Superconductivity without cooling

December 4, 2014
No resistance at room temperature: The resonant excitation of oxygen oscillations (blurred) between CuO2 double layers (light blue, Cu yellowy orange, O red) with short light pulses leads to the atoms in the crystal lattice briefly shifting away from their equilibrium positions. This shift brings about an increase in the separations of CuO2 layers within a double layer and a simultaneous decrease in the separations between double layers. It is highly probable that this enhances the superconductivity. Credit: Jörg Harms/MPI for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter

Superconductivity is a remarkable phenomenon: superconductors can transport electric current without any resistance and thus without any losses whatsoever. It is already in use in some niche areas, for example as magnets for nuclear spin tomography or particle accelerators. However, the materials must be cooled to very low temperatures for this purpose. But during the past year, an experiment has provided some surprises.

With the aid of short infrared laser pulses, researchers have succeeded for the first time in making a ceramic superconducting at – albeit for only a few millionths of a microsecond. An international team, in which physicists from the Max Planck Institute for the Structure and Dynamics of Matter in Hamburg have made crucial contributions, has now been able to present a possible explanation of the effect in the journal Nature: The scientists believe that laser pulses cause individual atoms in the crystal lattice to shift briefly and thus enhance the superconductivity. The findings could assist in the development of materials which become superconducting at significantly higher temperatures and would thus be of interest for new applications.

In the beginning, superconductivity was known only in a few metals at temperatures just above absolute zero at minus 273 degrees Celsius. Then, in the 1980s, physicists discovered a new class, based on ceramic materials. These already conduct electricity at temperatures of around minus 200 degrees Celsius without losses, and were therefore called . One of these ceramics is the compound yttrium barium copper oxide (YBCO). It is one of the most promising materials for technical applications such as superconducting cables, motors and generators.

The YBCO crystal has a special structure: thin double layers of alternate with thicker intermediate layers which contain barium as well as copper and oxygen. The superconductivity has its origins in the thin double layers of copper dioxide. This is where electrons can join up to form so-called Cooper pairs. These pairs can "tunnel" between the different layers, meaning they can pass through these layers like ghosts can pass through walls, figuratively speaking – a typical quantum effect. The crystal only becomes superconducting below a "critical temperature", however, as only then do the Cooper pairs tunnel not only within the double layers, but also "spirit" through the thicker layers to the next double layer. Above the , this coupling between the double layers is missing, and the material becomes a poorly conducting metal.

The result helps material scientists to develop new superconductors

In 2013, an international team working with Max Planck researcher Andrea Cavalleri discovered that when YBCO is irradiated with it briefly becomes superconducting at room temperature. The laser light had apparently modified the coupling between the double layers in the crystal. The precise mechanism remained unclear, however – until the physicists were able to solve the mystery with an experiment at the LCLS in the US, the world's most powerful X-ray laser. "We started by again sending an infrared pulse into the crystal, and this excited certain atoms to oscillate," explains Max Planck physicist Roman Mankowsky, lead author of the current Nature study. "A short time later, we followed it with a short X-ray pulse in order to measure the precise crystal structure of the excited crystal."

The result: The infrared pulse had not only excited the atoms to oscillate, but had also shifted their position in the crystal as well. This briefly made the copper dioxide double layers thicker - by two picometres, or one hundredth of an atomic diameter - and the layer between them became thinner by the same amount. This in turn increased the quantum coupling between the double layers to such an extent that the crystal became superconducting at room temperature for a few picoseconds.

On the one hand, the new result helps to refine the still incomplete theory of high-temperature superconductors. "On the other, it could assist materials scientists to develop new superconductors with higher critical temperatures," says Mankowsky. "And ultimately to reach the dream of a superconductor that operates at room and needs no cooling at all." Until now, superconducting magnets, motors and cables must be cooled to temperatures far below zero with liquid nitrogen or helium. If this complex cooling were no longer necessary, it would mean a breakthrough for this technology.

Explore further: Light touch transforms material into a superconductor

More information: "Nonlinear lattice dynamics as a basis for enhanced superconductivity in YBa2Cu3O6.5." Nature 516 71, DOI: 10.1038/nature13875

Related Stories

Ultrafast switch for superconductors

July 6, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A high-temperature superconductor can now be switched on and off within a trillionth of a second – 100 years after the discovery of superconductivity and 25 years after the first high-temperature superconductor ...

Recommended for you

Counting down to the new ampere

August 29, 2016

After it's all over, your lights will be just as bright, and your refrigerator just as cold. But very soon the ampere—the SI base unit of electrical current—will take on an entirely new identity, and NIST scientists are ...

Measuring tiny forces with light

August 25, 2016

Photons are bizarre: They have no mass, but they do have momentum. And that allows researchers to do counterintuitive things with photons, such as using light to push matter around.

35 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

daggaz
2.3 / 5 (8) Dec 04, 2014
This person should never author another scientific article for the rest of their natural life. "Ghosts" and "spriting" to describe quantum tunneling effects? Inexcusably poor taste of analogy.
Selena
Dec 04, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Macksb
1.8 / 5 (9) Dec 04, 2014
This great work by Cavalleri and his team is precisely in accord with a theory I have set forth in many prior Physorg posts. My theory is based on Art Winfree's law of coupled oscillators, circa 1967. Art did not apply his law to physics. I do.

Winfree's law says that periodic oscillators tend to coordinate the phases of their oscillations. When they so coordinate, they do so in one or more patterns predicted by Winfree.

Here, a relevant Winfree pattern would be a 5 oscillator Winfree system. Like the 4 legs of a horse and an expert rider. The resonant (fuzzy) oscillating oxygen atoms are "riders." Posting up and down like a rider. Their north south oscillations coordinate with paired east west horizontal oscillations of their 4 companion oxygens in the planes. Oxygen pair A together then apart. Pair B the same, on the opposite beat.

And this same Winfree model applies to the 5 oscillator system comprised of the 4 coppers in the plane and a barium.

jimbo92107
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 04, 2014
Sounds like they might just get room temp to work by doping the copper dioxide double layers to make them a couple picometers thicker. Maybe they can eliminate the intermediate layer. Or is that needed to keep the copper dioxide layer in a stable crystal?
johanfprins
1 / 5 (5) Dec 05, 2014
@ jimbo92107,

You are on the right track. I have made layers on the surfaces of diamond substrates. They superconduct up to 400 Celsius, and only then become normally conducting.

The latter is NOT a critical temperature but is caused by the deterioration of the diamond template. If the latter did not happen, superconduction to even higher temperatures might be possible.

The mechanism is so simple and so obvious that it is amazing that the ""experts" have missed it for 28 years. It is time for them to remove their "Cooper Pair" eye-flaps. Even in this report, "pair-formation"" is still invoked as if it is the ONLY way in which superconduction can occur; while in fact there is NO MATERIAL in the world that superconducts by means of "pair-formation".
alfie_null
5 / 5 (7) Dec 05, 2014
This person should never author another scientific article for the rest of their natural life. "Ghosts" and "spriting" to describe quantum tunneling effects? Inexcusably poor taste of analogy.

Irony: reading a comment that criticizes the writing style of another work where the comment itself has spelling and grammatical errors and badly used hyperbole.
Mike_Massen
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 05, 2014
johanfprins claimed
I have made layers on the surfaces of diamond substrates. They superconduct up to 400 Celsius, and only then become normally conducting.
This should be significant but:-

1. Did you publish a paper with maths relevant to diamond's properties in particular ?
2. Details of experimental method as I am sure U know measuring low resistances are
Extremely difficult, Eg what was the path length over which this effect occurred ?
3. Did u test this in the presence of various magnetic fields, static, dynamic etc?
4. Over what period?

johanfprins claimed
The latter is NOT a critical temperature but is caused by the deterioration of the diamond template.
What was the degradation mechanism;-
a. Oxidation (in presence of air or if not contaminants reacting at that temp)?
b. Effect the current?
c. Effect of applied magnetic field?

Can u see your significant claim needs a good amount of consideration, in particular the results need quantification !
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Dec 05, 2014
johanfprins claimed
The mechanism is so simple and so obvious that it is amazing that the ""experts" have missed it for 28 years.
If as you say it really is "so simple" then why has this not progressed at all from your initial experiments & how long ago was that btw ?

Did u manage the degradation observed, ameliorated by Eg inert atmosphere, purity, radionucleotides, what could be done to stop the degradation & for how long ?

johanfprins claimed
It is time for them to remove their "Cooper Pair" eye-flaps.
What is your alternative hypothesis & given the immense importance this could achieve why has it not progressed if indeed there is an alternative theory with any supporting evidence you have read to suggest WHY u should have produce the diamond experiment you claim.

ie. Just why would u go ahead with the diamond experiment - on what basis did u; plan it, fund it, complete it & report the experimental methodology so it could be confirmed ?

So has it ?
johanfprins
Dec 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
swordsman
not rated yet Dec 05, 2014
This phenomenon is not the same as that of a "superconductor". A superconductor requires a low energy state. What is described has similarities to ordinary electrical conduction.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 05, 2014
@ Swordsman,

A superconductor requires the following: An insulating band-gap with localised states (which need not be electron-pairs, and has probably NEVER been electron-pairs) in the band-gap.

At a temperature at which these localised states have a large enough density, superconduction becomes possible by means of quantum fluctuations. Borrowing energy to "jump" to an adjacent site and handing the energy back. The latter motion has all along been wrongly attributed to "tunnelling through a barrier". The latter is NOT possible EVER.

By changing the distances between the atoms in a crystal so that the density of these orbitals becomes high enough superconduction MUST occur. This is what happens in this case, albeit only for a fraction of a second. Knowing the real mechanism one can increase this density permanently, and have superconduction WELL above room temperature. I have been able to do this for more than 10 years,

imido
Dec 05, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
mreda14
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2014
A superconductor is a non-stoichiometric oxide and method of its preparation is very simple. They can also be classified as Mixed-valence compounds which are subdivided into three groups, according to the Robin-Day Classification. A super-conductive state is a new class of mixed valence compound. They may undergo charge transfer at zero resistance in certain situation.
mreda14
not rated yet Dec 05, 2014
A superconductor is a non-stoichiometric oxide and method of its preparation is very simple. They can also be classified as Mixed-valence compounds which are subdivided into three groups, according to the Robin-Day Classification. A super-conductive state is a new class of mixed valence compound. They may undergo charge transfer at zero resistance in certain situation.
NGel
not rated yet Dec 05, 2014
The effective temperature was changed by irradiating the sample. This is not a room temperature superconductivity, as it is advertised in other sites, but still a good science.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 05, 2014
@ mreda,

Is mercury a non-stochiometric oxide? Stop posting bullshit or you will become another Zephir, who now posts under his zillionth name "imido". It is unbelievable that ANY person can be such a pathetic FOOL!!!
Mike_Massen
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 06, 2014
johanfprins claimed
T... and have superconduction WELL above room temperature. I have been able to do this for more than 10 years,
Well then WHY has this or U not advanced after so long, there is a wealth of capital available for energy projects so why does it seem there is no advance directed to a commercial product ?

Who has replicated any of your experiments/claims with proper experimental methodology ?

Have looked at your web site but, see nothing in terms of production engineering towards any sort of practical goal, are U turning off potential investors with your unhelpful angry invective ?

10 years & only experiments not replicated, is that correct ?

Can this be seen as credible by those that can leverage suitable sums to progress, I ask because I know who they, have been in touch & know how to approach them for more tenuous development such as this & it doesn't take 10 years to garner substantive commercial interest !
johanfprins
Dec 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2014
10 years & only experiments not replicated, is that correct ?

Can this be seen as credible by those that can leverage suitable sums to progress, I ask because I know who they, have been in touch & know how to approach them for more tenuous development such as this & it doesn't take 10 years to garner substantive commercial interest !


You have made similar claims a few years ago. Nothing materialised except bullshit. I am doing my best on this side and have published copiously explaining ALL results for all SC's which cannot be explained by morons like Pippard and Josephson!

If you are capable you would have picked this up on my website and my profile on ResearchGate, and not again proved your stupidity and incompetence on this forum!! You would also have looked up my patents in this regard.
Macksb
1 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2014
Now I continue my post above (third post counting from top). Here's how my five oscillator Art Winfree model, like a rider and the four legs of a horse, matches the evidence. Consider the five oxygens: one as a rider (the fuzzy one in the picture) and four in the plane. The rider behaves as my model predicts: "posting" up and down like an equestrian. That is obvious in the picture.

The four oxygen "legs" act in two pairs, together then apart, as I said in my prior post. This is not obvious in the picture, but it is implied by the greater thickness of the copper oxide plane. Specifically, note that certain coppers in the plane are "pushed away" from the red oxygens. There are three "pushed" coppers in the picture, and two coppers in the same plane that are not pushed. My Winfree model predicts that the particular three will be pushed. My model also predicts that the other two will not be pushed. Perfect match.

Result: orderly motion, not chaotic.
Mike_Massen
4 / 5 (4) Dec 06, 2014
@johanfprins
1. So U are confirming no-one has approached u re any experimental method u published re your claim to have achieved SC ?
2. Many wealthy non-technical people wish to advance technology. Have been the recipient of such re design & product engineering. Many know nothing about your "morons" & cooper pairs but, have interest in devices that work with a business plan. U claim to have such experimental evidence yet, have not found experimental method documented by U as yet. If there is then link directly to it - as u should know SC is very difficult to measure "properly" !
3. iirc our encounter before was re your intense unwillingness to address Special Relativity (SR) experiments & declined to converge maturely.
4. Your rush to abuse with angry assumptions likely precludes u taking it further for serious capital or even understand your record of abuse on this forum has become well known :-(

Your choice to abuse, that seems to be your common imperative.
johanfprins
Dec 06, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
EyeNStein
5 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2014
This is a fascinating and, to me, unexpected result: That a 200C jump in temperature threshold can be produced by an excitation of the superconduction sustaining crystal lattice.
(I don't think its likely this extreme effect is due to a lattice distortion by 1/100th of an atom.)
I look forward to seeing where this result leads to: When people with computer models, faster X-ray pulsed examination and stronger, or faster, or multi-pulsed, lasers get new ideas to try.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2014
It is easily explained in terms of the correct mechanism for SC which I have tried to publish over and over and over again the past 10 years, but got rejected since it proves that Cooper pairs are NOT responsible for ANY SC. See for example my manuscript "Superconductivity and Mott-phases" on Research-Gate.
imido
Dec 07, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
rgw
5 / 5 (1) Dec 07, 2014
This person should never author another scientific article for the rest of their natural life. "Ghosts" and "spriting" to describe quantum tunneling effects? Inexcusably poor taste of analogy.

Irony: reading a comment that criticizes the writing style of another work where the comment itself has spelling and grammatical errors and badly used hyperbole.


Why stop at total censorship? This cretin should be hanged, drawn and quarter - without defense, judge or jury! That'll larn 'im!

This person should never author another scientific article for the rest of their natural life. "Ghosts" and "spriting" to describe quantum tunneling effects? Inexcusably poor taste of analogy.

Irony: reading a comment that criticizes the writing style of another work where the comment itself has spelling and grammatical errors and badly used hyperbole.

Urgelt
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2014
Observations:

1. Johan F. Prins knows a whole lot more jargon than I do. In that sense, he's a smart guy!

2. He hasn't succeeded in seeking independent replication of his findings for TEN YEARS. (Is he trying?)

3. Johan F. Prins has participated in AWT forums (thanks, Google!). Is he an aether nut? Beats me, I don't have any desire to plunge deeply enough into aether theory to find out.

4. Pseudoscience is easy. Master the jargon and call everyone a cretin who doesn't bow down. Real science requires independent replication of results.

5. Johan F. Prins claims to have patented his superconductor designs. Could be, but patents aren't a valid measure of scientific accuracy. The number of bad patents is in the millions and rising rapidly.

Mr, or Dr, or Professor Prins, whichever is appropriate, lose the attitude and get a university somewhere - ANYWHERE - to replicate your results. Do it for humanity, assuming there are any humans you don't despise.
johanfprins
1 / 5 (2) Dec 08, 2014
@ imido,

Zephyr it is a waste of valuable time to argue with you. If you could have followeds REAL physics and mathematical modelling (not think of farting ducks instead) you will see in my publications that I have modelled low temperature superconduction accurately in terms of localised Wigner-orbital, which are similar to Mott-states, and that I can explain all the features of the low temperature superconductors which cannot be explained by BCS. AND I can predict what the properties of such an array of localised states must be for superconduction to occur. Everybody knows that BCS HAS NO predictive power. Read the many powerful papers by Berndt Matthias. Not that it will be of any help to you since you have7 proved over and over again on this forum, that an Urang-Utang has more brains than you will EVER have
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2014
Observations
by a certifiable moron who posts as Urgelt without first checking his facts.

1. Johan F. Prins knows a whole lot more jargon than I do
Not jargon but real physics which you can check since my CV is on the internet: Where are yours arsehole!

He hasn't succeeded in seeking independent replication of his findings for TEN YEARS.
It has been done but this "expert" on superconduction refuses to publish it since it will invalidate everything ne has published during his lifetime.

Johan F. Prins has participated in AWT forums (thanks, Google!). Is he an aether nut?
If you were capable of common sense, which you are obviously not, you would have noticed that I completely reject Zephyr's insane AWT.

. Pseudoscience is easy. Master the jargon and call everyone a cretin who doesn't bow down.
Correct! That why every arsehole believes in Voodoo like "wave-particle" duality.

continued
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2014
. Johan F. Prins claims to have patented his superconductor designs. Could be, but patents aren't a valid measure of scientific accuracy. The number of bad patents is in the millions and rising rapidly.
So you thus conclude that ALL patents must be bad? It just again proves that you are an idiot without ANY common sense.

Professor Prins ... lose the attitude
What attitude? Does one have an attitude when you point out in terms of impeccable physics logic that an accepted model is wrong? As far as I know this is incumbent on a scientist to do, and then it is incumbent on other scientists to prove him wrong or to accept that he is correct. Nobody has yet written any paper in which they proved that I am wrong; even though an editor of "Semiconductor Science and Technology" challenged the late Prof. Marshal Stoneham already in 2002 to do so when he stated that I "must be wrong". He decided to rather wait and die quite a few years later!!!
johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2014
get a university somewhere - ANYWHERE - to replicate your results.
I have been trying to do this for many years: As I already mentioned, only one (Prof. Terry Doyle) did after being funded by our Electrical Utility Company. He refuses to even write them a report. If he states that I am correct, he will be excommunicated by the "experts" on superconduction and if writes I am wrong, he will go down as an idiot in history when it is accepted that I am correct. In fact, when Doyle realised this dilemma he went to Cambridge University for advice, and came back not being willing to make ANY conclusion whatsoever!! The second example I gave you is Prof. Marshall Stoeneham, who, although claiming that I "must be wrong" were not willing to write a manuscript to back up his claims.
Do it for humanity,
This is what I have been trying for 14 years,
assuming there are any humans you don't despise.
How can I not despise people like Doyle and Stoneham: AND YOU!!
Urgelt
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 08, 2014
Johan F. Prins wrote, "How can I not despise people like Doyle and Stoneham: AND YOU!!"

Interesting.

Not once did I suggest that Johan's ideas about SC are false (or true). Not once did I defend the 'accepted wisdom' about SC. I did not draw the conclusion Johan attempts to force into my mouth that all patents are bad science - whereas he *did* attempt to argue that possessing a patent is tantamount to possessing valid scientific evidence.

That is a seriously desperate argument.

Because I didn't bother to read what he had written on an AWT site, he concluded I lack common sense... while calling AWT insane.

I can easily concede that Johan knows more physics than I do. The sad thing is that a fellow who claims to have a massive breakthrough in SC physics is spending his time shouting in Phys.org comments at know-nothings, bottom-feeders, trolls and lunatics. (I confess to all four!)

You don't have to be Dirac or Feynman to know, that does not compute.
johanfprins
1.7 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2014
Because I didn't bother to read what he had written on an AWT site, he concluded I lack common sense... while calling AWT insane
Only a person without ANY integrity will insinuate that I have a certain viewpoint without first checking if I do. Your are a dangerous person who refuses to first engage your brain before you act: Most probably because you have very little!
I can easily concede that Johan knows more physics than I do. The sad thing is that a fellow who claims to have a massive breakthrough in SC physics is spending his time shouting in Phys.org comments at know-nothings, bottom-feeders, trolls and lunatics. (I confess to all four!)
I agree that it is sad that I do not have any other choice left open to me, since all other avenues have been tried, and were conistently blocked and censored. But I stiil also try to follow the other avenues as you would have known if you first did your homework before posting stink air coming from an empty cavity!

continued

johanfprins
1 / 5 (3) Dec 08, 2014
You don't have to be Dirac or Feynman to know, that does not compute
I agree that you only need common sense to realise what is going on, and then you would know that it does compute: You, however, do not have common sense: It requires a brain!

Anybody who has common sense to understand human nature, would realise that it has become impossible to get anything published in an established field of physics, which questions the validity of the dogma which this field has developed over many decades. It requires from these people to admit that they could have made mistakes, and very few people if any EVER admit this. They therefore just close down their minds like Terry Doyle and Marshall Stoneham have done (they are not the only two examples I have as you would know if you had the integrity to first do your homework).

They claim that "you must be wrong" without giving any proof. That is Murphy's law of humankind. Never admit: Rather go in denial no matter how illogical!
Accounts
5 / 5 (1) Jan 13, 2015
The patent office no longer requires a "working model" with a patent application, except for perpetual motion machines. You can patent just about anything you want including a toilet seat that doesn't have hole in it.

There's enough nuts here to make a fruit cake. Well, I guess it IS the season. Just put up a video on YouTube already or SHUT UP..

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.