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

Pb--Great

[Henry V .009]

Superconducting power lines would transmit electricity from power plants to homes without most of the energy loss that occurs now

Unless someone takes them down to build an atomic bomb!

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: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:Pb--Great

[Henry V .009]

You idiot! Now all of the terrorists that I fooled into building their weapons of mass destruction out of lead will realize their mistake. I hope you understand that you'll be personally responsible when they nuke Dallas.

"OK, lets freeze this plutonium,

[Unknown Poltroon]

and run high voltage through it"

Dosent this sound like some kind of bad b-move plot?? Im wating for the time traveling DeLorean to show up.

WHAT?!

[Hubert_Shrump]

You mean we were fitting rockets to those things for years, when all we needed was a great huge magnet?

Man, the Pentagon's going to be pissed.

18K is pretty warm given the circumstances..

[Tyrnagog]

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.

While Plutonium is "extremely radioactive and chemically toxic", it is just a base metal, not a compound. I am not to familiar with the metallic properties of Plutonium (malleability, brittleness, etc) but I would imagine that if one metal (even if it is trans-uranic) has high K properties like Plutonium, others may as well...

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.

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: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:buying plutonium on the black market

[Mark of THE CITY]

The LAST thing one of these "random University professors" would do is buy Plutonium on the black market.

Of course; could you imagine putting this on a research grant?

Name: Plutonium
Qty: 100g
Vendor: mumble

:)

Liquid N2 vs Milk

[ShavenYak]

HST composites only need liqud nitrogen (which costs the same as milk)... ...but is nowhere near as much fun when worn as a mustache!

Got Severe Painful Frostbite?

Type I vs. Type II Superconductor

[DrLudicrous]

I am by far no expert in superconductivity, but I have worked with superconductive materials here and there. This discovery seems very similar to that of MgB2, which superconducts at about twice the temp, 37K or so. If I remember correctly, wasn't that a type-I superconductor? It seems to me that this plutonium-based superconductor (is it just pure Pu?) would be a classical BCS type-I superconductor. Most type-II's tend to be really complex as far as their constiutent elements numbers and ratios, e.g. YBCO. Plus, 18K is well below 37K, so in the regime of classical type-I Tc's. Also, I think that the cooper pairs are probably being formed by the valence f-orbital electrons. Maybe a theorist can show that this yields the lowest possible ground state energy. Besides, Yb of YBCO fame is also in the same group of elements as Pu who have partially filled f-orbitals.