Secrets behind high temperature superconductors revealed

Feb 22, 2009

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

Writing in the journal Nature Materials, Dr Alan Drew from Queen Mary's Department of Physics and his colleagues at the University of Fribourg report on the investigation of a new high temperature superconductor, the so-called oxypnictides. They found that these exhibit some striking similarities with the previously known copper-oxide high temperature superconductors - in both cases superconductivity emerges from a magnetic state. Their results go some way to explaining the mechanisms behind high temperature superconductors.

Superconductors are materials that can conduct electricity with no resistance, but only at low temperatures. High temperature superconductors were first discovered in 1986 in copper-oxides, which increased the operational temperature of superconductors by more than 100°C, to -130°C and opened up a wealth of applications. The complex fundamental physics behind these high temperature superconductors has, however, remained a mystery to scientists.

Dr Drew said "Last year, a new class of high-temperature superconductor was discovered that has a completely different make-up to the ones previously known - containing layers of Arsenic and Iron instead of layers of Copper and Oxygen. Our hope is that by studying them both together, we may be able to resolve the underlying physics behind both types of superconductor and design new superconducting materials, which may eventually lead to even higher temperature superconductors."

Professor Bernhard, of the University of Fribourg, added: "Despite the mysteries of high-temperature superconductivity, their applications are wide-ranging. One exciting applications is using superconducting wire to provide lossless power transmission from power stations to cities. Superconducting wire can hold a much higher current density than existing copper wire and is lossless and therefore energy saving."

An electrical current flowing round a loop of superconducting wire can also continue indefinitely, producing some of the most powerful electromagnets known to man. These magnets are used in MRI scanners, to 'float' the MagLev train, and to steer the proton beam of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. Envisaged future applications of superconductors exist also in ultrafast electronic devices and in quantum computing.

More information: ‘Coexistence of static magnetism and superconductivity in SmFeAsO1-x FX ‘ will be published in the journal Nature Materials.

Source: Queen Mary, University of London

Explore further: Researchers devise broad-bandwidth amplifier that ups gain by more than 10 db

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Sk Hynix logs all-time high Q3 earnings

10 minutes ago

SK Hynix, the world's second-largest memory chip maker, reported Thursday a record high quarterly net profit for the three months to September on strong sales and currency earnings.

Apple computer sells for record $905K in NY

19 minutes ago

One of the first Apple computers ever built has sold in New York for $905,000, leading Bonhams auction house to declare it the world's most expensive computer relic.

New policymaking tool for shift to renewable energy

39 minutes ago

Multiple pathways exist to a low greenhouse gas future, all involving increased efficiency and a dramatic shift in energy supply away from fossil fuels. A new tool 'SWITCH' enables policymakers and planners to assess the ...

Recommended for you

Three-dimensional metamaterials with a natural bent

Oct 24, 2014

Metamaterials, a hot area of research today, are artificial materials engineered with resonant elements to display properties that are not found in natural materials. By organizing materials in a specific way, scientists ...

Scientists develop compact medical imaging device

Oct 23, 2014

Scientists at the MIRA research institute, in collaboration with various companies, have developed a prototype of a handy device that combines echoscopy (ultrasound) with photoacoustics. Combining these two ...

User comments : 29

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Alexa
Feb 22, 2009
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
axemaster
5 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2009
Darn, AWT sure is good at magically solving everything without any math. All those numbers, they aren't worth much, huh? Too hard to understand for most of us, apparently.
Ashibayai
not rated yet Feb 23, 2009
If by "repulsive forces", you mean their charge. Then, you should know, it's the electrical charge which is creating a magnetic field. So yes, it should have something to do with magnetism.

In fact, that's why we call it the electromagnetic force.
Ethelred
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2009
Clearly axemaster is missing the brilliance of AWT.

Surely the compression of the electron's fields are forcing the expression of intermolecular snake oil that AWT shows is in all substances with more than 25% Earth and less than 30% Air. Thus the snake oil causes the electrons to flow just as if they were Helium at 2 degrees North North by Northwest at least on Alternate Millard Filmore's Birthdays.

Maybe I got it wrong but I am pretty sure about that. Perhaps I misunderstood the part about the sub-ether in the earliest work on AWT by Doc Smith in his groundbreaking book Skylark of Space.

Ethelred
ZeroDelta
not rated yet Feb 23, 2009
AWT as an explenation is like the animations one sees explaining orbits as spheres rolling around on a sheet. Such an explenaition still requires gravity. Likewise, some of AWT's premises require circular logic. Proper formulation is required.
kniedzius
3 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2009
By AWT everything is explained quite simply with a blink of an eye. Why bother with mathematics when you can use "mysterious" and "big" words such as: quantum fluctuations, aether etc.
In times like these everyone can have their theories. You just have to believe.
Alexa
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2009
AWT mechanism of HT superconductivity doesn't requires introduction of magnetic fields. If it's working in diamond, it should be working for all diamagnetic materials.

[].. the electrical charge which is creating a magnetic field. So yes, it should have something to do with magnetism.. Even ions inside of your body have charge, so it's evident, you have something to do with magnetism. If such line of reasoning is significant to you, then please ignore my posts.

While Dr Alan Drew found that these exhibit striking similarities between cuprates and arsenides, I can find another article, which claims "Iron-based superconductors really are different" and why is it doing so without math.

http://physicswor...ws/37246

Such articles have apparently no meaning for laymans, who are requiring "math" to be able to understand at least something something.

From reactions of yours it's apparent, you don't know, what I'm talking about - you even don't want to know about it - so it has no meaning to deal with your answers at all.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2009
If it's working in diamond, it should be working for all diamagnetic materials.


If zip equals zot then zap is true. Except diamonds aren't superconductors. Therefor you must be full of it. Get a clue. Produce evidence. Do research. Then get something real to study.

I can find another article, which claims "Iron-based superconductors really are different" and why is it doing so without math.


The lack of functioning math is only one of your problems.

Such articles have apparently no meaning for laymans, who are requiring "math" to be able to understand at least something something.


Its not 'laymans' that you have to convince. Its people that can do the math. "Something something" - you seem not to have your heart in this nonsense of yours today. Did you catch that caused your mind to function better?

"you don't know, what I'm talking about "

I followed you usual link a while ago. It reeked of nonsense. Further exploration showed more unsupported claims.

"he forces between highly compressed electrons are compensating mutually, which leads into chaotic motion of charged particles, where energy can propagate in waves only, i.e. via bosons, formed by foamy particle condensate."

That is gobbledegook pure and simple. Strings of unrelated terms you don't seem to comprehend. "bosons, formed by foamy particle condensate" indeed. Real terms strung together without any relationship to each other does not science make.

I am beginning to feel a touch guilty about shooting fish in a barrel. But I need the food, which reminds me that I need to go to the store.

Ethelred
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2009
..except diamonds aren't superconductors.
except it's not relevant for superconductivity. The tricky part is in fact, things aren't required be superconductors to become superconductive.

http://www.iop.or...8/3/319/
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2009
except it's not relevant for superconductivity.


Then why did you mention them in the same sentence? You REALLY aren't thinking clearly. As can be seen in your next self-contradictory sentence.

things aren't required be superconductors to become superconductive.


Amazing. Truly brain dead. A doesn't have to equal A to be A. That is EXACTLY what you just said with A replacing superconductor. You need to learn logic. Or to use it.

Ethelred

Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2009
.. Its people that can do the math..
People, who can REALLY do the math knows well, predicate logics forms a formal background of all conjectures and high level derivations. No conjecture or theorem should be used without formal proof at logical level first. If some derivation doesn't work at the robust logic level, it has no meaning to extrapolate it further by formal way.

For example, people managed a nice models of geocentric system, but the first LOGICAL inconsistence (existence of stellar parallax or Venus phase order) has vaporize them. Are you surprised?

This is simply way, by which science is working - despite the fact, some people still believe in the opposite. What do you think, it's the main problem of string theory development over last forty years?

The absence of robust logic in it.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2009
..A doesn't have to equal A to be A...
Nope, what I've said was

"A doesn't have to equal A to BECOME A"

This is a BIG difference from space-time perspective. The fact, diamond isn't superconductor isn't relevant for diamond surface superconductivity. Such superconductivity isn't bulk effect at all - the rest of diamond still remains an insulator during this.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2009
AWT sure is good at magically solving everything without any math.
This is not magic, but the consequence of stochastic nature of reality. AWT describes this stochastic nature better, then strictly causual math, so it doesn't use/require it for its predictions. Because formal math is just condensate of many logical rules, but underlying reality is logical, not of mathematical nature.

After all, this is a reason, why math suffers by Goedel's incompletness theorem, while the underlying logics not. These subtleties are playing a big role in development of very general theories.
Alexa
1 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2009
Clearly axemaster is missing the brilliance of AWT
Axemaster isn't supposed to be as sharp as the exe, he isn't even supposed to be at all.

The relevancy of AWT is given by its postulate set, no by some Alexa or whoever else. At the moment, when some theory is postulated, it becomes an independently living emergent organism, i.e. the meme, which is spreading through society less or more independently to it's originator. It becomes its own life. When postulates of theory are weekly defined, redundant of mutually contradicting, the theory will perish independently to our free will. We can say, we are spreading a bosons of our own environment.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2009

The absence of robust logic in it.


Which describes you exactly.

What do you think, it's the main problem of string theory development over last forty years?

The absence of robust logic in it.


The logic is fine for string theory where its finished. However it is NOT a theory. Its not finished. After thirty years important pieces still cannot be resolved. Its NEVER been a theory. Its a hypothesis in need of a lot of work. Same as your crap only at least they are doing the math. Logic = math with numbers. You don't have any numbers nor logic. So its nonsense. Might as well be Theosopy. Even Alchemy had SOME relation to experiments.

Nope, what I've said was

"A doesn't have to equal A to BECOME A"


Which is still false. Diamonds still aren't superconductors and you dodged that too.

This is a BIG difference from space-time perspective. The


Ooh, more magic words. I am so convinced. Convinced that you don't meaning of the words you use.

The fact, diamond isn't superconductor isn't relevant for diamond surface superconductivity.


Only if there was such a thing. A theory that makes predictions that don't match reality is a failed theory. You have a failed theory. If one can pretend that its a theory. Diamonds don't superconduct at any temperature or pressure, surface or not.

Because formal math is just condensate of many logical rules, but underlying reality is logical, not of mathematical nature.


Only if the logic is sound and even then NUMBERS as in quantification must be used and then usually called math. You clearly don't get the relationship. There is NO real difference. Even Logic has quantification. Without numbers though its not possible to have a working theory of physics. Which covers you exactly. You don't have a working theory. Neither do String hypothesists (until they fix their math) so don't bother bringing them up as it doesn't impress anyone.

After all, this is a reason, why math suffers by Goedel's incompletness theorem, while the underlying logics not.


Wrong again. What a surprise that you blow it every single time. Goedels PROOF, not theorem, was about ALL logic systems which includes math. No system of logic OF ANY KIND can be both complete and consistent. It is possible to manage neither, but I don't think you deserve congratulations on that achievement.

The relevancy of AWT is given by its postulate set,


The irrelevancy is given by your complete ignorance of logic or math.

At the moment, when some theory is postulated, it becomes an independently living emergent organism, i.e. the meme, which is spreading through society less or more independently to it's originator.


Postulating a concept doesn't make it a theory. Only testing its predictions does. No math no predictions. No superconducting diamonds (your claim)no theory. Its a failed hypothesis based on ignorance and exceedingly bad logic(see your false statement about Goedel's Proof).

We can say, we are spreading a bosons of our own environment.


Only someone with no comprehension could say that. The rest of us have better sense.

Go take a course in logic. Take a course in physics. Learn something you didn't make up out of pure fantasy.

Ethelred
Alexa
not rated yet Feb 24, 2009
...string theory...is NOT a theory...Its NEVER been a theory....Logic = math with numbers...no math no predictions...
I see... By my opinion it has no mean to discuss with You seriously.
Alexa
not rated yet Feb 24, 2009
...Goedels PROOF, not theorem, was about ALL logic systems which includes math.
BS. Goedel has proven his theorem for natural number set and Peano algebra. You even don't know, what Godel did.
Diamonds don't superconduct at any temperature or pressure, surface or not...
Prove it. This article claims the opposite.

http://www.iop.or...8/3/319/
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 24, 2009
I see... By my opinion it has no mean to discuss with You seriously.


What the heck is that badly written mish mash supposed to mean?

So far your opinion has no effect on me since it's such an excellent example of meaningless noise. Try to clean up your syntax. I am not talking about simple grammar or spelling errors, but a serious lack of clarity. I have had ONE post in at least 10 years that no one could make heads or tails of(me included in that one case, I never could figure out what I had intended to say). You seem to do that 1 out of every 3 or 4. Read what you write before hitting the submit button.

BS. Goedel has proven his theorem for natural number set and Peano algebra. You even don't know, what Godel did.


It has been expanded considerably over the years. However, it is indeed still limited to sets of logic with numbers. Unfortunately for you those are the only kind fit for physics as there is no meaning without quantification.

Many logic sets CAN produce numbers. So basically you have to use a set of logic that can't produce numbers for your claim of doing something that can't be done with math. Which means you can't prove jack in the real world since no numbers means no usefullness nor any proof of what happens at any given temperature or pressure or mass or pretty much anything to do with waves, bosons, fermions, atoms or people for that matter.

Prove it. This article claims the opposite.


Actually it claims no such thing. And it doesn't prove what it does claim. So how about you do that since it has lots and lots of weasle words and no confirmation even for what they do claim.

'electron affinity material from which electrons can be extracted at room temperature.'

So is plastic. Its been done for centuries with amber. The author is from South Africa. Its likely that he used diamond because that what he studies. If all you have is a hammer then everything tends to look nail like. Nothing in that article showed a need for a diamond. Since it looked suspiciously like he was proving that static charges can jump from a source to drain in a vacuum. The only difference is the use of a diamond instead of amber.

'It is found that the extracted electrons within the gap between the diamond surface and the anode are able to form a stable, highly conducting phase.'

Which in NOT in the diamond. Sounds remarkably like a plasma especially if their vacuum is less than ideal.

'Band theory, combined with the equations that describe electron transport in a vacuum diode, unequivocally show that the distances between these electrons, as well as their speeds, must keep on decreasing as long as there is an electric field between the diamond surface and the anode.'

Gee thats not in the diamond either. No sign that a diamond is needed either since its purely an effect of VACUUM and a lot of interpretation as opposed to actual experimental evidence.

'This implies that steady-state current flow, a'

More speculation without actual evidence. Nor any sign of superconducting in a diamond. Please note that they never actually tested for this effect. So its pretty tenuous speculation at that since cut off values are the norm with electron flow. Claiming that current will flow without a voltage differential is a sign of bad science UNLESS they actually do the test which they did not.

'The only way to achieve such a situation is for the extracted electrons within the gap to form a superconducting phase'

Speculation based on speculation. Why no experimental evidence? Just how bad did the author need to publish anyway.

'Because electrons are fermions, an unabated decrease in their nearest-neighbour distances as well as their speeds should eventually force them to violate the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship.'

Gosh how surprising still more speculation without experiment. Now we up to speculation cubed. Lets go for the fourth power of speculation.

'At this limit, they become restricted, as pairs, within volumes or 'orbitals' which in turn fill the whole space between the diamond and the anode.'

Ta Da. Fourth power achieved. We have GO for five.

'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%u2013Einstein condensate; i.e. they constitute a superconducting phase.'

Lift off. Fifth power speculation achieved without EVER claiming superconducting in the diamond itself.

Proof concluded. Get another excuse for you false claim of superconduction in a diamond or admit that you blew it.

If that article is your idea of proof no wonder you think you can do without math.

Ethelred
Alexa
not rated yet Feb 25, 2009
Nope - amber cannot be used for this purpose, guess why...
Alexa
not rated yet Feb 25, 2009
As we can see, you managed to deny whole years of Prins'es experiments in few sentences without problem. Impressive - do you have something to add?
solidspin
not rated yet Feb 25, 2009
Alexa -

Zephyr and you really need math. Zephyr was so bold as to challenge anyone to find fault w/ AWT. I found math mistakes on the first page (limit errors) in like 5 minutes, pointed it out to Zephyr and I never heard from him/her again. You MUST have math or it's merely quackery. To one of your many tautologic points above, even stochastics have math to support stochastic data. In my field, (NMR - nuclear magnetic resonance), you can do stochastic NMR and, again, it's robustly supported by mathematic foundation. AWT has no mathematical foundation - you MUST admit that.
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 26, 2009
Nope - amber cannot be used for this purpose, guess why...


I can think of reasons. However there was nothing at your link that showed a need for diamond as opposed to other materials.

As we can see, you managed to deny whole years of Prins'es experiments in few sentences without problem. Impressive - do you have something to add?


Thank you. However I didn't do that. I only showed that there was speculation piled upon speculation numerous layers deep in that one article.

Oh, and that there was no sign of superconduction in a diamond. There was quite a lot of speculation about that sort of thing when people were learning to make diamond films. Doesn't seem to have gone anywhere. Too bad as it would been kinda neat. Something useful in diamonds besides hardness to make up for the greed of the DeBeers thug/con-artists.

Ethelred
Alexa
not rated yet Feb 26, 2009
.. there was nothing at your link that showed a need for diamond..
AWT explain this. To create a superconductive cloud of mutually repulsing electrons, you should lure on strong positive charge of trapped hole in material. But this hole repels the neighbouring atoms as well. Only very strong atom bonds can host such holes inside of lattice without oxidization or simply mechanical destruction of material, therefore diamonds is one of such materials.
Doesn't seem to have gone anywhere
These experiments just starting, 'cause science is very concervative toward new idea, by the same way, like you. It's an analogy of cold fusion invention.

This kind of superconductivity can be induced in thin films and diamond superlattices, it's a technology for the next twenty years. These experiments are going rather close to the mechanism postulated above.

http://www.physor...463.html
Husky
not rated yet Feb 26, 2009
Here is a good description of superconductivity that I as layman can comprehend:

http://www.ornl.g...pt3.html


As I read the articles and understand it,

To state that magnetism is directly linked to superconductivity because superconductors coincide with high magnetic fields and therefore assuming that manipulating the magnetic field could create more favourable superconductor, is like mixing up
correlation and causality in statistics, a common mistake in wich the higher incidence of icecream consumption in the summer would make people conclude that we can bring on summer sooner if we ate more icecream, or at least, or at least it's a higly simplified notion of how superconductivity works, because actually, new research DOES seem to indicate that focussing on the magnetic properties of the superconductor crystal lattice creates favourable tunneling paths (fluxons) for electrons, where vortices of superconductive currents around a normal core and thus form a magnetfield wich will attract other electrons because its larger than the repulsing coulomb force and thus allow the following to move forward, not driven by potential difference but by some sort of Lorentz force accelleration.

This electron, in turn will upon contact with the next normal core not be propelled furthe, but linger around the core as a new vortex and thus some sort a cascading magnetic railgun is created, a process wich we like to call quantum tunneling. A mysterious process that seems to allow electrons (and other particles) to overcome a barrier that is larger than their own energypotentiol, tunneling like a ghost through a solid wall, but for wich I personally think that the extra energy is aquired by transfer of kinetic enegy from the electrons attracted by the magnetic field of the vortex, like one marble pushing another. The second marble (I am guessing here) looses kinetic energy and will seek a lower energystate, trying to attace to the lattice, however the lattice makeup is such that the configuration of the existing elecronclouds do not allow the free electron to fit in and thus it will merely try to follow the electric dipole moment of the lattice atom and remain spinning around it as a relative outside, creating a vortex wich a diameter and magnetic moment that extends extends way beyond the nucleus and therefore allow attracting electrons from other regions.


However the more common low temperature type-1 superconducters seem to be driven more by the variable electric properties than the magnetic properties.


As I understand it low temperature supercondution is primarely driven by the chrystal lattice shape that upon passage of an electron will be disturbed and create a resonating ripple (phonons) in its wake that travels backward as the lattice tries to resume its shape/energystate. These phonos ripples can be likened to vibrations as caused by sound or heating the material. During these riples the atoms temporarily get a more positive charge due to dislocation in respect to other connected atoms in the lattice and thus create a electric potential for another electron to immedialety follow in the wake of the preceeding electron. like a car in the slipstream. This is why classic semiconductures cannot take heat very well as favourable phonons will not occur if the lattice is vibrating in other directions and frequencies.
Husky
not rated yet Feb 26, 2009
Here is a good description of superconductivity that I as layman can comprehend:

http://www.ornl.g...pt3.html


As I understand it,

To state that magnetism is directly linked to superconductivity because superconductors can create high magnetic fields and therefore assuming that, manipulating the magnetic field could create more favourable superconductor,

is like the mixing up correlation and causality in statistics, a common mistake in wich the higher incidence of icecream consumption in the summer would make people conclude that we can bring on summer sooner if we ate more icecream, or at least, it's a higly simplified and incomplete notion of how
superconductivity works,

especially for the classic low temperature type-1 superconductors who seem to be driven more by the dynamic electric properties of the chrystall lattice than its magnetic properties.

If I read the article correct type-1 superconductors are mainly driven by so called phonons faccillitating the creation of Cooper electron pairs

As an electron pass through the lattice, it will disturb the lattice and create a resonating ripple
(phonon) in its wake that travels backward as the lattice tries to resume its shape/energystate. These phonos ripples can be likened to vibrations as caused by sound or heating the material. During these riples the atoms temporarily get a more positive charge due to dislocation in respect to other connected atoms in the lattice and thus create a electric potential for another electron to immedialety follow in the wake of the preceeding electron. like a car in the slipstream. This is why classic semiconductures cannot take heat very well as favourable phonons will not occur if the lattice is vibrating in other directions and frequencies.


As for as high temperature type-2 superconductors concerned, they must have some other mechanism to operate without phonons and new research DOES seem to indicate that focussing on the magnetic properties of the superconductor crystal lattice
can create favourable tunneling paths (fluxons) for electrons, where vortices of superconductive currents around a normal core form a magnetic field wich will attract other electrons because it is larger than the repulsing coulomb force and thus allow the following electron to move forward, not driven by potential difference but by some sort of Lorentz force accelleration.

This electron, will knock the vortexing electron out of orbit to start another vortex at the next stop in the lattice and thus some sort a cascading self propagating magnetic railgun is created, a process wich we like to call quantum tunneling. A mysterious process that seems to allow electrons (and other particles) to overcome a barrier that is larger than their own energypotential, tunneling like a ghost through a solid wall.

But for wich I personally think can be explained by aquiring by transfer of kinetic enegy from incoming electrons attracted by the magnetic field to the, replacing and pushing the vortexing electron further, like one marble pushing another. The second marble (I am guessing here) looses kinetic energy and will seek a lower energystate, trying to attach to the lattice, however the lattice makeup is such that the configuration of the existing elecronclouds do not allow the free electron to fit in and thus it will merely try to follow the electric dipole moment of the lattice atoms and remain spinning around it as a relative outside, creating a new vortex with a diameter and magnetic moment that allow to extend and work way beyond the nucleus and therefore attract remote electrons from other regions.

Husky
not rated yet Feb 26, 2009
Fluxons seem to be most prevalent at the surface of a conductor as it has more physical room for a vortice to arise and because this part of the lattice is not completely surrounded by other chrystals, creating assymetrical dipole moments at the surface, giving oppertunity for even non magnetic materials to display magnetic properties in this area.

That is why thin film supercondocturs are a hot research subject as they got lots of surface are, also by stacking different layers you can create a crystal sandwich with more embedded surface areas or, alternatively , embed more surface area by inclusion of nanotubes etc..
Ethelred
not rated yet Feb 27, 2009
To create a superconductive cloud of mutually repulsing


Only there was NO superconduction. Just a 5 or 6 step series of dependent speculations claiming that surely there must have been some superconduction based on the dubious series which were dependent on events that were NOT test for thus making the speculation yet more tenuous. In English its called baffle them with bullshit. Hoping no one notices that they never bothered to see if any of it was true.

Only very strong atom bonds can host such holes inside of lattice without oxidization or simply mechanical destruction of material, therefore diamonds is one of such materials.


First it was in a vacuum so oxidization was not an issue. Second absolutely none of that depends on your alleged theory which appears to contain whatever you want it to at any moment. Which is a major reason for appearing to be pure crank.

These experiments just starting,


Not the ones I referred to. That was over twenty years ago.

However, unlike your earlier post, I did just find a real example of superconduction in diamonds. Should you have used that link, it still wouldn't have had anything to do with AWITBS. It was first done at 4k and later around 11K. Field strength is claimed to have been .4T. Which is interesting but no replacement for standard low temperature liquid helium superconductors. It was P-type doping as opposed to the N-type in your link.

http://en.wikiped...nductors

by the same way, like you.


Not according to anyone else. Including my bad habit of buying new technology that breaks easy. Even now that I am older than my dad ever got I still haven't become a conservative like he was.

It's an analogy of cold fusion invention.


That is a really bad place to go if you want anyone to take you seriously. Last article I read on cold fusion was in a magazine published by the Lyndon Larouche organization. They are completly nuts. Nuts of the sort who get arrested for having large arsenals of machine guns and explosives. Didn't look at the colophon before I bought that rag. It would be like looking for real biology in a magazine published by the Discovery Institute. It could happen but only by accident.

At the temperatures involved (.4K) in your new link I think that would be covered quite well by Cooper pairs so no need to claim AWITBS is the answer everyone is looking for. Totally impractical as well even if it can work at higher temperatures.

Ethelred
Alexa
not rated yet Mar 07, 2009
your alleged theory which appears to contain whatever you want it to at any moment
Not at all. Try to demonstrate, AWT leads to some dubious claim and we'll see... But without it your claim remains just an unsubstianted opinion.
Ethelred
not rated yet Mar 07, 2009
. But without it your claim remains just an unsubstianted opinion.


Your ridiculous attempts to claim that AWITSBS explains neurons, evolution, and social behavior.

You substantiate what I said every single time you claim your AWITSBS Crank explains anything outside of physics and within physics for that matter.

Oh are you and Zephir the same person? The writing and posting techniques are the same.

Ethelred
HeyZeuss
not rated yet Jun 14, 2009
Beautiful grammar of alexa is excellent example of superiour european liguistic patterning. Use of argument of personal attack, logical is not! Troop instincts of primates are all subcultures big problem. By producing Dogma that flawed and incomplete model is, and claiming that function of pure math that gives loose correlation with model is proof of model as full and complete understanding:
- A perfect way to identify outsiders of this troop branded religeon is formed. Church members can then repel outsiders and those members with abilities to think for themselves easily. "Hoot hoot! I U not with us U not against us!" ;-)
A proveable dogma is much less effective to keep the sheep isolated in the fold. Outsiders can bring outsider knowledge in if they can agree with the church ritual.
Shame institution science is such a church these days. Maybe its Future shock. Safe cocoon for those that wish we knew it all. Can believe that. Hypothesis is the road to more knowing.
And math that ignores the role of 95 % of the universe and probable extra dimensions as well is just a handy tool for playpen problems.

Hyperconductivty is this surface following or vacuum beam spin paired charges thing yes?
Like in magnetoplasmoids?

do these paired charges make a continuous coherent wave train in the superfluid aether medium Alexa? Sounds like the go.
Is this longitudinal electromagnetic waves like Tesla was into? Or is it a circular polarisation following the circular magfield that sheaths the particle train?