Slashdot Mirror


Nanoclusters Break Superconductivity Record

KentuckyFC writes "A couple of years ago, two Russian physicists predicted that metal nanoclusters with exactly the right number of delocalized electrons (a few hundred or so) could become strong superconductors. Now an American group has found the first evidence that this prediction is correct in individual aluminium nanoclusters containing 45 or 47 atoms. And they found it at 200 K (abstract). That's a huge jump over the previous record of 138K for a high-temperature superconductor. There are a few caveats, however. The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm. And 200K! That's practically room temperature in the Siberian winter."

138 comments

  1. still a little chilly by HawkinsD · · Score: 3, Informative

    Maybe not room temperature, even in Siberia: by my advanced calculations, 200 K = minus 100 F (or -73 C).

    But still very exciting.

    --
    Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by mere idiocy.
    1. Re:still a little chilly by kcbanner · · Score: 1

      http://www.google.ca/search?q=200+kelvin+in+celsius
      200 kelvin = -73.15 degrees Celsius

      --
      Obligatory blog plug: http://www.caseybanner.ca/
    2. Re:still a little chilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      200 Kelvin? That should be enough for anybody.

      In soviet russia, that is.

    3. Re:still a little chilly by Amouth · · Score: 0

      0c = 273k
      and
      0k = -273k
      and
      1 unit C = 1 unit K

      how the hell is 200k = -73.15c sounds like the .15 is a floating point error.. wonder if they are using java..

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    4. Re:still a little chilly by locofungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The definition of the kelvin scale is 0K is absolute zero and 273.16K is the triple point of water. These two points are by definition.

      Now the triple point of water is 0.01C

      Hence the melting point of ice is 273.15K

      Note, therefore, that a change of 1K only equals a change of 1C to the limit of experimental error.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    5. Re:still a little chilly by stjobe · · Score: 1

      0 Kelvin = -273.15 Celsius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
    6. Re:still a little chilly by polar+red · · Score: 1

      no, (s)he is right, 0K = -273.15C (altough I think that's still a rounded number)
      0K = absolute lowest temperature possible.
      0C = freezing temp of water at 1 atmospheric pressure.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    7. Re:still a little chilly by __aagctu1952 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe not room temperature, even in Siberia

      O RLY? ;)

      But yes, if this actually works in practice it's indeed exciting - while a room temperature superconductor is the Holy Grail of materials science, a 200 K superconductor is a great leap forward. A critical temperature of 200 K would make it possible to cool it with ordinary dry ice (CO2 sublimates at around 195 K) instead of LN2, which is much more expensive and difficult to handle.
    8. Re:still a little chilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      0 K is defined as -273.15 C aka the temperature at which nothing could be colder and no heat energy remains in a substance.

    9. Re:still a little chilly by svanderw · · Score: 1

      0K is absolute zero;
      absolute zero is at -273.15C
      so 200K would work out to -73.15C wouldn't it?

      I've learned to trust Google; it's normally correct.

    10. Re:still a little chilly by wattrlz · · Score: 0, Redundant

      0 degrees C is defined as 273.15 degrees K (exactly). People usually round down the .15 because it's more sig figs than they really need. Technically that means it's -99.67 degrees F.

    11. Re:still a little chilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh no, I believe you are incorrect: 0 C = 273.15 K. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin

    12. Re:still a little chilly by locofungus · · Score: 1

      0 degrees C is defined as 273.15 degrees K (exactly).

      No. The triple point of water is defined to be 273.16K

      (Which is what the page you've linked to says now I look at it!)

      The triple point of water is at 0.01C to the limits of experiment. Hence 0C = 273.15K to the limits of experiment.

      (Note that a change of 1K only equals a change of 1C to the limits of experiment. They are not required to be the same. One is 1/273.16 of the temperature difference between absolute zero and the triple point of water, the other 1/100 of the temperature difference between melting ice and boiling water.)

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    13. Re:still a little chilly by locofungus · · Score: 1

      (Note that a change of 1K only equals a change of 1C to the limits of experiment. They are not required to be the same. One is 1/273.16 of the temperature difference between absolute zero and the triple point of water, the other 1/100 of the temperature difference between melting ice and boiling water.)

      Actually that's wrong.

      Reading further 1 degree Celcius is defined to be identical to 1 degree centigrade and the triple point of water is defined to be 0.01C. So it's actually the melting point and boiling point that are not necessarily exactly 0C and 100C.

      Tim.

      --
      God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    14. Re:still a little chilly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ingorance is a bliss

    15. Re:still a little chilly by Amouth · · Score: 1

      ok.. so i was taught wrong

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    16. Re:still a little chilly by Firethorn · · Score: 1

      Of course LN2, being a liquid, is easier to pump around than the solid dry ice. Both have the beneficial properties of being non-explosive, though you have to be careful to ensure sufficient ventilation, especially if you're dealing with large amounts of it.

      I wonder if 200k is reachable using some sort of heat pump system using a thin oil(so it remains liquid) as a medium?

      --
      I don't read AC A human right
    17. Re:still a little chilly by marcansoft · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, a change of 1C is exactly a change of 1K because they're defined that way. Which means that the melting point of ice is only approximately 0 C, or 273.15K, and that the boiling point of water is approximately 373.1339 K or 99.9839 C.

    18. Re:still a little chilly by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Much as the inch is no longer a separate unit (it's defined as exactly 2.54 cm), C is not a separate unit from K.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    19. Re:still a little chilly by RealGrouchy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now if they can make a superconductor at 640K, that should be enough for anybody!

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    20. Re:still a little chilly by msheekhah · · Score: 1

      Yes, but in a couple years, it could be within the cooling power liquid cooled systems or freezer based computing... wouldn't that be exciting?

      --
      Mark Anthony Collins
    21. Re:still a little chilly by Crag · · Score: 2, Funny

      "...while a room temperature superconductor is the Holy Grail of materials science, ..."

      Perhaps a 200K superconductor would be more like a Shroud of Turin of materials science?

    22. Re:still a little chilly by celtic_hackr · · Score: 1

      So this would be like creating super-conducting rare-earth magnets with dry ice. This is actually a fun experiment to do. Not sure where the record of 185 comes from because there are experiments easy to reproduce using dry ice and rareearth magnets. there are even some posted on the 'net.

  2. Re:GODDAMIT by fructose · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not everyone lives in a "-ium" country. And IUAPC swings both ways. Get used to it.

  3. combine this nanoscale aluminum by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    with my desktop cold fusion apparatus, and i can power los angeles from my basement!

    seriously, i hope this pans out. this is earthshattering. if they can successfully scale the production process, combined with its functionality with cheap and nontoxic aluminum, then cheap room temperature superconduction in the general public will occur in our lifetimes, with all of the neergy saving and future device classes that this breakthrough implies

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:combine this nanoscale aluminum by kesuki · · Score: 1

      "with cheap and nontoxic aluminum"

      I beg to differ, aluminum is the number one killer of trees, it even beats out fire.

      for humans, it has been linked to Alzheimer's, although it is not known if that is a cause or an effect of the disease.

      but it is the third most common element on earth (silicon and oxygen beat it out), and is fairly common in space as well.

      the down side is they're doing this is aluminum which doesn't make the existing use of superconductivity any cheaper.

      existing superconductivity is used in superconducting magnets, you could never make a maglev train without superconductive magnets.
      MRIs and particle accelerators also rely heavily on superconductive magnets.

      making a cheaper MRI machine would be a real boon to modern medicine. Eventually this research might make it into other materials though and allow cheaper MRI equipment to be made.

  4. Re:GODDAMIT by EricR86 · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you prefer the slang version it's "GODDAMMIT" or "GODDAMNIT", there's no entry for your "GODDAMIT" in urban dictionary. Or if you wish to be proper, there's always "God damn it". Get used to it :).

  5. Re:GODDAMIT by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

    Heh. You linked to:

    Aluminium
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Aluminum redirects here.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  6. Re:GODDAMIT by sensei+moreh · · Score: 1

    [quote]It's "aluminium". Get used to it.[/quote] Maybe where you come from...

    --
    Geology - it's not rocket science; it's rock science
  7. minus 73 ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great! lets start an attraction park in north pole and build superconductor based rides!

    i'M serious btw

    1. Re:minus 73 ! by somersault · · Score: 3, Funny

      Haven't you heard? Global warming means that the north pole is already booked for rainforest plantation next year. Though superconducting maglev rides do sound fun..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:minus 73 ! by somersault · · Score: 1

      Mods on crack.. yada yada..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    3. Re:minus 73 ! by Rei · · Score: 1

      Well, it's sure trying to get to that point. Looks like another big melt this summer, perhaps even another record-setter despite the cooling from last year's strong La Nina. :P

      --
      But this Rottweiler not only is snarling and frothing at the mouth; it also went to Harvard.
  8. in soviet russia even our electrons by museumpeace · · Score: 5, Funny

    put up no resistance...

    oh never mind. the idea was Russian but the result was in the US

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
    1. Re:in soviet russia even our electrons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's okay.... it's the same conclusion anyways... ;-)

    2. Re:in soviet russia even our electrons by aiwarrior · · Score: 2, Funny

      In Soviet Russia electrons displace metal Clusters to create superconducting Iron Curtains.

      Sincerely Yours
      Karma Whore

  9. Dry Ice by BlueParrot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Carbon dioxide ( or dry-ice ) is bellow 195K at standard pressure, so this material wouldn't even need liquid nitrogen for cooling. If this can be made to scale it would without doubt give countless of applications.

    1. Re:Dry Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      And another sweet point is that superconductors are also superconductors of heat - we can make electric power transmission lines in form of hose (sort-a coaxial cable, actual wire in the center, coolant around it) filled with dry ice or other coolant and keep it all cooled by cooling the wire endpoints. It's very cool, isn't it?

      This post CAN be used as prior art, right? Please don't mod funny, some people filter that out, I'm aiming for insightful.

    2. Re:Dry Ice by imsabbel · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not everything larry niven wrote in ringworld is literal truth....

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Dry Ice by KingKiki217 · · Score: 1

      It's a shame there's no -1, LIES mod...

    4. Re:Dry Ice by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Interesting thought - the increased surface area of the inside of the tube would allow for a higher cooling capacity for a given volume of coolant. However, you're talking about a *LOT* of coolant for transmission lines. The system supplying it would have to be something on par with what is used for city water. Insulating that mess is another problem. And then, how do you exchange the heat out, install heat sinks on the towers perhaps?

      There's also the concern of what is an acceptable failure mode is for such a system. Right now, aluminum cable is used for high-tension lines, but the only way it can fail is if a line snaps, or if a tower breaks. Adding coolant to the mix creates another thing that must not fail, and is more likely to fail at that.

    5. Re:Dry Ice by debatem1 · · Score: 0, Troll

      So, we're going to let hundreds of thousands of GED-wielding line technicians handle thousands of miles of superconductive cabling that probably gets priced by the nanogram, surrounded by a coolant so cold that your first screwup leaves you an amputee on a good day, in order to deliver power to your endpoints without resistance. Then we're going to leave it there and hope nobody's around when a tree branch falls on it, or some moron tosses his sneakers up there, or little tommy just can't aim his BB gun. Sounds great.
      Or... maybe you could just cool the things that need to be superconductive.

    6. Re:Dry Ice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I was hoping to not need to recycle the coolant - idea is to evacuate the heat through the best (ideal) heat conductor in the setup, and that is the wire itself. Coolant (dry ice) is there just to initially "start" it (put the wire into superconducting mode) and to provide heat inertia (and perhaps early indication of possible malfunction).
      Admittedly, I have no idea for insulation ... aerogel, perhaps? Restarting the superconductivity of line after breakage would suck, too. It would have to be done section a time, beginning at the power source (station), then powering next regeneration station, etc. Of, course, dry ice would sublimate out very quickly, unless it is kept pressurized inside the cable.

    7. Re:Dry Ice by ballpoint · · Score: 1
      --
      Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
    8. Re:Dry Ice by pragma_x · · Score: 1

      Or you could wrap them with aerogel (thanks AC!), bury them hollow and then fill them up. Besides, who knows how rigid such a superconductor is - may as well keep the mess below ground in a concrete coffin.

      As for the coolant - there's reasons why there are such things as MSDS sheets and safety protocols. No need to have anyone close by when you fill the line, nor is there any reason why it would be charged and full of coolant when you perform a repair.

      As for installing on an as-needed basis, not a bad idea. I can see one application already: high-energy particle physics. No need to have the powerplant near the collider when you can construct a dedicated cryo-power line and run 1.21 gigawatts straight into the accelerator. Hell, you could probably pipe the collider's coolant along the same line, provided it's big enough.

  10. What's a "strong" superconductor? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

    Isn't that like a "strong" Superman?

    What would that make a "weak" superconductor? A conductor?

    Yours sincerely,
    - Puzzled, Intartubes.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    1. Re:What's a "strong" superconductor? by TheLink · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not sure. I'm no expert but I believe that many higher temperature superconductors lose their superconductivity if exposed to strong magnetic fields. You could say these are weak superconductors in a way.

      Whereas the "conventional" liquid helium superconductors can retain their superconductivity in very strong magnetic fields.

      Being able to "tolerate" strong magnetic fields is very useful if you actually are intending to use the superconductors in many interesting applications - like MRI scanning devices, or maglev stuff and so on.

      --
    2. Re:What's a "strong" superconductor? by ParanoidJanitor · · Score: 4, Informative

      There is a limit to how much current superconductors can carry before they become non-superconducting (depends on the material and the cross-section of the specific chunk of material.) A strong superconductor will be able to carry more electrons while remaining in the superconducting phase.

    3. Re:What's a "strong" superconductor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Type I vs Type II. The way magnetic fields penetrate a superconductor is by creating vortecies (cylinders containing one superconducting flux quantum). If the penetration depth of a magnetic field in the superconductor is large compared to the size of the holes (if the ratio is greater than 1/sqrt(2)), then we get type II and we have a stable Abrikosov vortex phase. If the ratio is reversed, there can not be a stable equilibrium of vorticies and magnetic fields quickly kill the superconducting state.

      The penetration depth is similar to the classical London penetration depth, and the corrolation length comes from the Landau-Ginsburg change in free energy.

    4. Re:What's a "strong" superconductor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      iirc all superconductors loose their superconducting properties at a certain magnetic field strength.

    5. Re:What's a "strong" superconductor? by Lisandro · · Score: 1

      Somewhere, a physicist just got a boner.

  11. Size matters by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 1

    It looks like the size of this is pretty darn small (Figure 1 shows plots of heat capacities determined for aluminum cluster anions with 43-48 atoms for temperatures below room temperature. At that size, it's not particularly useful except when creating tiny electronics. I'm not sure you can string together these tiny atom clusters and get the same effect. Sadly that means we can't send power across the country without significant energy loss.

  12. Idiots... by -Tango21- · · Score: 1

    ...everyone knows the right number of nanoclusters is 42!

    1. Re:Idiots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for all the fish

  13. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In sovt. russia, metal nonoclusters conduct you !

  14. 200K by sm62704 · · Score: 1

    That's -73.15 celcius, or -99.67 Fahrenheit. 294.3 Kelvin would be a very comfortable temperature for superconductivity, I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime?

    Coldest Temperature (North America): -81.4 oF/-63 oC, Snag, Yukon, Canada, February 3, 1947

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
    1. Re:200K by jandrese · · Score: 1

      With the way the science has been going, I wouldn't be surprised to see room temperature (300k) superconductors in my lifetime. Practical use may take longer, but thus far the field has been quite exciting.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    2. Re:200K by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      With the way the science has been going, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 400K room temperature in my lifetime. Bah, to be fair, I also expect my lifetime to exceed 300...

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:200K by sm62704 · · Score: 1

      Well, I expect both of them in both you guys' lifetimes, but I'm a geezer.

      Thank God for that, I'd hate to live another 246 years of the hell I've already lived through.

      --
      mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  15. Exact? by TimothyDavis · · Score: 5, Funny

    A couple of years ago, two Russian physicists predicted that metal nanoclusters with exactly the right number of delocalized electrons (a few hundred or so) could become strong superconductors.

    That is the number range for exact ?
    1. Re:Exact? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost, but not quite entirely unlike a few hundreds.

  16. Slashdot News... by clevergeek · · Score: 1

    >>There are a few caveats, however. The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set >>scientists scrambling to confirm If slashdot has taught me anything lately, it's that "partial evidence" and "yet to be peer-reviewed" = bullshit. Without getting overly trollish about it, the coolest news of the moment that isn't true and isn't news....isn't all that cool...? There's still some great content, and I'll keep coming back as long as the +5 comments keep cracking me up...but the vapor seems a little thick these days.

  17. Grain of salt by SirGarlon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.
    Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.
    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.


      Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work. It's called arxiv and it's a beautiful thing.
    2. Re:Grain of salt by tepples · · Score: 3, Informative

      The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm. Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work. The article "Preprint" on Wikipedia appears to disagree with your assessment.
    3. Re:Grain of salt by KanshuShintai · · Score: 1
      FTFA:

      Jarrold and his team are simply time-stamping their efforts by publishing on the arxiv and you can bet your bottom dollar that they're looking for other evidence right now.
    4. Re:Grain of salt by PhysicsPhil · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.

      It is common practice in many scientific disciplines to publish a preprint of work before it is submitted for publication. This has the advantage of rapidly disseminating advances to the scientific community and to the world at large, since it's a public server. In the case of work in competitive fields, posting a preprint helps establish priority in who did what first.

      Because it's not peer reviewed and the preprint server is open to all, preprints must be taken with a grain of salt. Their value depends largely on the author's reputation within the scientific community. If the person who published this work is known to have produced good work in the past and/or works with those who have produced reliable work, the report within the preprint is generally taken at face value.

    5. Re:Grain of salt by Trintech · · Score: 2, Informative

      The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.
      Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work. Please read this or at least the following excerpt:

      In academic publishing, a paper is an academic work that is usually published in an academic journal. It contains original research results or reviews existing results. Such a paper, also called an article, will only be considered valid if it undergoes a process of peer review by one or more referees (who are academics in the same field) in order to check that the content of the paper is suitable for publication in the journal. A paper may undergo a series of reviews, edits and re-submissions before finally being accepted or rejected for publication. This process typically takes several months. Next there is often a delay of many months (or in some subjects, over a year) before publication, particularly for the most popular journals where the number of acceptable articles outnumbers the space for printing. Due to this, many academics offer a 'pre-print' copy of their paper for free download from their personal or institutional website.
    6. Re:Grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because:
      1) your work will get quick attention from a lot of peers if you do this way. They may refute your results before they get to @press@.
      2) you have less chances that someone else publish the same result earlier than you, just because long referring tracks (aka "meticulous referees")
      3) science works the way the peer community thinks it should -that is science-. And right now the community accepts this behavior.
      4) nobody is lying. Everybody knows that these results must be verified by others before being engraved on an ivory tower.

    7. Re:Grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well yeah, of course Wikipedia would say that... think about it... ;p

    8. Re:Grain of salt by SirGarlon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      3) science works the way the peer community thinks it should -that is science-. And right now the community accepts this behavior.

      I subscribe to Richard Feynman's idea of scientific integrity, which I suppose is why I don't fit into the "peer community."

      Quoth Feynman:

      It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

      You say no one is lying. Maybe so, but it seems very common, especially in "science by press release," to be quite selective with the truth.

      --
      [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    9. Re:Grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This brings up a good point: People need to realize that posting something to the arXiv does not count as "publication". Nothing there is peer reviewed. It mainly serves to provide your colleagues with a heads-up, and also offers a nice electronic source for papers even after they are peer reviewed by a real journal. (Always check the citation on the abstract page to see which journal it ended up in, if any!)

      Lots of stuff in the arXiv is never published, or comes from non-journal sources, like conference proceedings and the occasional book. And there is a small fraction of crackpot junk, of course. The fact that reviewed and unreviewed documents commingle on the same server definitely doesn't help reduce the confusion.

    10. Re:Grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no such thing as "science by press release". Yes, there are press releases. Yes, they are often inaccurate and misleading. But they are part of the fundraising process, not the scientific process.

    11. Re:Grain of salt by tepples · · Score: 1

      Well yeah, of course Wikipedia would say that I'll disregard any circumstantial ad hominem attack. But usually when a Wikipedia article is wrong, one of the three is the case: A. the article is poorly referenced (look for {{unreferenced}} or {{refimprove}} tags at the top), B. the article misinterprets the sources, or C. the sources themselves are wrong. Which is the problem this time?
  18. Re:GODDAMIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    key phrase: "...Now an American group..."

    When your country makes the breakthrough they can spell it however they'd like.

  19. Re:GODDAMIT by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Informative

    Why the hell would you want to pronounce that highly awkward, useless and redundant fifth syllable? We've spent centuries over here cleaning up the English language by expunging extraneous letters and normalizing spelling to match pronunciation. Much has been accomplished, but more needs to be done. Get with the program.

  20. Re:GODDAMIT by garlicbready · · Score: 1

    (in a deep Northern Brittish Accent)
    Those Americans, they aught to talk proper, like what we does

  21. precision by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how the hell is 200k = -73.15c sounds like the .15 is a floating point error..
    How about: measurements get more precise with better instruments.

    The original calculation of 0C=273K was determined in 1848.
    The more precise value of 273.15K was measured and adopted in 1954.

    Given the equipment and knowledge available in 1848, I'm quite impressed with the accuracy of the original calculation ( 0.1%).
  22. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 4, Funny

    (in a deep Northern Brittish Accent) you mean Scottish?
    --
    Max.
  23. Re:GODDAMIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You've got it the wrong way round btw. Americans use an older form of English, in general, and so words which are archaic in British usage are used in the USA (normalcy being one classic example). So the Brits actually have been going around adding letters, rather than the Americans removing them.

  24. Dis ain't that significant by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's a big jump from superconductivity in 45 or 47 atoms and usable superconductivity.

    For instance, a usable superconductor has to be able to tolerate a strong magnetic field, i.e. substantial current. Plenty of alloys are superconducting but cannot carry much current.

    And very basic: temperature is a very hazy concept when applied to a small cluster of atoms. What's the acceptable range of energies? Very significant.

    1. Re:Dis ain't that significant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The temperature is not the cluster temperature, but the substrate it is glued on (macroscopic property)

    2. Re:Dis ain't that significant by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      OTOH if these clusters actually superconduct, it ought to be feasible to make nanoscale SQUID sensors out of them ; and for this application, a weak critical field or current wouldn't matter so much.

      --
      >;k
  25. Re:GODDAMIT by Idiomatick · · Score: 2, Insightful

    wuh-hi the hel wood u wont to pro-noun-se that hi-li ok-werd, u-se-les and ri-dun-dant fifth sil-a-bul?
     
    Yeahhhh because English really cleaned up its spelling didn't it? If it were a concerted effort to clean up strange spellings you wouldn't have gone after the letter u and ium words before taking on 'knife'. The reason america is wrong isn't because of how it is supposed to be spelled (from a pronunciation point of view). It is because the rest of the world spells it differently. Its like using inches and feet in a metric world. Get with the program.

  26. Re:GODDAMIT by peragrin · · Score: 1

    you do realize the british use miles right? In the UK you get both meteric and English imperial units. Some things are commonly done in one other's are commonly done in the other.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
  27. It's cool, but NOT because of superconductivity by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This looks like a great piece of work, particularly on the theoretical side.

    However, it's really unclear if it's possible to make a BULK superconductor out of this. The effect depends on a nanocluster having the correct number of atoms. Once you put two together you have - a nanocluster with the wrong number of atoms. Which is to say, a little piece of aluminum. Perhaps you could have a bunch of cluster that were separated enough to be weakly coupled so you could maintain the superconducting state, but allow current flow. But there's a whole lot of "ifs" between here and there.

    What I find exciting about this is the ability to theoretically predict the properties of nanoclusters (to say nothing of fabricating and measuring them.) Understanding nanoclusters is a step in the direction of engineering bulk materials from first principles with the characteristics you need. You know how much time and effort went into discovering Halfnium as a component for a dielectric in transistor fabrication? Imagine if that could have been discovered by running a supercomputer for a while until it found the compound with the desired properties. THAT is where this will ultimately go.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.
  28. Almost room temperature... by divisionbyzero · · Score: 1

    on Mars!

  29. 200K is not that cold by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

    .."is" 200k in Soviet Russia... in the summertime! aaa ha ha ha!

    (note: this is the variant of the ISR joke where you insert something and then "is this something in soviet russia... in the summertime! AAA HA HA HA)

    --
    stuff |
  30. mod parent up by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    mod parent up

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  31. Planearium by Jhan · · Score: 1
    It's "aluminium". Get used to it.

    I'm sorry, but I have a speech defect which prohibts me from intong the second "i" in any one word.

    --

    I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.

  32. The important question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when do we have a working stargate

  33. Re:GODDAMIT by philspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    You know, if it weren't for us and our aluminum, you'd be talking about "das aluminium" right now.

  34. Re:GODDAMIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been fifty+ years, let it go. :)

  35. Re:GODDAMIT by debatem1 · · Score: 1

    Oh to have mod points... bravo, sir!

  36. Temperature of water boiling IS approximate by by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

    nature.

    Boiling has to do w/ molecular excitement due to pressure gradients. If you take that water, and boil it in denver, You'll find no amount of exact measuring will come up w/ 373.1339 K

    Please, remeber that sea level is a relative thing only to earth.

    --
    How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    1. Re:Temperature of water boiling IS approximate by by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      We can only make crappy tea up here because our boiling point is so low. ;)

    2. Re:Temperature of water boiling IS approximate by by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      Haha... but you did get John Elway, so I guess it evens out...

      I really like it there. It feels like Western WA because the mountains are allways in the background, it's just not green.

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    3. Re:Temperature of water boiling IS approximate by by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      While that's certainly true, you can't calibrate your thermometer to absolute zero.

      Ideally you'd use two triple-points, but the problem there is that the thermometer itself is not exactly linear over the whole range, so you need to define two points that are close enough together that your thermometer is linear over that range, and covers the range you're interested in measuring.

      If you were using boiling water as a calibration point, you'd boil it in a pressure vessel in Denver, set to 1013 millibar.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:Temperature of water boiling IS approximate by by DRAGONWEEZEL · · Score: 1

      hehe I knew there would be someone geek enough to show me that! Awesome! I was really not serious in the slightest, and can't believe that no one modded it funny yet!

      --
      How much is your data worth? Back it up now.
    5. Re:Temperature of water boiling IS approximate by by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'm in the OTHER Denver, called Calgary, Canada.

      Same deal with the mountains though:

      http://www.robbtech.com/~robb/Gallery/Mountain%20Seasons/large-14.shtml

      http://www.robbtech.com/~robb/Gallery/cochrane/cochrane.shtml

  37. I was under the impression.... by martin_henry · · Score: 1

    ...that room temp was defined by the temperature people prefer indoors.
    Imagine a beowulf cluster of these clusters...maybe that's a strong superconductor?

    --
    www.purevolume.com/martyd
  38. Re:GODDAMIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If it werent for us and our sailing ships, gunpowder and steel youd still be eating grass, living in caves and speaking Cherokee.

  39. Re:GODDAMIT by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

    Well, it's crap. So it must not be Scottish.

    --
    -
  40. Re:GODDAMIT by Your.Master · · Score: 1

    The well-known removal of "u", the conversion of s to z in "yse"/"yze" words, reversal of "re" words to "er", and shortening of words that end in "amme" to "am" was started in America by Mr. Webster. Certain particular words in the US may be more archaic, and I've heard but cannot verify that the accents in the American South mapped to fairly common English accents at the time far better than modern English accents. But it's really mostly Americans removing letters. Some of which make things less clear, in my opinion. Why does analysis go to analyze instead of analyse? The etymology certainly supports the 's', and the sound itself, when I say it, is sort of middling between a 'z' sound and an 's' sound anyway. And color -- the o's have extremely different pronounciations each time. WTF. I'm sure you can find plenty of other uncontested words like that, but it's still aggravating (even if color is more etymologically sound, colour is the older English-language representation).

  41. What good is a superconducting nanoparticle? by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Surely, a composite made from superconducting nanoparticles would not be superconducting (though it may be a good conductor). So what use is a superconductor if it has to be so small?

    Also, they measured a dramatic change in heat capacity @ 200K, which may be an indication of a superconducting phase transition. It also may be some other phase transition. They're still looking for direct evidence it's a superconducter.

  42. Re:GODDAMIT by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    No, we'd still be in Europe, scrounging for scraps and yearning for wide open spaces.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  43. Re:GODDAMIT by garlicbready · · Score: 1

    English humor "what we does" is grammatically incorrect
    A north england accent isn't Scottish (think Bolton / ee by gum, emphasis on the o's and u's, "bloody hell", sounds like "bluudy 'ell")

  44. 45 or 47? WRONG! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Now an American group has found the first evidence that this prediction is correct in individual aluminum nanoclusters containing 45 or 47 atoms."

    They're wrong. The right number is 42. It's obvious.

  45. Re:GODDAMIT by Brownstar · · Score: 1

    Northern England, isn't in the Northern part of Britain either.

  46. Re:GODDAMIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But they still have a monarchy... they have a right to imperialism! But their children (The Commonwealth) are mostly up to date and modern, using the auspicious metric system almost exclusively.

  47. Re:GODDAMIT by call-me-kenneth · · Score: 1

    "It's crap being Scottish. We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the earth, the most wretched, miserable, servile, pathetic trash that was ever shown to civilization. Some people hate the English. I don't. They're just wankers. We, on the other hand, were colonized by wankers. Can't even find a decent civilization to be colonized by. --Mark, in "Trainspotting"

  48. And 200K! by fatp · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Am I the only one misinterpreting this as 200 kilo (degrees - either Celcius or Kelvin, there's practically no difference)?

  49. Re:GODDAMIT by kvezach · · Score: 1

    You know, that's a pretty strange way of writing "alyuminii".

  50. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1

    Right.

    While my comment may have been humourous, it was meant to draw attention to the ignorance exhibited by the use of statements such as 'British English'.

    The parts of Britain other than England - ie Scotland and Wales - actually have their own *languages*.

    Just because people in Scotland and Wales choose to mostly use English, doesn't change 'English' into 'British'. It also doesn't change the meaning of 'English', since it is from and belongs to the English. A more accurate term would be 'English English', but that's just tautological.

    Of course, "English" is also from Britain since England is part of Britain, and so "British English" is technically correct. However, English is also from Europe, but no one calls it 'European English'.

    What's next, "Terra English"? "Milky Way English"?

    Oh, no - can't have those terms because the areas (volumes?) also include the USA (and other places) whose inhabitants use "forks" of the English language.

    Rant, rant, etc.

    --
    Max.
  51. Re:GODDAMIT by wildsurf · · Score: 1

    It's "aluminium". Get used to it.

    So you're saying it's also "tantalium", "molybdenium", "platinium", and "lanthanium"? Get over it.

    --
    Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
  52. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 2, Informative

    Not how I read it.

    The reference says :

    1) 'Aluminum' predominates only in the USA.
    2) It's 'prefered' by the Canadian Oxford dictionary.
    3) ...and everywhere else uses 'Aluminium' or analogies thereof.
    4) The IUAPC recognises 'Aluminum' only as a 'varient'.

    wrt 4) - that's not what I call 'swings both ways'.

    More like "I'm distinctly heterosexual, but someone showed me a picture of a naked man once. I threw up, but I did see it".

    --
    Max.
  53. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1

    I'm sure that's true for some words, but I wonder about 'Aluminum'. Wikipedia suggests that the first use was 'alumium' - ie kind of 'in between' and it sort of wavered thereafter.

    --
    Max.
  54. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1

    However, unlike the Americans, in general, the English don't, in general, actually add letters so much as allow the language itself to change. Why would the English care? It's their language after all - they have nothing to prove. The Americans, of course, had to prove their independence.

    Wikipedia, however, does suggest that 'aluminium' is one such example of someone choosing to add a letter. I'm not sure how reliable that information is, and I haven't followed the references.

    --
    Max.
  55. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Of course, we will never know what 'would' have been.

    However, initially the US was, in some capacity, a supporter of Nazi Germany, and, as I recall from 'somewhere'[1], only forced into the war when the British forces started sinking US ships and blaming it on the Germans.

    Talk about sitting on the fence and rushing in at the end to be the hero.

    [1] I would quote Wikipedia, but saying 'somewhere' seems to be just as authoritative.

    --
    Max.
  56. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1

    Well, the imperial system comes from there, so it's gonna take longer to switch.

    That's not an excuse. They are wrong to take so long to switch too (IMO). It's just a reason.

    --
    Max.
  57. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Right.

    I have no objection with the American's changing the spelling to make more 'sense' - for some definition of 'sense'; but, lets face it, they completely cocked it up.

    I mean, at least be thorough. Why not get rid of all silent letters for a start?

    --
    Max.
  58. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1

    To quote Wikipedia :

    "The -ium suffix had the advantage of conforming to the precedent set in other newly discovered elements of the time: potassium, sodium, magnesium, calcium, and strontium"

    That's a good reason, isn't it?

    OK, OK, so it does go on a bit further....

    "Nevertheless, -um spellings for elements were not unknown at the time, as for example platinum, known to Europeans since the sixteenth century, molybdenum, discovered in 1778, and tantalum, discovered in 1802."

    The '-iums' seem to vastly outnumbers teh '-ums', and I notice that the the '-iums' aren't close to the 'Al' in the periodic table at all. Perhaps that's something to do with it.

    --
    Max.
  59. Siberian Superconducting Datacenters by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    As electric and cooling costs continue to rise, I wonder whether there will be good economic case for locating superconducting datacenters towards the poles (or atop mountains) because it takes so much less power to keep them running so fast. With ever more automated datacenter ops, they might be airdroppable into really remote locations, with fiber bundles or redundant satellite radios linking them to the Net, without needing human operations staff (and the power they consume for their 100F bodies).

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  60. Re:GODDAMIT by kesuki · · Score: 1

    in the future they just call it 'al' because they're too lazy to type in aluminium or aluminum on their cell phones. it's sad but true. people talk entirely in acronyms, I've been guilty of it myself, more so when i was on irc. FWIW firefox uses aluminum as it's official spelling, although wiki goes the other way.

  61. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1

    FWIW firefox uses aluminum as it's official spelling ...and it's worth nothing since it uses a dictionary and it depends on the language of the dictionary you have installed. I use Firefox, and it's highlighting your spelling above as incorrect (as well as 'firefox' curiously).

    Although, I have to wonder what you mean by 'official'.
    --
    Max.
  62. Re:GODDAMIT by dwater · · Score: 1

    We've spent centuries over here cleaning up the English language by expunging extraneous letters and normalizing spelling to match pronunciation. Yeah, like flickr, krzr, razr.

    Guys, there's such a thing as style, and you lot ain't got it.

    (OK, so neither have I, but there you go)
    --
    Max.
  63. Old record may be 185K by Matt+Edd · · Score: 1

    According to this page http://superconductors.org/185k_pat.htm the previous record was actually 185K and it points out the the coldest recorded temperature on the planet is 183.95K. What is actually more exciting (to me at least) is the new non-cuprate superconductors. They are fluorine doped RFeOAs (R = rare earth) with Tc ~ 40-50K. This will hopefully give insight into the mechanisms of non-BCS superconductivity.

  64. Re:GODDAMIT by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

    And IUAPC swings both ways. That's IUPAC. I'll assume it's a typo ;)
  65. Re:GODDAMIT by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

    you'd be talking about "das aluminium" right now. Even worse: das Aluminium.
  66. Re:GODDAMIT by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Maybe that's how you do it in English. But I speak American.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  67. Re:GODDAMIT by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Brits (and a handful of others) also drive on the left side of the road. While Europeans and Americans drive on the right hand side. Is one way better than another? Probably not.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  68. Re:GODDAMIT by armareum · · Score: 1

    Then please explain the silent 'c' in Connecticut; and the vast difference in pronounciation between Kansas / Arkansas. Some consistency would bolster your argument.

    --
    Is this a rhetorical question?
  69. Re:GODDAMIT by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

    Yes well you can't exactly drive internationally unless you are referring to the internet. When in rome (in this case the international community known as the internet) do as the romans do. Its the same as when you print scientific articles you use the metric system even if you are in the states. That said I think you are getting a tad anal when you complain about aluminium ... colour maybe but w/e

  70. Re:GODDAMIT by NotmyNick · · Score: 1

    Then please explain the silent 'c' in Connecticut; and the vast difference in pronounciation between Kansas / Arkansas
    In the native population, it's not silent, it's just over with in a damned hurry. As for Kansas that's always Kan-zsuhs, but whether you say Ar-kun-saw or Ar-Kan-zsuhs depends upon which part of the state you are from. Same goes for whether you are an Ar-kun-sah-un or an Ar-Kan-zhuh'n. A similar thing happens in Miz-soury/Miss-Ur-uh. But they're from the South, they kept a lot of the regional accents that they inherited from the Brits. What's the deal with centre? Is the rhotic pronounced before or after the ultimate vowel? I know that the French, who spell it the same way, pronounce it Sohn-truh.
    --
    Notmysig
  71. Re:It's cool, but NOT because of superconductivity by Rei · · Score: 1

    Not that any mods are paying attention to this thread any more, but this "Score:5, Insightful" post is based on a faulty premise. Bulk material of these clusters would conduct thanks to the Josephson effect.

    --
    But this Rottweiler not only is snarling and frothing at the mouth; it also went to Harvard.
  72. Re:GODDAMIT by kesuki · · Score: 1

    by official, i mean 'default on ubuntu 7.10 linux, having chosen 'chicago' timezone.'

  73. Re:It's cool, but NOT because of superconductivity by FuzzyDaddy · · Score: 1

    Perhaps you could have a bunch of cluster that were separated enough to be weakly coupled so you could maintain the superconducting state, but allow current flow. But there's a whole lot of "ifs" between here and there.

    Bulk material of these clusters would conduct thanks to the Josephson effect
    Here's where I mention the possibility of a a bulk material. Tunneling of cooper pairs could be done if you can (1) somehow figure out how to put together a bulk material of clusters of ~20 Al atoms with enough space (insulation?) between them so it's not just a block of aluminum, but (2) close enough to allow enough tunneling to allow a supercurrent. If the coupling is too weak, you will get no supercurrent, if it's too strong, you perturb the initial state enough so that it's no longer superconducting. (As you bring the clusters closer together, at some point it will look like bulk aluminum.) Is there a coupling which is strong enough to allow a current but not enough to perturb the state? How will the fact that the cluster is so small affect the tunneling, given that you no longer have an unlimited supply of cooper pairs? Can such a material, with the right amount of coupling, actually be constructed? Would the perturbation of the weak coupling lower the transition temperature to an unimpressive level? These are some of the many "ifs" that would need to be answered to see if you could make a bulk superconductor this way. They're all interesting research questions, and well worth exploring (IMHO). But that's the long distance between this result and bulk superconductivity.

    And modding is imperfect at sorting out truth from falsehood. Don't sweat it so much. The discussion's the thing.

    --
    It's not wasting time, I'm educating myself.