass through a double slit. LOL!

The difference between mine and yours is, that I do understand, (from) where you got your stance "everything is wave":


How do YOU know which facts I have considered in detail? You are not just incredibly stupid but also repulsively arrogant!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2013
you're simply considering the "boundary condition" as an abstract portion of your waves.


Only an utter fool will make this statement. You cannot model the physics of waves by ignoring the relevant boundary conditions: The shape and size of a wave are determined by the boundary conditions and these boundary conditions are NOT abstract portions of the waves.

But in physics no abstract boundary condition exists - only physical gradient, which restricts/modifies the wave spreading.


You have just defined a boundary condition! Calling it another name does not change the fact that it is a boundary conditions.

So that the particle wave packet is standing wave,


Are you talking about a free electron in space or a wave-packet within a material?

which is dancing inside the trap formed with density gradient, which is created with its own motion (the vacuum foam gets dense with shaking)


A trapped wave is a stationary wave within its trap: No shaking around!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2013
But such explanation still exists and it's very simple - you could to present it to your grandmother without problem.
Then WHY do YOU not give the explanation if it is so SIMPLE?

After all, you already nearly got it with your remark about different Fermi orbitals. Try to formulate it more consistently
I have done this and used my model to fit data which YOUR model cannot fit: Let me refer YOU again to: http://www.cathod...nism.pdf

and you'll understand, what makes the material brittle and what makes the superconductor from any material. Such an experiment would perfectly fits the founding experiment of yours with diamond.
What experiment?

After all, try to explain (to your grandma), why another material cannot replace the diamond in this experiment: and you'll see...


Another material CAN replace diamond when suitably treated. It need not be brittle!

You are REALLY out of your mind!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 26, 2013
The difference between understanding of superconductivity at the formal and qualitative level is, your way of understanding will not help you in finding of ideal superconductor, simply because you don't understand, what makes the "energy gap" of yours ideal for superconductivity.


Again YOU are repulsively arrogant. I do understand exactly what the energy gap and density of orbitals must be to generate a superconductor which superconducts at any chosen temperature: That is why I have such superconductors which work at temperatures above room temperature; and you have NOT!

Unfortunately this is not only problem of yours, but the problem of most physicists, who are doing the superconductivity research. They're looking for the best numeric regression of superconductors, not for the way, in which they could be prepared and optimized.


What makes you think that I have such a problem? More repulsive arrogance! I know in which ways they can be prepared and I am doing this!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
How do YOU know which facts I have considered in detail


Because you cannot tell me these details. I've nothing to guess - I'm just considering the observable facts: no explanation provided means no understanding....


Another repulsive arrogant lie. The details have been available for more than 8 years How many times must I rub your stinking nose in it: See http://www.cathod...nism.pdf

Stop lying!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
A trapped wave is a stationary wave within its trap
Well, and the trap (the density gradient of environment which is forming it, be more specific) is just the particle concept of quantum mechanics, which is overlooked by you.


Where does the "particle concept" come into this?

This gradient is not part of the wave - it's a part of its environment.


So? But since it is a boundary condition it does affect the size and shape of the wave.

And of course we can have a wave without its boundary conditions: every free wave is such a wave.


No it is NOT! You can have a mathematical solution without boundary conditions but this solution cannot model ANY REAL wave in our Universe EVER!

We just cannot have its steady-state solution, but it's the problem of mathematicians - not the wave itself.


"Steady-state solution"? Do you mean a "coherent" wave with single frequency? Of course you can have a coherent wave of limited size with a single frequency!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
Which property it is? Why we cannot use for example silicon layer implanted with oxygen instead of diamond in your experiment? This is the question!


Oxygen does not form donor-states within silicon: That's why! Please read what is on my website about the experiment and stop wasting my time with your inanely stupid remarks and questions. First do your homework.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
The reason, why you cannot realize it is just in your "all is the wave" pattern of thinking. If you would understand the electrons like the particles,


Why should I "understand" that which does not exist? Electrons ARE NOT particles. The de Broglie wavelength for an electron can be derived from the Lorentz transformation which is determined by Maxwell's equations. A freely moving electron is a coherent wave of length L=(gamma)*D where D is the diameter of the electron when it is at rest. I have already posted this derivation 3 times on this forum!

it wouldn't be so difficult to guess the reason. Your theory makes you blind in certain sense.


The reasons for superconduction are SIMPLE and are ALL already in my model: And my model so far fitted ALL the superconducting data that I fitted it to. Where is your data fitted to the "reason that I must guess"? You are really insane you know!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
Umm, please don't refer to thick books when you're asked for one sentence explanation. This just makes perfectly clear, you don't know such an explanation. The details is exactly what I don't wan't to hear here - my question is about sum of substance.


I obviously do not know the "explanation" that you want to hear from me: This is most probably since the explanation YOU want to hear is, as usual, irrelevant nonsense. Why do you not just state what the "explanation" is what that you want to hear?

My experience is, the people who understand the problem are explaining it at place - they don't refer to another sources (of potential confusion).
My experience with YOU is that you do not understand physics and therefore I have to refer you to books.

After all, if you cannot explain it here after writing of whole your book, why I should read it?


It does not surprize me one bit that you want to attack me without knowing what my model is! that is the mark of a BIGOT!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
OK, what keeps the electrons at the surface of diamond?
It is well described and summarized on my webpage: See: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf I hope you have heard of the formation of dipole layers across interfaces! Most probably NOT!

What is the cause, that the superconductivity of your samples tends to cease gradually?


Where have you read this claptrap? It DOES NOT cease gradually at all!

What we could expect, if we would replace the diamond with silicon after then?


For any type of donor in silicon the donor density cannot be increased to the levels required for the formation of a superconducting phase.

Currently the situation is, the misunderstanding in one area prohibits you in understanding of another related problem. You're deadlocked in your belief so to say...
You are describing yourself very well indeed!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
Oxygen does not form donor-states within silicon: That's why!
Nice try.. but umm, http://ieeexplore...5105721.
Thse donor centres are not enough to generate usable n-type silicon having a high density of donors.

OK, what keeps the electrons at the surface of diamond?
I have already answered this above and referred you to my website where it is discussed in detal.

What is the cause, that the superconductivity of your samples tends to cease gradually?


I have also answered this above and asked you where you have come to the claptrap information that the SC is ceasing gradually? Please STOP injecting falsehoods!

What we could expect, if we would replace the diamond with silicon after then?
Answer above.

IMO these questions aren't stupid, if you cannot answer it. After all, there are no stupid questions, only answers...


In your case there are stupid questions which you base on unfounded assumptions and lies
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
OK, we are in superconductivity thread, let's talk about your problem with superconductivity above diamond for now. The practical usefulness of your samples is limited just with fact, they're unstable with time.


They are NOT!! How many times must I point it out to you that you are posting claptrap!

What is the reason of this instability? You should really know about it for being able to pursue this line or research for future.


There is NO instability!!

good Night!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 26, 2013
OK, what keeps the electrons at the surface of diamond? It is well described and summarized on my webpage: See...
Geez, why not answer simply, it's a Coulomb force between electrons and oxygen holes? Can you think simply at all?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2013
OK, what keeps the electrons at the surface of diamond? It is well described and summarized on my webpage: See...
Geez, why not answer simply, it's a Coulomb force between electrons and oxygen holes? Can you think simply at all?


I have referred you to the SIMPLE dipole derivation on my website, which you obviously cannot follow. Obviously, the Coulomb force plays a role, but there is also the Fermi-level and the formation of a depletion-layer: That the Coulomb force plays a role is so obvious that even an idiot like you knows this! This means that any brainless human being can know this. So why must I state this when I have already stated that a dipole layer forms across the surface?

Let us see whether you understand "holes": I very much doubt it? Are these "holes" that you claim are there able to move? Are they according to your belief in wave-particle duality "particles"? PLEASE give a straight answer if you can!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2013
That the Coulomb force plays a role is so obvious that even an idiot like you knows this!
So why not to simply say it?


It has been said because it should be obvious to any fool, including YOU, that the formation of a dipole layer involves Coulomb forces. But what is obviously not obvious to a fool like you is that the formation of the dipole layer involves MORE than just the Coulomb force between the charges across an interface.

So, we have positively charged oxygen vacancies bellow surface of diamond and the electrons floating above the surface of diamond,


There are NO oxygen vacancies!! What has it got to do with the absence of oxygen atoms in the crystal? And there are not "floating" electrons since they are not "particles".

which are attracted to them. What will happen with it after while?


What do you mean "will happen to them after a while"? The dipole is an equilibrium configuration which will obviously stay intact for EVER!!!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2013
Can you explain after then, why the superconductivity of your samples disappeared after few hours?


IT DID NOT DISAPPEAR AFTER A FEW HOURS: WHY DO YOU KEEP ON LYING? I HAVE NOT REPORTED THIS ANYWHERE SINCE IT DOES NOT HAPPEN.

IN FACT THE SC PHASE IS SO STABLE THAT AFTER A THREE MONTH'S HOLIDAY IT WAS STILL THERE AND IT WILL STILL BE THERE AFTER A MILLION YEARS.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2013
But the annealed samples didn't exhibit superconductivity anymore just after few hours of heating. Do you have some explanation for it?


Which annealed samples? Obviously any heat treatment that destroys the donor centers (usually above 550 C in this case) will make superconduction impossible since the required dipole layer cannot be generated: But this does NOT mean that the superconducting layer, after it has formed, is itself unstable! It remains for eternity!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2013
@natello
In the interest of the future of physics it is imperative to state that Prof Archie Campbell is a brainless asshole. He is a typical example of the mindless idiots which are nowadays produced at Cambridge University. I have written responses to both New Scientist AND to Archie explaining how he missed the physics involved. Obviously no response since the Royal Society of London is a community of assholes.

I have explained very clearly to them why the electric field between my anode and the diamond MUST be zero, and why this is the VERY FIRST experiment EVER since the discovery of superconduction which proves without doubt that the electric field is zero: See also: http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

I also offered to prepare a diamond so that asshole Archie can repeat the experiment. Obviously no response. The old goat realizes in his senility that my result rubbishes all the second-rate manuscripts on SC that he has published.

AlanK
not rated yet Mar 28, 2013
The mystery of superconductivity and superfluidity lies in "Modified Band Theory", developed by Minich.


What does it mean: "Modified Band Theory"?
Electron Modified Band Theory?
Minich
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013
The mystery of superconductivity and superfluidity lies in "Modified Band Theory", developed by Minich.


What does it mean: "Modified Band Theory"?
Electron Modified Band Theory?

1. "Modified Band Theory" is not exactly "Electron Modified Band Theory"
2. "Modified Band Theory" is exactly "Electron PLUS IONS Modified Band Theory"
3. Peyerls instability is an example where displacement of IONS causes instability.
4. There are other instabilities of IONs displacements and IONs motions which are responsible for superfluidity "IONs plus electrons" system.

Turn on brains :)

http://physicsfor...sy.htm#5
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013
have explained very clearly to them why the electric field between my anode and the diamond MUST be zero
But the subject of my question (and Prof Archie Campbell's objection) wasn't your belief and reasoning of phenomena predicted - but an experimental methods, which you did use for its observation.


There was NOTHING wrong with my experimental method as anybody with brains, which YOU and Archie Campbell do not have, can understand after they have studied http://www.cathod...tion.pdf

If your superconducting phase is one part of a dipole which MUST cancel ANY applied electric field within the dipole, then when you apply such a field, and a current flows through the dipole while it is physically impossible that there can be an electric-field present, you have impeccable proof that SC is occurring: Better than for any other previous material ever claimed to be a superconductor.

There has NEVER been better proof for SC EVER!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013
But you tested superconductivity with fairly high voltage, which could bring the possibility of discharge, cold emission and another features.


This voltage was NOT across the gap since when closing the gap (gap-width=ZERO) one still measures the EXACT SAME VOLTAGE: This is carefully described in my original publications. Do you want to tell me that this voltage is acting across a gap=ZERO? You are REALLY the most stupid person I have come across in my life!

For example, I can imagine, at the close proximity of anode and cathode the potential field strength will cross the working energy limit for diamond and such surface will emit electrons spontaneusly, which will limit the voltage drop.


But if this is the case the voltage will be HIGHER than when the gap is ZERO!! Can you get this through your THICK SKULL? The voltage drop is totally across the contact to the diamond and the position on the diamond's surface at which the electrons are extracted.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013
It's essentially the same effect, like if you would place the electrodes of neon lamp too close each other: the discharge will ignite and the lamp will become conductive and you'll measure low voltage drop (40 - 70 V or so) between electrodes.


If you push the electrodes against each other you they WILL NOT sustain 1000 kV. Furthermore, a neon lamp DOES NOT work in a vacuum of 10^(-8) mbar.

Such a tiny voltage drop will behave like pure zero at the moment, when you use 1000 V and whole the current measurement will suffer with 10% noise. Of course the plasma in neon bulb will not be superconductive - its conductivity will be just too low for to be distinguished from zero.


A neon plasma at 10^(-8) mbar!!! You are not just stupid but really insane you know!

Do you understand the principal problem of such a experiment?


Yes I do: I have a DSc in Materials Science at one of the best universities in the world: What have YOU got? F-ALL! Just a repulsive arrogance!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2013
But you didn't measure the voltage across electron layer, only between electrodes. Now I'm talking about http://www.aether...ent.gif, as described in your article.


As usual you are totally dishonest and without any integrity. The data you are showing is AFTER SC phase has formed. Before it has formed there is no electrons filling the whole gap AND NO CURRENT!.

a neon lamp DOES NOT work in a vacuum of 10^(-8) mbar


It will not indeed shine, but it still will conduct some residual current.


You are again criminally-dishonestly claiming a result that has not been experimentally proved! I have the proof that it will not!

Did you consider the tunneling current possibility?


Another demonstration of your criminal dishonesty: If you would read http://www.cathod...tion.pdf ,you would have known the role that tunneling plays! In fact, SC IS tunneling.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013
I have a DSc in Materials Science at one of the best universities in the world


LOL, if you would really achieve such a doctorate in honest way, you could never use it as an argument in scientific debate...;-)


Why NOT? You have been questioning whether I understand physics which any first year student should understand, while it is clear that you understand NOTHING! In such a case it is necessary to point out that you are a nincompoop compared to me!

The really smart people have no reason to use such an appeal to authority fallacy in matter of fact discussion


Yes, in the case where they are in a discussion with other really smart people; but not in the case when arguing with an idiot like you who thinks he is understanding science by hallucinating about ducks paddling in a non-existing aether.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2013
But you didn't measure the voltage across electron layer, only between electrodes. Now I'm talking about two-electrode compartment, as described in your article. Just keep subject - you must already know, I don't believe you a single word...;-) And your arrogantly defensive style makes your person dubious even more.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
But you didn't measure the voltage across electron layer, only between electrodes.


Since the layer is superconducting there IS NO VOLTAGE TO MEASURE ACROSS IT: CAN YOU AND ARCHIE CAMPBELL GET THIS SIMPLE FACT THROUGH YOUR BONEHEADS? The worst is that brainless people like you and Archie Campbell insult my knowledge of physics by attacking me as if I do not understand simple undergraduate physics. If you had any brains you would first do your homework: But you and Archie will NOT do this since it might mean that there are "mountains on the moon" which you do not want to see. If you did your homework you would have known that all your infantile arguments have been answered OVER and OVER and OVER again; and are listed on my website.

See: http://www.cathod...m/qa.asp

But fools like YOU and Archie Campbell do not want to read any information which clashes with your Voodoo ideas of ducks and Cooper pairs. Therefore you are acting as bottlenecks to the progress of physics.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2013
Just keep subject - you must already know,


That is exactly what I am doing: I already knew in my first year studies how and why dipole layers form. And that is the subject that explains my results. YOU obviously do not know this subject since you probably failed Kindergarten so many times that you do not have any higher education.

I don't believe you a single word...;-)


Physics has NOTHING to do with FAITH but with facts and logic. Faith usually leads too Voodoo like your ducks. You are free to believe Voodoo, but are wasting the time of intelligent people with your inane postings on this forum. You are definitely the person of which Mark Twain said: "Today I have met a man who knows more things that are not so than any other man I have ever met!"

And your arrogantly defensive style makes your person dubious even more.


Typical of your mentality! Attack the "style" and not the substance. YOU are a very sick person you know!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
Your experiment has many other explanations, as prof. Archie Campbell already noted.


It does not have "many" other explanations. I am extracting electrons into the gap. ONLY when the gap is filled with electrons does a current start to flow. At this point the electrons are accelerated into the anode and they produce bremstrahlung just as accelerating electrons do. A slight increase in the density of electrons then forms a black rod and the brehmstrahlung disappears. This means that the electrons are not being accelerated into the anode anymore: Thus there is no electric-field to accelerate them. The condensate that forms is thus an electron-phase which does not consist of distinguishable electrons anymore.

NOT a single "alternative explanation" fits the data. These "explanations" and "objections" have been raised by brainless idiots like Archie Campbell.

My experiment impeccably proves for the first time EVER that a current can actually flow with no E-field between contacts.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
If the electric-field is not ZERO, then all the Solid State Physics of interfaces which is used every day to design transistors and chips should not work. But we know that this physics is the best-proved physics EVER: And this physics demands that the depletion layer below the surface of my diamond and the electrons within the gap, MUST generate an electric-polarization field that cancels the applied electric field; so that it is IMPOSSIBLE that there could be a NET electric-field within the dipole of which the electrons within the gap forms the negative part.

As usual you make claims that you cannot substantiate: If there are "many" other explanations, then give me one that does model all my data. You cannot do what you claim is the case. Why do you not go and play with your ducks? Quack-quack!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
..If there are "many" other explanations, then give me one that does model all my data...


I already presented one of such explanation here. If the electrodes will come too close each other, then the electric field intensity will become sufficient to drain the electrons from diamond via cold emission and the vacuum above diamond will become conductive.


This does not fit the data: If this were the case, then after the onset of conduction and switching off the voltage, conduction will only again initiate when you again reach a high voltage. This is not the case after the electron condensate has formed. After it has formed you can switch the voltage off for months and when then increasing the voltage from zero, the current immediately starts to flow from zero voltage. The electron-phase acts as a dead short as a SC-phase will do!

You see what your problem is? Just like Archie Campbell you do not let facts and data interfere with what you want to believe.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
I'm actually the only one, who openly promotes your experiment at publics. If you could find someone else, just let me know about him (a link).


Yes it is embarrassing that a person like you who obviously knows no physics and will always be incapable of understanding physics "promotes" my work. By doing this other people will conclude that I am also a crackpot like you!

I will most definitely not exasperate intelligent scientists, who understand my research, by putting YOU in contact with them

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
conduction will only again initiate when you again reach a high voltage
Nope, the distance of electrodes is important too.


Exactly: For the SAME distance between the electrodes you will only again extract a current after the first on-off cycle by again going to the same voltage than the one required for the initial cycle. This IS NOT the case in my experiment!

Which is why after all, the sparks are formed under given voltage just with approaching electrodes each other.


Where did I state that I generated the current by decreasing the gap between the electrodes? As usual you make assumptions that suit your Voodoo ideas in which you want to believe!.

By doing this other people will conclude that I am also a crackpot like you!
Which I why I'm trying to save your reputation by opposing you here... You should be more thankful for it..


I can do without an ignoramus like you in my life. For what must I be thankful? For a crackpot like you?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
I don't understand what do you want to say with it.


Of course you do not understand since you are a bloody fool!

When we approach the electrodes, then the discharge and current emerge, when we separate them, the discharge/current disappears again in the same way, like the current in your experiment.


You are dishonestly selecting data from my manuscript and then deliberately misinterpreting it out of context to suit what you want to believe. It is well described in the other graphs in my manuscript that the phase forms at a constant gap and after it forms one can switch off the power supply and do then NOT require to go to the same voltage at which the phase formed to extract a current!! Why do you deliberately ignore this data. I will tell you why: Because you are a closed-minded bigot who believes that Voodoo ducks can model physics. Why MUST you be dishonest? Or are you just so incredibly stupid that you really cannot see the trees from the wood?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
When we approach the electrodes, then the discharge and current emerge, when we separate them, the discharge/current disappears again in the same way, like the current in your experiment.


The current flows for as long as the charge-carriers can tunnel through the depletion-layer within the diamond. As you increase the gap more electrons are required to fill the gap: This means that the depletion-layer becomes wider: When the depletion layer becomes so wide that no tunneling through it can occur, the current has to drop to zero.

Where did I state that I generated the current by decreasing the gap between the electrodes

Nowhere - this is what the http://www.aether...ment.gif is saying... Did you fake it or what?


WRONG! It does not say this. It simply shows that when you increase the gap, more electrons have to flow into the gap to increase the length of the SC phase.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2013
BTW Could you explain the current oscillations with distance of electrodes observed by your superconductivity theory? For me such an observation rather points to the discharge character of current observed, because such a oscillatory phenomena are http://lrrpublic....bes.jpg.


It is well explained in my paper that the first five drops in the current occurred when I increased the gap faster than the rate at which electrons can tunnel through the depletion layer. When doing this, the SC-phase is not sustained, until after enough electrons have tunneled into the gap. The SC current then returned. At higher gap distances, I opened up the gap at a very slow rate so that the electron density within the gap was sustained: No more drops in current occurred. When the depletion layer reached the width at which no more charge-carriers could transit it by tunneling", the current had to become zero!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
I'm just arguing the experimental results of yours in matter of fact arguments


You are not arguing anything in a "matter of fact" manner since you just ignore the facts in my experiment which you are finding inconvenient to your Voodoo hallucinations that you believe is physics.

and you feel threatened with it.This is exactly, what makes you so upset with me, don't you think...?


Threatened by a moron who ignores the facts that are inconvenient for him? You ARE an arrogant fool!

I am not discussing the time dependency here at all, but the distance of electrodes dependency. Your comment is solely orthogonal to problem discussed.


My comment is not orthogonal to the problem discussed since I did those measurements: YOU were not present. How do you think did I increase the gap to get these results. Since you think you know what the results mean you should be able to tell me at what rate did I increase the gap-width, and how I recorded the current!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
During plasma discharges it§s routinely observed, that the first spark or discharge requires higher voltage,..(because the environment got ionized already).


And according to you this ionization remains for months and years? Furthermore, can you explain why we only got plasma discharges at much HIGHER voltages and higher vacuum pressures.

So you cannot use such a behavior as an evidence of your superconductivity, because it could point to the plasma discharge mechanism as well.


There was NO plasma discharge when the SC condensate formed. And once it formed it remained stable for months on end after switching off the power supply. No plasma can do this.

After the SC phase has formed one can allow the vacuum system to go to atmospheric pressure while maintaining 1000 V across the gap without any sparks. When suddenly opening the gap to destroy the condensate one then obtains a plasma discharge which leaves a crater in the diamond.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
When suddenly opening the gap to destroy the condensate one then obtains a plasma discharge which leaves a crater in the diamond.


This means that for as long as the SC phase is present, there is no discharge through air across a gap of 10 micrometers. If there was a 1000V across the gap, one would have had a plasma discharge. Can you explain how the plasma which YOU claim is between the anode and cathode, can prevent a much stronger plasma to form at atmospheric pressure?

As I have asked you many times: PLEASE do your homework before you post insane arguments! Just accept that you do not have enough brains, and NEVER will have enough, to interpret any physics results on your own. You are just too stupid!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
Nope, http://www.aether...ment.gif clearly says, when you increase the distance of electrodes, then the current goes to zero.
After you reach the distance at which tunneling through the depletion layer is not possible anymore.

I.e. not more electrons but quite contrary: less electrons have to flow into the gap. Which is indeed nothing special during discharges at relatively low voltage.
There was NO plasma discharge at the vacuum and voltage: I have already stated above that we could only obtain plasma discharges at much higher voltages (abot 20 kV) and higher pressures (about 10*(-3) mbar). Do you really think IO would not have checked for plasma discharges? You keep on questioning my competency in physics while it is really YOU who cannot prove any competency in anything. Most probably your mother still has to change your nappies!



johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
Do you have some counter-arguments regarding my note about current oscillations with distance of electrode in accordance to Franck-Hertz experiment? For me the whole graph of yours is a typical characteristics of silent plasma discharge with all its beauty and glory..


As I have already explained above, the drops in current was caused when I open the gap too fast at ANY distance between the anode and the diamond. Only a complete idiot will think it is a Franck-Herz effect. Again you assume that you know how I increased the gap. Your repulsive arrogance and ignorance is just becoming too much to bear.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
Huh? The electron under 1000 V voltage moves with speed of nearly http://www.vias.o...1-3.gif.
An erlectron which forms part of a dipole is attracted by the positive charge under the surface of the diamond and is thus not a free electron that can be accelerated through vacuum into the anode. Huh Dhu! Stop displaying your utter stupidity. It is becoming embarrassing; even to me!

Did you adjust the gap of electrodes manually?
Yes I did with a micrometer screw.
How did you measure the speed of your movements?
Why must I measure it to know when I open the gap fast or very slowly? In your desperation you are grabbing at straws.

It should indeed replicated for to exclude possible plasma discharge effects,


It has been replicated and done in front of many witnesses which are not brainless like like you are. No plasma formed unless we used a poor vacuum and a much higher voltage!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
but the proof of superconductivity in given arrangement cannot be done.


My experiment gives the BEST proof for superconductivity EVER. Show me any other SC phase for which there is impeccable proof that there CANNOT be an electric field between the injection- and ejection contacts. In my case the proof is incontrovertible that it must be zero and nothing else than zero.

You'll need four electrodes compartment for it.


Why? How will four electrodes prove that there is no electric-field between my contacts? Or do YOU think that there is a voltmeter that can measure zero volts exactly? Stop being an idiot!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
IMO the usage of 1000 V voltage is nonsensical too.


Another idiotic remark by a fool! The 1000V is at first needed to extract the electrons from the diamond into the anode in order to form the SC-phase across a 10 micron gap: After its formation, 1000V is NOT across the gap anymore but across the rest of the circuit which determines the magnitude of the current.

The superconductivity should manifest itself even bellow single milivolt at the 10 micrometer distance -


This is exactly what it does in my experiment, but since the voltage is across the external circuit and NOT the gap, the current must decrease in concert owing to Ohm's law across the external circuit. Thus in my data, which you posted, this would mean that the 0.5 mA at 1000V will reduce to 0.5 picoA. It was easier to work with mA.

The high resistance of the external circuit was caused by the current flow through the contact to the diamond below the surface of the diamond to the point of extraction.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
Just the fact, you did use such a high voltage is quite suspicious for me.


Of course it will be "suspicious" to you since you do not have the brains to understand physics.

If the true superconductivity would be present, you wouldn't have to use such a high voltage at all. Did you ever try to replicate your experiments with lower field intensity than the claimed 100 Megavolts per centimeter? It's the extremely high potential intensity by itself.


Yes! By making the gap smaller, you need less voltage to extract the electrons into the anode. But what YOU, with your lack of brains, cannot understand, is that the voltage IS NOT ACROSS THE GAP anymore after the SC phase has formed: There is then ZERO voltage across the gap since the dipole adjusts to cancel the applied voltage within the gap completely!! The whole voltage then manifests across the external circuit only!

Can you understand this simple bit of circuit analysis? Probably not!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
And according to you this ionization remains for months and years?
It's indeed created again whenever you apply such a high voltage.


Except that I "indeed" did not have to apply a high voltage to get conduction. Once the SC phase has formed you I immediately measured a current when I increased the voltage from ZERO.

how the plasma which YOU claim is between the anode and cathode, can prevent a much stronger plasma to form at atmospheric pressure
Did you measure your superconductivity at room pressure?
I already told you that I did.

If not, then your question has nothing to do with your experiments. If yes, where did you describe and publish it?
I tried to publish it many times but my publications are consistently vetoed to protect the Voodoo of Cooper pairs. It is in my books and if you have gone to http://www.cathod...m/qa.asp as I advised you, you would have known about it.

johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Mar 29, 2013
we could only obtain plasma discharges at much higher voltages (abot 20 kV) and higher pressures (about 10*(-3) mbar)
It's not true, the 20 KV is valid for 1 cm gap, not the 10 mikrometer gap.


At what vacuum are you talking about? Not even at air pressure are you correct and definitely not within a high vacuum. Correction: You might be correct at air pressure.

The 1000 V/10 mkm gap of yours corresponds 100 MeV/cm! It's immensely high voltage - I would use it for pair creation from vacuum,


Please do this experiment and report your results! As usual you are an idiot!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
No plasma formed unless we used a poor vacuum and a much higher voltage!
You didn't prove, no residual gas in your vacuum contributed to alleged superconductive current.


Oh yes I did. When I replaced the n-type diamond substrate with another conductor like metal or p-type diamond there was no current whatsoever. If the residual gas did contribute to the current then it should have manifested for these cathodes also.

With 100 MV/cm potential it's quite probable, every residual atom of gas in your vacuum contributed to the current observed.
As I have just explained, such a current could not be measured for other electrodes which means that if it is too small to play a role when electrons are extracted from n-type diamond.

Such an electric field intensity would indeed strip all electrons from literally every atom present inside of gap.
Even if it did, this did not produce a current that could be measured at all.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
Not to say, it would destroy any superconductive mechanism, which could be present there.


Well the experimental fact is that it did not do so; no matter how much you want to hallucinate that it must do so:

The electrons can be attracted to holes


Where do "holes" come into my experiment?

only with energy in range of 1 eV. But you did apply whopping 1000 eV!


And it worked to generate the only SC phase for which there is impeccable proof that there cannot be an electric-field within this phase. It might even be the ONLY REAL superconducting phase EVER discovered!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
My experiment gives the BEST proof for superconductivity EVER


Not with 100 MeV/cm voltage used.


Once the SC-phase formed there was NO 100 MeV/cm voltage within the gap. The 1000 volt was across the circuit external to the gap. Can you not get this through your THICK SKULL!

All thinkable plasma effects would be present there too.


If they were they were too weak to play any role whatsoever.

You should measure the resistance of layer along surface of diamond -


I have done this by pressing the anode against the diamond surface so that there is REALLY a dead short, and then I measured the same current for the same voltage. This means that the voltage drop is across the diamond surface and not across any material in the gap.

no gap not perpendicularly to it -


The original purpose of the experiment was to extract electrons from the diamond into the vacuum: Can you do this without a gap: Wow! Another duck just paddled past!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
and with voltage lower than 1 V.
After the formation of the SC phase I did use voltages right down to zero. This decresaed the current owing to Ohm's law which acts across the external circuit.

The usage of 1000 Volts is nonsensical, amateurish and crackpotish.
Only a crackpot will argue like this. I required this voltage since I started off witrh a gap of 10 microns. If I used a smaller gap I would have required a smaller voltage. But I did not use a smaller gap: What is "nonsensical amateurish, and crackpottish" about this?

What did you actually expect from this? You created a miniscule X-ray lamp!
I did not realize what the required voltage would be when I started off; but funnily enough one of the objects was to generate a miniature X-ray source. However, this could not be obtained since the electrons condensed to form a SC phase.

Well I have other matters to attend to: So goodbye for now!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
Only God knows, what did you actually measure in your arrangement...


Yes God does know since He is not a moron like YOU are!

And there is only one reason why I obtained my TOTALLY REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS, and that is that a superconducting dipole-phase formed so that the dipole-field TOTALLY cancelled the applied electric-field within the dipole.

Any asshole should know that the reason why dipole layers form is to cancel an electric-field: It does not form for any other reason whatsoever; and when the charge densities are high enough as they are in my experiment, the electric-field is TOTALLY cancelled. And when a current flows without a net electric-field between the injection and ejection contacts you have a superconductor: As you have in my case.

Prove to me for ANY other SC phase claimed in the literature that the electric-field between the injection- and ejection contacts must be zero. My exp. is the very first proof since 1911 that this is possible!

Good night!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2013
You never published the usage of zero electric-field in your experiments - only the the voltage 1000 Volts. The superconductivity current at zero voltage was proven at 1909 with Kamerlingh Onnes in his experiments with superconductive mercury ring. That ring exhibited magnetic field of superconductive current even without any contacts, not to say external electric field. You're old senile freak separated from experimentally testable reality - just face it...
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2013
The 1000V is at first needed to extract the electrons from the diamond into the anode in order to form the SC-phase across a 10 micron gap
It's nonsense, the electrons can be extracted just from diamond at much lower potential. Diamond cold cathode for electron guns operates http://www.freepa...0788.pdf already. Did you research the cold cathodes for De Beers many years at all? How is it possible, you don't know about it?


This device of Geiss, has nothing in common with my experiment where I created a high density of actual donor centers. Mike' device is based on the formation of a skeletal diamond layer which is nearly graphitic. In fact I was the first to generate these layers and Mike Geiss also refers to this fact.

You obviously have a good reference system but it is of no use to you since you are too stupid to know how these references really are related: For this you must understand physics and not have a demented mind like you have!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
what YOU, with your lack of brains, cannot understand, is that the voltage IS NOT ACROSS THE GAP anymore after the SC phase has formed
But you didn't measure it with third electrode. You always used just two-electrode compartment with fixed voltage 1000 V... So your claim remains unproved.


Where should I have placed this third electrode? You are talking as usual through your neck!

Furthermore you keep on deliberately lying by claiming that I only used a fixed voltage of 1000 V. To promote your dishonesty you select only the graphs from my publication that suits your dementia. Here is the whole publication

http://rtn.elektr...rins.pdf

Now look at Fig. 3: Where is the fixed 1000 V that you are claiming? You have just again proved that you are a demented idiot with NO integrity whatsoever!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
Please do this experiment and report your results! As usual you are an idiot!
Which experiment?


You claimed that you can cause pair formation between two electrodes with 20 kV across them. If you cannot back this claim up by experiment, it again proves that you are a demented idiot!

Your experiment is incredibly naive if not crippled for DSc in Materials Science. It's typical "garage science". For example, did you some blind experiments? I mean, did you check the current with undoped diamond under the same voltage, for example? Where we could see the corresponding graph for comparison?


This is an obvious experiment that one will do.

Where we could see the corresponding graph for comparison? Did you ever think about it? I really don't think so...


Only a fool like you will publish two axes without a graph: THE CURRENT STAYED ZERO: THERE IS NO GRAPH TOO PUBLISH YOU BLOODY MORON!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
When I replaced the n-type diamond substrate with another conductor like metal or p-type diamond there was no current whatsoever.


But you forget to publish it, isn't it true?


You are implying that I am a liar: I am not a dishonest person with no integrity whatsoever LIKE YOU! It is published in my books I refer YOU AGAIN to: http://www.cathod...m/qa.asp

Where we can see the corresponding graphs?


How do you plot a graph of NO CURRENT when increasing the voltage? No journal will allow such a graph: You only need to state that it was so! Moron!!

Just these graphs would be actually more important for proof of your belief, then the existing graph published.


Well I will help you to plot one by yourself: Plot a voltage from zero to 1000V along the x-axis, and a current from zero to zero along the y-axis. You then have the graph. Does this now convince you more than the simple statement that no current could be measured? Bloody Moron!

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
The good scientist can be recognized easily, because it's always critical as hell to itself and he distrusts his equipment and experimental arrangement.


Correct: A perfect description of my approach to research!

He does number of dummy and blind experiments, he actually tries to disprove his own interpretation of phenomena observed by all means thinkable before publishing.


Correct! Another perfect description of my approach when I do research.

Whereas you're just a apostle of your ideas and the experiment of yours are corresponding:


YOU are the one who has NEVER even done a SINGLE measurement in ANY physics laboratory: YOU are too stupid to even understand physics-logic and then YOU think that you are in the position to accuse me that I am an "apostle of my own ideas"! This is really rich!

I am backing up my conclusions by experimental data which anybody can repeat and prove wrong if they can. And if they can I will accept it. YOU are the one who attacks
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2013
YOU are the one who attacks
without doing your homework of how I did the experiments and then accusing me of falsifying results just because the results do not fit your hallucinary universe of paddling and farting ducks within a non-existent aether.

My God: You are an "apostle of your own demented hallucinations" which are not even based on any logic!

you're only publishing a confirmations of your theory, not falsifications.


If I had data that falsified it I would not have published it in the first place. I am NOT a dishonest crook like you without any integrity.

After all, the absence of critical thinking is apparent in every sentence of yours: you're not thankful for pointing to inconsistencies,
You have not pointed out ANY inconsistencies: What you claim are inconsistencies are illogical arguments coming from your demented brain.

you're resorting into personal attacks.


You are the one who are dishonestly questioning my professional abilities.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2013
You never published the usage of zero electric-field in your experiments - only the the voltage 1000 Volts.


You are like Goebbels who just keep on spreading the same lie in the hope that it will be accepted as truth. I refer YOU AGAIN to Fig. 3 in http://rtn.elektr...rins.pdf Where is ONLY 1000 V?

The superconductivity current at zero voltage was proven at 1909 with Kamerlingh Onnes in his experiments with superconductive mercury ring.


(1911?) There is NO PROOF of zero electric field between an injection and an ejection contact: Please point out to me where these contacts are along the ring!

That ring exhibited magnetic field of superconductive current even without any contacts,


This does not prove that the electric field between an injection and an ejection contact is zero when SC occurs:

You're old senile freak separated from experimentally testable reality - just face it.


This describes YOU since you were born brainless.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2013
JFP:
When I replaced the n-type diamond substrate with another conductor like metal or p-type diamond there was no current whatsoever.


Natello:
But you forget to publish it, isn't it true?


Fom my publication http://rtn.elektr...rins.pdf

"In addition, by comparison with a host of other possible cathode materials, the reported results could only be generated for n-type doped diamond. By elimination, the only mechanism by which current flow could have occurred" between the diamond cathode and anode probe must have been by means of electron transport".

Further proof of VeriaT, Natello AKAK's lack of honesty and integrity: All this person can do is to hallucinate illogical claptrap and to lie, lie, lie and lie!
AlanK
not rated yet Mar 30, 2013
Because these 'orbitals' have zero spin, they are boson-like charge carriers, and because they are as near to each other as is physically possible, they automatically constitute a Bose–Einstein condensate; i.e. they constitute a superconducting phase.


So, Johan F Prins claims that superconducting phase is connected with electron pairs and Bose–Einstein condensate.
Id est absolute nonsense.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
Because these 'orbitals' have zero spin, they are boson-like charge carriers, and because they are as near to each other as is physically possible, they automatically constitute a Bose–Einstein condensate; i.e. they constitute a superconducting phase.


So, Johan F Prins claims that superconducting phase is connected with electron pairs and Bose–Einstein condensate.
Id est absolute nonsense.


That paper was written 10 years ago when I was still under the influence of the mainstream dogma. Since then I have found that my phase is not a Bose-Einstein condensate: The latter only forms BELOW a critical temperature. My phase is simply a Bose-Condensate since it forms at ANY temperature just as a laser-condensate forms within a laser a cavity.

In addition I have found that the SC condensates, which form within materials, are also not Bose-Einstein Condensates, but are obeying Boltzmann statistics: Therefore they do not require bosons to form.
AlanK
not rated yet Mar 30, 2013
That paper was written 10 years ago when I was still under the influence of the mainstream dogma. Since then I have found that my phase is not a Bose-Einstein condensate

So, Johan F Prins, you had make a mistake at least once (before) in your published paper.
How do you sure, that you do not make a mistake once more in your unpublished paper?
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 30, 2013
but are obeying Boltzmann statistics: Therefore they do not require bosons to form.
Waves cannot follow Boltzmann statistics and it disproves your claim, the electrons do form delocalized orbitals above diamond.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2013
That paper was written 10 years ago when I was still under the influence of the mainstream dogma. Since then I have found that my phase is not a Bose-Einstein condensate

So, Johan F Prins, you had make a mistake at least once (before) in your published paper.
How do you sure, that you do not make a mistake once more in your unpublished paper?


A physicist with integrity (of which there are very few left on our planet) knows that in his research he might make mistakes, and also knows that when he finds that he made a mistake, he MUST admit it and correct the mistake, or else he is a bottleneck to new knowledge. All physicists have made mistakes: Einstein even divided by zero in one of his papers.

Thus there is not a SINGLE physics model which might not be proved wrong in future. If you do not accept this you become a brainless idiot like ValeriaT.

Your question is equally brainless. Is AlanK=ValeriaT. I hope so since more than one such a moron would be too much to bear.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2013
but are obeying Boltzmann statistics: Therefore they do not require bosons to form.
Waves cannot follow Boltzmann statistics and it disproves your claim, the electrons do form delocalized orbitals above diamond.


YOU are really the biggest moron on this planet: I have repeatedly stated that the charge-carriers within a superconducting material are separate localized wave-orbitals within a band-gap: These charge-carriersare thus distinguishable. They are NOT delocalized waves!!

This means that neither Bose-Einstein nor Fermi-Dirac statistics apply to them. Furthermore, it is easily proved that all the SC data measured to date as a function of temperature are modeled by an activation energy which is determined by Boltzmann's statistics.

So please stop displaying your total lack of brains!
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2013
Only particles in ideal gas can follow the Boltzmann statistics, not wave orbitals with band gap: the existence of gap would just violate this statistics.
YOU are really the biggest moron on this planet, stop displaying your total lack of brains
From now every such a comment will be reported with me. You even cannot discuss politely. I don't mind it personally, because I know, it's a result of your high age and senility - but your way of discussion attracts another rude persons to this forum.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2013
Only particles in ideal gas can follow the Boltzmann statistics,


WRONG! For an ideal gas you have Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics: When you have different energy levels for distinguishable entities, pure Boltzmann-statistics apply.

In fact it even applies for different stationary light waves within a black-body cavity as Planck has proved in 1900 when he derived the radiation spectrum for black-body radiation.

not wave orbitals with band gap: the existence of gap would just violate this statistics.


Further evidence that you are a moron. When you have a bandgap with stationary localized orbitals within it, like you have for an n-type doped semiconductor, the density of localized orbitals at a temperature T is determined by an activation energy and an activation energy is only valid when a Boltzmann energy factor applies. It is easy to show that in this case the Fermi-Dirac distribution extrapolates to become a Boltzmann energy factor!

PLEASE stop being so ignorant!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2013
From now every such a comment will be reported with me. You even cannot discuss politely.


Why should I discuss ANYTHING politely with YOU who questions my well established competence in physics research, while YOU obviously do not even understand kindergarten physics! I refuse to be polite to a moron like you unless you start to discuss the scientific merit of what I have published in a scientific manner:

You have demonstrated time and again that you are living in cloud-cuckoo land with your paddling ducks swimming through a non-existing aether.

I don't mind it personally, because I know, it's a result of your high age and senility - but your way of discussion attracts another rude persons to this forum.


I hope it does, since YOU deserve rudeness. Do YOU really believe that YOU can contribute ANYTHING positive to physics? You have all the trademarks of a crackpot: And are wasting the time of people who actually have the intelligence to contribute to 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.