Surprising Superconduction in Plutonium

jihema writes "Dr Strangelove would have liked this : a plutonium compound turns out to be a superconductor at relatively high temperature (18 K). The magnetic properties of this metal make this fact rather unexpected and contradicts the accepted theory on superconduction."

Comments

Re:18K relatively warm?

[jerde]

Right. Okay. Go read the article! (This is the correct response to 90% of the posts in this thread)

18K is relatively warm compared to plain-old superconducting metals. When superconductivity was discovered in 1911 occurring in Mercury, later in other metals as well, it was at only a few degrees Kelvin. 18K is relatively warm compared to that.

Half a century later, in 1986, we found ceramic compounds that would superconduct at much much higher temperatures. Those compounds superconduct by a different process, so they're dubbed Type 2 superconductors. (as opposed to Type 1 for metalic elements)

The article doesn't say -- or they probably don't even know for sure -- what type of superconductivity was observed in Plutonium. Or if they were using pure elemental Plutonium or some compound that contained it.

And finally, lots of other comments here make fun of how "useful" Plutonium is. Duh. It's not:

The discovery has no immediate practical value but is important because it adds a new dimension to the study of superconductivity, Stewart said.

"You can't make practical materials out of something as radioactive and chemically poisonous as plutonium," he said, "but John Sarrao and this collaborative team have made a big leap in understanding superconductivity from a fundamental point of view."

Basically, it means that superconductivity is still not completely understood -- this uncovers yet another twist, and will help to develop the theories further.

Secrets of the universe stuff, you know.

- Peter

Re:Pb--Great

[capnjack41]

I don't think that's the point. I think they're just interested on what impact this has on superconductor theory. No one's about to build a huge radioactive train or a bunch of radioactive power lines.

This makes me wonder. I don't think the article really clarified on whether it was the radioactive property that makes it interesting, or just how the actual metal atom works. If that's the case, then what's the problem with depleted uranium? IANANP (nuke physicist), but I guess since they didn't mention it, it wouldn't work.

Re:Is jihema drunk? 18 K is not warm at all.

[rthille]

Read the article, it talked about superconductors at 138K...however, for materials you 'don't expect' to superconduct, they typically do superconduct, but at around 2-3K.

Re:Pb--Great

[mindstrm]

IT's a differnet isotope of uranium, and it's still radioactive, just not in the right way. IT's relatively safe, you can handle it, etcetera....
but when it gets blown to powder and ends up in the food/water supply, it's not good.

It's probably also highly toxic.
One of the major dangers of plutonium other than radioactivity is the fact that it is extremely toxic.;

Re:18K is pretty warm given the circumstances..

[Sir Holo]

All of the very high K superconductors (>100 K) are (IIRC) brittle ceramic compunds that could not be easily constructed into something of commercial use.

Nope. They are easily constructed into something of commercial use. I work on the technology. It is just not cheaper than copper wire for power transmission (yet). Superconducting cables are, however, currently used in various specialized applications, and in 2004, a superconducting power transmission cable will be installed in the Northeast US. The Japanese and Germans are making great advances as well as the US. Although the superconductors are "brittle" ceramics, one can wind a superconducting cable around a bottle neck, and it will still work fine. Why? It's thin. If that doesn't explain it, consult basic mechanics of materials textbook.