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."

Comments

Grain of salt

[SirGarlon]

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.

Re:Grain of salt

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Grain of salt

[SirGarlon]

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.

Dis ain't that significant

[Ancient_Hacker]

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.

Re:Dry Ice

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:GODDAMIT

[Idiomatick]

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.

It's cool, but NOT because of superconductivity

[FuzzyDaddy]

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.

Re:GODDAMIT

[dwater]

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.

Re:GODDAMIT

[dwater]

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?