Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

High Temperature Superconductivity Record Smashed By Sulfur Hydride

Posted by timothy on from the could-have-been-taking-steroids dept.

KentuckyFC writes Physicists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Germany have measured sulfur hydride superconducting at 190 Kelvin or -83 degrees Centigrade, albeit at a pressure of 150 gigapascals, about the half that at the Earth's core. If confirmed, that's a significant improvement over the existing high pressure record of 164 kelvin. But that's not why this breakthrough is so important. Until now, all known high temperature superconductors have been ceramic mixes of materials such as copper, oxygen lithium, and so on, in which physicists do not yet understand how superconductivity works. By contrast, sulfur hydride is a conventional superconductor that is described by the BCS theory of superconductivity first proposed in 1957 and now well understood. Most physicists had thought that BCS theory somehow forbids high temperature superconductivity--the current BCS record-holder is magnesium diboride, which superconducts at just 39 Kelvin. Sulfur hydride smashes this record and will focus attention on other hydrogen-bearing materials that might superconduct at even higher temperatures. The team behind this work point to fullerenes, aromatic hydrocarbons and graphane as potential targets. And they suggest that instead of using high pressures to initiate superconductivity, other techniques such as doping, might work instead.

17 of 80 comments (clear)

  1. Doping? by TWX · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess these superconductors won't be used in any cycling applications then...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:Doping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Quite the contrary. Doping is a requirement for almost all high-performance cycling applications and has been for some time.

    2. Re:Doping? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2

      That's not a pun.

  2. Oh Carbon by Firethorn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    fullerenes, aromatic hydrocarbons and graphane

    Oh Carbon, is there anything you can't do?

    Seriously. Superconductors, batteries, capacitors, bullet proof vests, orbital cables, etc...?

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
    1. Re:Oh Carbon by ceoyoyo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Melt. At least at standard pressures.

    2. Re:Oh Carbon by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The nice potential about a carbon-based superconductor would be the possibility that it could be produced very cheaply. Your raw materials are not a price-limiting factor - think "plastic". Thus there's the potential to be way cheaper than copper, yet superconducting. That would be a total game changer to say the least. Lower distribution costs, way more power to the home, far easier to do long-distance transmission, all electric motors being superconducting motors, nearly lossless electronic devices, potential for major improvements in computer performance, cheap maglev, and on and on. There's good reason why affordable room-temperature superconductors are one of the holy grails of modern technology. There's even a type of energy storage system you can make with superconductors - one of the highest power density and efficiency energy storage methods known to man. The energy density will probably always be too low for electric vehicles, but if room temperature superconductors were cheap, that could be amazing for fixed-installation applications.

      --
      "We consider that six courts and an asylum claim are a rather odd way of returning to Sweden within a month."
  3. Here is a link for 110C superconductivity by bhlowe · · Score: 2

    http://www.superconductors.org...

    1. Re:Here is a link for 110C superconductivity by Artifakt · · Score: 2

      It's nice, but the compound in question only seems to display superconductivity for a while immediately after annealing, and has to be kept away from water or this quickly stops. This still may lead to a sizeable commercial application someday, but that's not by any means likely.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    2. Re:Here is a link for 110C superconductivity by bhlowe · · Score: 2

      Seems keeping something dry would be easier than requiring a 150 giga-pascal environment, but I am not a scientist. :) Was hoping someone would clarify nuances of the two "records".

    3. Re:Here is a link for 110C superconductivity by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Ah, yes, superconductors.org, otherwise known as "The Superconducting Enquirer" or "Weekly World Superconductors".

      The site has a lot of information about superconductors; some of it is probably quite good. But it's been claiming above-room-temperature superconductivity for a couple of years now. The generally-accepted record for high-temperature superconductivity is around, what, 133 Kelvin? Superconductors.org has been publishing reports of higher temperatures since 2006 or 2007, if not before. While the rest of the world waits for confirmed and reproducible reports, superconductors.org seems to report every errant needle-twitch from every lab that ever tried to measure conductivity.

      I have no doubt that new materials and theories will continue to yield higher transition temperatures. I have no doubt that, whenever that happens, superconductors.org will report it. It's just that you'll have to wade through an awful lot of bogus reports there first.

  4. Re:Scientists? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because, with the proper equipment and training, you could go and mix up a batch of ceramic superconductor and measure it superconducting for yourself. Or measure one of theirs.

    It seems highly unlikely that your grandma can describe to me exactly how to go about seeing a ghost whenever I want. If she can, I know where she can get a million dollars.

  5. Re:Can someone explain to me by Russ1642 · · Score: 4, Funny

    That is not so. Changing the pressure will cause a change in temperature in a closed system only. If you also have a cooling apparatus that allows the energy to dissipate then you can have it be any temperature you want, provided your wife doesn't walk by and turn it up again.

  6. Re:Scientists? by Thud457 · · Score: 2

    How to See Ghosts 101 :
    Develop one or more of the following:
    1. cataracts
    2. glaucoma
    3. macular degeneration

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  7. sulfur hydride vs. hydrogen sulfide... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I was trying to figure out why they're referring to "sulfur hydride" instead of "hydrogen sulfide". After I got off our broken public wifi and got the paper to load, I see that sulfur turns metallic above 95 GPa, and apparently hydrogen sulfide at high pressures starts to become metallic as well. In that regime, it probably makes more sense to think of it as a metal hydride, if not an intermetallic compound.

  8. Re:Scientists? by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

    More importantly, other people should be able to reproduce your results (within statistical significance) if they follow your same procedures.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
  9. Re:Can someone explain to me by gman003 · · Score: 2

    The constant pressure isn't what produces the heat, it's the act of compression. You compress it, it heats up, you remove that heat, and now you have high pressure and low temperature.

  10. Wouldn't you? by Gogogoch · · Score: 5, Funny

    At that pressure sulphur hydride just goes "ok ok take my electrons".