Slashdot Mirror
Possible Room Temperature Superconductor Achieved
TechkNighT_1337 sends news that surfaced on the Next Big Future blog, concerning research out of the University of Bengal, in India. The report is of a possible superconducting effect at ambient room temperatures. Here is the paper on the ArXiv. (Note that this research has not been peer-reviewed or published yet.) "We report the observation of an exceptionally large room-temperature electrical conductivity in silver and aluminum layers deposited on a lead zirconate titanate (PZT) substrate. The surface resistance of the silver-coated samples also shows a sharp change near 313 K. The results are strongly suggestive of a superconductive interfacial layer, and have been interpreted in the framework of Bose-Einstein condensation of bipolarons as the suggested mechanism for high-temperature superconductivity in cuprates. ... The fact that the results described above have been obtained from very simply-fabricated systems, without the use of any sophisticated set-up and any special attention being given to crystal purity, atomic perfection, lattice matching, etc. suggests that the physical process is a universal one, involving only an interface between a metal and an insulator with a large low-frequency dielectric constant. We note in passing that PZT and the cuprates have similar (perovskite or perovskite-based) crystal structures. This resemblance may provide an added insight into the basic mechanism of high-temperature superconductivity."
After reading the summary, everything is plainly obvious...
(walks away slowly before anyone can notice I didn't understand anything)
until the experiment has been repeated by someone else, I'm not holding any hope.
it was Bose-Einstein condensation of bipolarons that would allow for room tempurature super conduction.
Not peer-reviewed and not published = why the fuck is this on Slashdot?!
313K is 40C. So this stuff ought to behave just fine in the UK, but only part of the year in India :-) Even in temperate climates, you'd have to be careful not to leave it out in the sun, so again it should be fine in the UK...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
This smells of Cold fusion. I was 12 when that scandal erupted and I'm *still* recovering from the disappointment that we hadn't just entered the age of flying cars. This time I think we're better off saving our excitement until the experiment has been repeated.
There has been a number of fraud reports of high temperature superconductivity, and while there are some confirmed examples of superconductivity at very high temperatures ( like -70C ) they usually involve some microscopic crystal or other structure which is not very useful for most practical applications.
In addition, that something super conducts does not imply it can handle a very large current at high temperatures. The current creates a magnetic field, and superconductors can only work when the magnetic field is less than some fixed value that depends on the material. If I'm not mistaken this value is at its highest when the temperature is very low, and thus it's quite plausible you could get a room temperature superconductor which can't carry any significant current unless cooled to more traditional temperatures.
If it superconducts at room temperature, trust me, nobody's going to give a crap what it's made from.
No he didn't.
> The surface resistance of the silver-coated samples also shows a sharp change near 313 K.
Pure copper does the exact same thing.
I call bogus.
Maury
Yes, I see. Something involving that many big words could easily destabilize time itself!
Well, silver isn't -that- expensive. Especially when we're just speaking of a layer of the stuff.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
How much current can it carry? Superconductors tend to lose superconductivity in the presence of a large magnetic field, limiting the amount of current they can carry. I don't know if the high Tc superconductors are more susceptible than the regular ones, but it's something to keep in mind.
If they can take a really high magnetic field then that would be really cool for projects like the LHC. A large part of what makes that project dangerous, difficult, and expensive is the large number of He cooled superconducting magnets it needs. The danger comes in when you get a cosmic ray or something that increases the temperature of the magnet so that even a small part loses its superconductivity. When that happens, the non-superconducting part rapidly starts heating up the rest of the magnet in a process called "quenching." The results of a quench can be quite catastrophic.
Well, apparently you don't have to deal with electricity stealing Werewolves. I for one, am glad someone is finally addressing this problem.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
Magnetic levitation photos or it didn't happen.
-- Alastair
In that case, we'll just make it out of unobtanium.
Uhhhm no, you don't have to wait for replication. All you have to do is move on to the next story and ignore this stupidity. It's a SINGLE AUTHOR PAPER from some dude at the University of North Bengal, which was reported by a laughably sensationalistic pseudoscience mongering blog and regurgitated here by perhaps the dumbest, most credulous editor on /.'s staff: kdawson (who posts trumpet-blaring room temperature superconductivity stories with such regularity that you could probably set your watch by it). Hang your head in shame /.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
It appears no one (but Slashdot) has commented on it in any way yet. I'm reminded of the "Surfer dude stuns physicists with Theory of Everything" headlines that had scientists so stunned they haven't commented on it in three years...
Consider that copper is used in nearly everything, while silver has a relatively low demand with a high supply. Then jack up the demand for silver to the levels copper is at, and see where the price really is.
Amazing! Simply ama...
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Whoever banked on silver will care a great deal. Bauxite is too common for aluminum prices to rise a lot, but another industrial use for silver makes it jump a few. Did any of these researchers invest in metals recently?
If the term "unobtainium" wasn't invented by the early heyday of jet fighter engineering (circa the Korean war), I'll eat my carbon-graphite bike frame.
My understanding is that superconductors have current limits independent of resistive effects (possibly due to magnetic field intensity). How much material you need depends on those exact limits. Even silver could be cheap as dirt if the current density is high enough.
The other thing I've heard is that superconductors are generally discovered by observing related effects, not by measuring conductivity itself.
There also seems to be many people here who have never heard of the black swan effect. You can't prove a black swan doesn't exist by observing a sequence of white swans. There's always a first time. This also applies to the possibility that something important is someday discovered or first published independent of peer review.
That said, there's no point in wearing out your salivary glands unnecessarily, although I've heard it's a common ailment to overdose on visual innuendo of the possibility of doing something you're not actually doing (with dim prospects).
For me qualified engineering porn is when the material is officially characterized in important criteria such as current density limits.
I feel the same way about quantum computing. Still haven't seen a formula which describes the ultimate constraint (or cost) on how many qubits can be stacked together (usually the universe puts limits on salivary endeavours). It would be kind of weird if qubits prove to be as stackable as frictionless pulleys.
I'm a condensed matter physicist. This claim is weak beyond belief, and it pains me to no end to see it get picked up by slashdot and other sites (nextbigfuture.com). To demonstrate superconductivity, you need to show (a) zero resistance over some range of current; (b) the Meissner effect (expulsion of magnetic flux, seen via magnetometry); (c) a characteristic feature of a phase transition in the heat capacity. This paper shows exactly none of these things. The noise level in the resistance measurements is so poor, you could not tell the difference between zero and 0.01 Ohms (which would be totally believable considering there is already a metal film in the system). This paper in its present form is not fit for publication. Seriously, you don't have to be an expert at this stuff to see that this is weak - just look at the noise level in the current-voltage curves and use some common sense!
There was also a discovery of a superconducting phase formed at the surface of an N-type diamond substrate six years ago. Since then, Johan Prins has managed to get one paper published in a semiconductor journal, but this work has been almost completely ignored by the scientific community. More disturbingly, to my knowledge, is that there has been no effort to duplicate this astonishing result, nor a single challenge of the experimental method or physics contained within the paper.
The observed behavior is clearly at odds with the presently accepted superconducting theory, and should be welcomed by any open-minded scientist, or at the very least refuted. The accepted theory not only doesn't fit the data for Type-II superconductors, it is useless in practice, and offers no real insight into the physical phenomenon.
Since then, he has postulated a new theory of superconductivity, and a new interpretation* of quantum mechanics, both of which look very reasonable from what I have seen. What is more, his theory accurately models both types of superconductors with the same physics, and is useful enough to engineer new superconductors. If the theory does fit the existing data more accurately, this certainly deserves further investigation.
Though I haven't been able to track down his book, there are chapters of his current and upcoming books here. They at least give insight into his ideas. My crude understanding follows, and I look forward to the completed book.
The fundamental idea, is that the the wave equation is not a probability distribution of a point particle, but a harmonic wave which represents the mass distribution of the particle, the complex part of which is actually another dimension. There are no particles, only waves, and all are subject to appropriate boundary conditions. The extra dimension also provides a pair of entangled "particles" a mechanism for action at a distance--they are in reality a single wave. Photons are waves without mass, and may entangle with an electron, imparting energy in the process. An interesting point, is that in Kaluza-Klein theory, Einstein's field equations and Maxwell's equations fall out of general relativity, simply by assuming an extra dimension.
Anyway, as applied to his superconducting discovery, the electrons actually entangle into a single electron wave, and form what he calls an array of orbitals. It is a purely electronic Bose-Einstein condensate, which is stable at room temperature, and where charge moves not by some convoluted electron-pair and phonon interaction, but by a quantum effect, in what is otherwise essentially an insulator. This same array is asserted to form within metals, or within the ceramic superconductors between layers, where there are sufficient donor atoms. All that is required is for the right density of orbitals to form and entangle, and that charge carriers be anchored somewhere, so that they can not undergo acceleration and collisions. (Which is why the best conductors do not superconduct.)
* the currently accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics is unsatisfying to say the least. The math is useful, but who really believes that wave-particle duality and the statistical interpretation are not a mere mathematical construct, but the foundation of reality? Never once did I believe that, nor did Einstein or Schrödinger, and it is disturbing that people would so easily accept it as fact.
I think it's the other way around. Nepal is close enough to India as the USA is close enough to Mexico. India's police are famous for their corruption, just like Mexico's police. Nepal, however, is the home of the Gurkha, who are highly valued in Singapore as highly professional, uncorrupted, and impartial police and paramilitary, as well as renowned for their fighting skills and their service within the British military. Similarly, the USA is known for its military prowess, whereas Mexico's military has a track record of almost unbroken losses.
Three of Earth's most chemically imbalanced heros!
It's The Manic Maurauder! (POW!)
The Hyperthymic Huntress! (ZAP!)
And The Depressed Defender! (Mwah-mwahhh!)
Using their insanity in a never-ending battle against crime and the forces of evil!
They're off their meds and on the case! It's The Bipolorons!!
.
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!
Nothing you said is relevant except for the actual paper, which is well written (and doesn't read like a crank - he appears to be fully cognizant of the current state of the field). I've posted (elsewhere on this page) exactly why this conclusion is unlikely (based on a critique of the actual arxiv paper). Further, the author does not claim what the summary here states (another reason to RTFA) - he merely states that it may be an indication of superconductivity in the context of a specific model that was published a while ago (in a mainstream journal). You might want to take a minute to look into it before showing your ignorance with such ludicrous rants.
Riddle me this: if "considering the source" is the only valid criterion on which a person's authority on a subject rests, then how the hell does said person achieve enough authority to ever pass the "consider the source" test?
Considering the source is a shortcut for where to look for interesting papers. It does not, however, have anything to do with the validity of the data itself.
Is it an extraordinary claim? Sure is. Is it valid to wait for someone with some authority to make similar claims before judging that paper? Sure is. Is it possible to dismiss the claims immediately? Complete,utter, bullshit. Your entire argument rests on semantic and personal judgments. There is not a single iota of science in your post. It beats the hell out of me how you got modded up.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Riddle me this: if "considering the source" is the only valid criterion on which a person's authority on a subject rests, then how the hell does said person achieve enough authority to ever pass the "consider the source" test?
You author a paper alongside someone who's already an authority in the subject. In the field of Mathematics, for instance, this is measured as the Erdos number though similar schemes exist for other fields as well.
No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
It was thousands of micro black holes simultaneously created in a vortex. They annihilate each other in seconds, and collapse a quantum vacuum around the radius of the muon. This lowers the temperature automatically in that region of the molecular assembler, and then it warps space time for a second to super conduct from one part of the crystal matrix to another.
It's not like a traditional superconductor at all, and that's why it works at room temperature, but only in the tropics.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
Yeah, that's got nothing at all to do with anything that deglr6328 pointed out. Where, in his post, did he mention at all the identity or even qualifications of the author?
In this case, there are a few ways in which the author could have made his paper more credible, all without requiring anything resembling authority:
1. Collaborated with other condensed matter physicists.
2. Submitted paper for publication in prestigious journal (with a high-profile discovery like room-temperature superconductivity, this would be a discovery fit for such a journal).
3. Worked to get more comprehensive data before claiming room-temperature superconductivity.
Where are the error bars?
I had a college teacher in one of the experimental courses who figuratively ran over me and some of my fellow students' reports for plotting graphs of measured quantities without error bars, particularly when there's a "curve fit" on it. The idea is to figure out how close/far from the "expected behavior" are the experimental point. From then on I've always paid attention to it. At least some reference to it in the preprint would be nice. For all we know, those microvolt output voltages could have errors as big as the graph scale.
My sig is better than your sig.
Actually, Hans Blix (the chief UN weapons Inspector at the time) said several times in 2002 that Saddam was not cooperating with UN Resolutions which called for military enforcement. He also somehow thought the sanctions were working; when he himself kept stating they were failing. It is not W.'s fault Saddam was more concerned about Iran knowing he didn't have WMDs than convincing the USA he didn't have any. And England and France saw the same Intel the US did, and came to the same conclusions. Only Germany had real reservations about the intelligence.
The real lesson of March 2003 is that the UN is a joke that outlived its usefulness. Either Saddam defies the UN with impunity; or the USA defies the UN to enforce the UN;s own policies. Either way, there's nothing the UN can do.
And hey look, Iran is doing the same damn thing right now!
The correct pronoun in a single author paper is still "we". If you are unaware of this then why would anything else that you say about the state of the literature be credible?
For the [citation needed] crowd.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
Yeah, that's got nothing at all to do with anything that deglr6328 pointed out. Where, in his post, did he mention at all the identity or even qualifications of the author?
In this case, there are a few ways in which the author could have made his paper more credible, all without requiring anything resembling authority:
1. Collaborated with other condensed matter physicists.
2. Submitted paper for publication in prestigious journal (with a high-profile discovery like room-temperature superconductivity, this would be a discovery fit for such a journal).
3. Worked to get more comprehensive data before claiming room-temperature superconductivity.
Honestly it's things like this which makes science unappealing to younger generations. Nothing like watching someone put their toe in the water and have every other scientist verbally trash him as if the extra vitriol were necessary.
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj