Slashdot Mirror
Did A US Navy Scientist Just Invent A Room-Temperature Superconductor? (phys.org)
"A scientist working for the U.S. Navy has filed for a patent on a room-temperature superconductor, representing a potential paradigm shift in energy transmission and computer systems," reports Phys.org:
Salvatore Cezar Pais is listed as the inventor on the Navy's patent application made public by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday. The application claims that a room-temperature superconductor can be built using a wire with an insulator core and an aluminum PZT (lead zirconate titanate) coating deposited by vacuum evaporation with a thickness of the London penetration depth and polarized after deposition.
An electromagnetic coil is circumferentially positioned around the coating such that when the coil is activated with a pulsed current, a non-linear vibration is induced, enabling room temperature superconductivity. "This concept enables the transmission of electrical power without any losses and exhibits optimal thermal management (no heat dissipation)," according to the patent document, "which leads to the design and development of novel energy generation and harvesting devices with enormous benefits to civilization."
Long-time Slashdot reader resistant writes: NextBigFuture says the same individual appears to have made other startling claims that arguably stretch the boundaries of belief, such as a "high-frequency gravitational wave generator" that could supposedly drive a spaceship without conventional propellants as well as an "inertial mass reduction device." Prudence would appear to dictate examining these and other claims by Mr. Salvatore Cezar Pais with great caution.
An electromagnetic coil is circumferentially positioned around the coating such that when the coil is activated with a pulsed current, a non-linear vibration is induced, enabling room temperature superconductivity. "This concept enables the transmission of electrical power without any losses and exhibits optimal thermal management (no heat dissipation)," according to the patent document, "which leads to the design and development of novel energy generation and harvesting devices with enormous benefits to civilization."
Long-time Slashdot reader resistant writes: NextBigFuture says the same individual appears to have made other startling claims that arguably stretch the boundaries of belief, such as a "high-frequency gravitational wave generator" that could supposedly drive a spaceship without conventional propellants as well as an "inertial mass reduction device." Prudence would appear to dictate examining these and other claims by Mr. Salvatore Cezar Pais with great caution.
"high-frequency gravitational wave generator"
So, basically, no. Sounds like a crank.
..they just take your money and vereify that you are the first to register and thus would own an invention or process
Until and unless there is a working demo shown or full whitepaper published, roll your eyes people.
The unofficial
If this guy wants to be taken seriously then he needs to publish a paper that describes the science and the methods thoroughly enough that other scientists can design (an) experiment(s) to confirm the validity. 'Patents' mean nothing. 'Demonstrations' don't mean shit either. Repeatable and explainable by others independently is the only thing that counts.
I agree, so the question is - does the patent give enough information for others to reproduce the result he claims?
Also you would think, if he does have this working is the Navy planning to make use of this in some way? Seems like a word from them on adoption (they don't have to be specific) would go a long way to back his claims.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Ever had a patent? I've got 24 issued (and more pending), and in several cases I was denied for lack of proof of results - meaning I had to provide additional details in the disclosure including measurements to prove it actually worked. At least as rigorous as a scientific journal.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Description of his invention, and how to make one. A valid patent application must include enough information that someone "skilled in the art" (in this case, physics and materials science) can successfully replicate the invention. If it's not disclosed to that level you can challenge it and have it invalidated.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Patents cannot violate the laws of physics
High temperature superconductors don't violate the known laws of physics.
Additionally, patents last for 17 years.
Patents last for 20 years.
most researchers will still simply call it impossible and work on other things.
I don't think many researchers call room-temperature superconductors impossible, and many scientists are actually working on it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Can you find a _single_ reputable physicist or chemist who thinks room temperature superconductors are feasible?
Well, there are these guys. It took 10 seconds of Googling to find that, and there are lots more. If no reputable chemists or physicists believe room temperature superconductors are feasible, there sure are a lot of them wasting their time. The 2016 Nobel Prize in Physics was given to a group of mathematicians and physicists whose research may pave the way towards high-temperature superconductors (as well as a lot more).
Many speculate on the idea
Why do they bother if they all believe it's infeasible? And they clearly do a lot more than just speculate.
but none has demonstrated a practical theory of how to do so.
So your argument is that because no one has achieved it, no one even thinks it's possible? Really?
Given this Navy guy's other patents and the nature of how his invention supposedly works, I'm pretty skeptical that he's done it. I expect that if it's achieved it will be one with some pretty exotic materials and/or complex methods, because if it were easy it would have been done years ago. But assuming it's impossible just because no one has done it is silly.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Actually, they do. The electron-electron interaction of a Cooper pair has energies on the order of 10E-3 eV. The "high temperature superconductors" assume that somehow you can compensate the random heat movement (kT) and (also random) electric repulsion (order of eVs) by interactions in the crystal lattice.
This is a bit disingenuous. First of all, the critical temperature of a superconductor is proportional to the pairing energy, so trying to find a high-temperature superconductor is synonymous with increasing this energy scale. Having a pairing energy of ~1meV is typical for a good low-temperature superconductor (like Nb), where the pairing is caused by phonons. Compensating the random heat movement (~kT) would happen precisely by increasing the pairing energy proportionally. Note also that we don't really know how most high-temperature superconductors work (cuprates), but some theories actually invoke the electric repulsion you brought up as a possible mechanism for superconductivity.
Since the main question was whether high-temperature superconductors break any known laws of physics, you might also be interested to know that we already have near-room-temperature superconductors. After the discovery of superconductivity at 203K (-70C) in sulfur hydride (SH3) a couple of years ago, the record was recently pushed to 250K (-23C) in lanthanum hydride (LaH10). The caveat is that these materials require millions of atmospheres of pressure to function at these temperatures, so they're not that useful for practical applications. But they do demonstrate that room-temperature superconductivity is not prohibited by any physical laws; for instance, a high-pressure hydride would still be subject to the same thermal (~kT) and electron repulsion (~eV) conditions you referred to, but they still work. Secondly, if one is able to replicate the conditions inside these crystals chemically instead of via external pressure (e.g. via the "pressure" between atomic layers in a crystal), they could in principle be made more useful.
As for the article itself: I agree that it sounds unlikely. I'll believe it when I see a published paper replicating the effect, and eliminating other possible explanations of the observations. There are bogus papers claiming to discover high-temperature superconductivity all the time, such as this obvious fraud that made some headlines last year.
Audiophiles can finally have their perfect speaker cables.
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti