Developments in Superconductivity

Zephir,
I am aware of the uncertainty principle and vacuum and He at absolute zero, I am also aware of He4 at close to zero. My citing of wikipedia was weak but I was interested in the statement. The quora question is interesting, but I would reach the same conclusion that abs zero is a violation of uncertainty principle.

I know it's off topic but I am interested on what you think surrounding if the michelson morley experiment could be improved with either eLISA or LIGO to prove Aether. I have read scanned your theory. I probably missed something important. My thinking involves reference frames and larger detectors.

And lastly I know that we take this stuff seriously and generally do not take sincere compliments well, but I have been reading your opinion at physorg and other websites for years. Your points are well thought out.

Conclusions

Quote

We have observed a sharp rise in resistance of mixture of graphite fibers and alkanes inserted in the PTFE tube during heating them, using the two-probe-resistance measurements. This observation shows that a phase transition from the superconducting to the normal conducting state occurred in the mixture of graphite fibers and n-alkane. In other words, this indicates that the mixture of graphite fibers and n-alkane packed in the PTFE tube remains superconductive until its resistance rapidly rises, and the temperature at which the resistance suddenly rises is the critical temperature. We have noticed that when the pitch-based graphite fibers are packed in the PTFE tube, they may be broken into pieces depending on how they are packed into the tube. The finer the graphite fibers break, the greater the resistance of the sample before injecting alkane into the PTFE tube packed with the graphite fiber. From the relationship between the amount of change in resistance at the phase transition and the critical temperature, we found that the critical temperature decreases as the fiber is finely divided. That is, the critical temperature decreases, as the ratio of the basal plane surface to the edge plane surface decreases. This fact suggests that the basal plane plays an important role in superconductivity. Furthermore, we have found that the greater the carbon number of alkane, that is, the higher the boiling point of alkane, the higher the critical temperature. We have demonstrated that superconductors having critical temperatures exceeding 500 K can be obtained by using n-alkanes having 16 or more carbon atoms.

The cause of the superconductivity may be due to a 1 dimensional ballistic superconductivity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_conduction

Quote

Ballistic conduction is the unimpeded flow of charge, or energy-carrying particles, over relatively long distances in a material. Normally, transport of electrons (or holes) is dominated by scattering events, which relax the carrier momentum in an effort to bring the conducting material to equilibrium. Thus, ballistic transport in a material is determined by how ballistically conductive that material is. Ballistic conduction differs from superconductivity due to the absence of the Meissner effect in the material. A ballistic conductor would stop conducting if the driving force is turned off, whereas in a superconductor current would continue to flow after the driving supply is disconnected.

The experimenters should have checked for the Meissner effect in the material.

There has been experiments that have found superconductivity is carbon nanotubes that showed the Meissner effect in the material.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008APS..MARV30013B

Abstract

Quote

We report magnetic measurements up to 1200 K on multi-walled carbon nanotube mats using a Quantum Design vibrating sample magnetometer. Extensive magnetic data consistently show two ferrromagnetic-like transitions at about 1000 K and 1275 K, respectively. The lower transition at about 1000 K is associated with an Fe impurity and its saturation magnetization is in quantitative agreement with the Fe concentration measured from an inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer. On the other hand, the saturation magnetization for the higher transition phase corresponds to about 0.6% Co impurity concentration, which is about four orders of magnitude larger than that measured from the mass spectrometer. We show that this transition at about 1275 K is not consistent with ferromagnetism of any carbon-based phases or magnetic impurities but with the paramagnetic Meissner effect due to the existence of π Josephson junctions in a granular superconductor.

Actually this study is a continuation of former Kawashima's former research: Possible room temperature superconductivity in conductors obtained by bringing alkanes into contact with a graphite surface (PDF)

In this experiment, Yasushi Kawashima from Tokai University, Japan took HOPG flakes, put them in a PTFE (teflon) ring-shaped container, and soaked the flakes in alkanes (n-heptane and n-octane) for one day. They then passed a magnetic field through the ring, inducing a current in the ring. The generated magnetic field was promptly shut off, and the magnetic field in the ring persisted. They then separated the ring at a junction point, and the magnetic field immediately disappeared. They repeated the experiment (at least once obviously), and kept the ring intact for 21 days. They then measured the magnetic field, and its strength matched the magnetic field on day 1. They then left it for another 29 days (50 days total), measured the field, and it matched the field on day 1.

Yasushi Kawashima demonstrates possible room temperature superconductivity with compas...

The rotation of a magnetic compass caused by the magnetic field due to circulating currents in a ring-shaped PTFE container where graphite flakes soaked in n-octane are compressed. Here, tweezers used to pick up the ring-shaped PTFE container were made of plastics. The magnetic compass was put in permalloy magnetic shield containers at room temperature. In the case of a copper ring having the same sizes as the graphite ring soaked in n-octane, the initial current becomes smaller than 1/(2.32 x 1025) in 0.01 s. Kawashima says that the current did not decay for 50 days and that measurements showed that the resistance of these samples decreases to less than the smallest resistance that can be measured with a high resolution digital voltmeter. The observation of the circulating currents suggests the realization of a superconductive state.

Graphite is known to become superconducting at a low temperature in order of 2 K and its superconducting transition temperature (Tc) is raised when calcium is provided between its graphite layers. In that case, however, the raised superconducting transition temperature (Tc) will still be as low as 11.5 K. Kopelevich et al. reported ferromagnetic and superconducting-like magnetization hysteresis loops in HOPG samples below and above room temperature suggesting the local superconductivity in graphite in 2000. Kawashima claims this superconductivity is not a result of Josephson coupling of graphene grains touching in a ring, but rather arises from the abstraction of hydrogen atoms from the alkane by the graphite, which exhibits an ionic characteristic, and that resulting protons can ‘move freely on the graphite surface without activation energy’.

Yasushi Kawashima lodged a patent US 20110130292 back in 2009 on this discovery.

Compare also my previous links and posts about room temperature superconducticity at Reddit: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 12, 14, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 32, 33...

Quote

The cause of the superconductivity may be due to a 1 dimensional ballistic superconductivity

You can have ballistic transport or superconductivity, not both. Although the mechanism of both phenomena is fundamentally similar and the ballistic transport can be considered as sorta superconductivity at short distances, the ballistic conduction differs from superconductivity in the absence of the Meissner effect in the material. A ballistic conductor would stop conducting if the driving force is turned off, whereas in a superconductor current would continue to flow after the driving supply is disconnected. Charge carriers in ballistic transport are electrons which act as fermions. In superconductors charge carriers are Cooper pair and they behave as bosons. And there is not good reason for 1-dimensional ballistic transport or superconductivity, once the graphene plates are 2-dimensional.

In my theory the superconductivity arises, when the electrons are constrained in their motion in two or less dimensions and they get compressed each other during it (the similarity of this geometry with my cold fusion theory is apparent here, but the multiplication of momentum isn't really required here - on the contrary, it serves rather like the competetive effect dissipating the energy and killing the superconductive state). Inside normal superconductors the electrons are attracted to hole stripes (a positively charged places within metal lattice) like the hungry hens to the feeders arranged in line. They fight for their place there and their repulsive forces overlap in high degree. As the result the motion of electrons becomes less sensitive to obstacles and the material will lose resistance, thus becoming a superconductive.

But the graphene hasn't holes, so that the electrons are bound only weakly to its planes and the graphene isn't actually superconductor without doping (adding the atoms with excess of electrons, like the alkali metals) even at low temperatures. The sqeezing of graphene plates would help there, but once they approach at too close distance, then the electrons can hop from one layer into another, they actually get more room for their motion - and the material gets metallic conductivity known from normal graphite. What you need is to arrange the graphene plates at exact distance - not too small, not too large - and the hydrocarbon molecules serve as an spacers here. They're hydrophobic, so that they glue graphene plates with their surface tension. But they're long enough for not to allow the mutual contact of graphene layers, i.e. they're also serve as their insulator.

The one variable that you have missed is the relationship pointed out in the paper relating superconducting phase change temperature to the size of the carbon atom sting in the molecule. The longer the string, the higher that phase transition temperature. That points to ballistic electron transport.

Quote

The longer the string, the higher that phase transition temperature. That points to ballistic electron transport.

Why? How? Show me finally some reproducible logics in your claims.. The problem of yours is in low ratio of understood/learned information and it's very easy to spot after the very first sentence of yours, that you don't actually understand what you're saying - just from usage of unusual internally conflicting phrases (like the "ballistic superconductivity"). It means, you're not able to reproduce your own explanations - which is the same tragedy, like when someone isn't able to reproduce his own experiments or theory: nobody else can, after then! While I appreciate your inquisiteness, I cannot value the superficiallity and intellectual lazzines, in which you're collecting and presenting most of information here. Now you have a chance to disprove my point.

The trick, which you may not be aware is, the increase of temperature transition with distance of doped layers is very general thing for all superconductors (Rosser equation) and it implies nothing about particular 1-D balistic mechanism of superconductivity (literally all high-temperature superconductors behave in the same way).

Actually, if we would consider, that electrons are jumping from place to place during ballistic transport, then the increase of distance between these places would lead into less frequent/intensive ballistic transport and therefore decrease the temperature of superconductive transition. Therefore the increase of separator hydrocarbon length would lead to worse superconductivity if the ballistic transport would be involved - not better. It implies, that the separation of graphene layers improves another mechanism of superconductivity. Which one it is? I already mentioned it above.

Yasushi Kawashima believes from thermogravimetric analysis, that the octane molecules get protonated during it. Personally I don't see any reason for it and I also don't understand, how it could help to explain the high temperature superconductivity. It is known that acidic functional groups are terminated at edges on the air-cleaved HOPG surface and they increase their acidity via reactions with water. However, it is most unlikely that they protonate n-alkanes at near room temperature such as superacids.

Interesting, and it appears that the functional activity at the cleaved ends is not being invoked for the "superconductivity", but only for the n-alkane decomposition.

Perhaps look at the Lewis acid definition, that is rather than proton donors, instead electron pair acceptors, in a chain "handoff" structure conferring a semblance of superconductivity.

Quote from Alan Smith

I'm rather unsure if the graphite-facilitated pyrolysis of Alkanes at such elevated temperatures as 1200C has much direct connection with LENR. It seems unsurprising to me that fragmentation of an alkane should happen under what are very extreme conditions, I guess the real interest is in studying the mechanism -which is what the paper does.
Further down the alkane group in terms of molecular weight, I see evidence from the literature that ultrasound/nickel particles at room temperature or lower can also break down alkanes, depositing graphene-like fragments on the metal surface and at the same time producing sufficient free hydrogen to reduce nickel oxides.

Perhaps there is some kind of connection there? Which is why LFH is currently beginning experiments in ultrasound treatment of T255 Nickel particles in a hexane slurry. If only life didn't get in the way so much.

Any confirmation of high temperature superconductivity supports the LENR theories based on coherence at high temperatures. The main criticism that undercuts these theories is that superconductivity cannot exist at extreme temperatures. A coherent systems implies a high degree of quantum entanglement among the members of its aggregated members. This entanglement is the keystone of the LENR reaction with respects to critical behavioural factors such as superradiance, superabsorption, and superfluidity.

Quote from Alan Smith

Perhaps there is some kind of connection there? Which is why LFH is currently beginning experiments in ultrasound treatment of T255 Nickel particles in a hexane slurry. If only life didn't get in the way so much.

The use of a non-polar and electrically non-conducting liquid medium has interesting implications, to me at least-- not the least of which might be the ability to superimpose large electrostatic fields on the reaction medium.

Do you or LFH have a rationale here that you might briefly share?

Are there a couple of relevant references that might motivate this project?

Ivan  Kostadinov plays with his samples of 373K-Superocnductor. Because he changes his pages often, the video is mirrored here. See also 1, 2 for more details...

This work has all the earmarks of the worst of the LENR claims. The chances of it being legitimate are extremely small. Superconductivity has had such claims from time to time for decades. If you compare this work to real discoveries in the field, it stands out as most likely phony. It turns out that very little groundbreaking science is introduced to the world on YouTube.

Unfortunately for you all LENR claims turned to be correct soon or later (the delay is usually given by absence of attempts for replication). Which LENR claim was ever left nonconfirmed? The video is strange, the Kostadinov's article is strange and absenting important informations. But Kostadinov is holder of official superconductive temperature record. We also have another reports of room temperature superconductivity (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,...). So I would take his claims seriously - at any case, you have no arguments for your doubts.

The mainstream physicists can delay replication attempts for whole decades, once they consider these findings disruptive for their own community and grant system. So that the lack of "real discoveries" means absolutely nothing, until there are no attempts for their replication. You can only measure the ignorance of scientists with their delay. According to this metric the verification of heliocentric model has been delayed by 160 years, the replication of overunity in electrical circuit has been delayed 145 years (Cook 1871), cold fusion finding 90 years (Panneth/Petters 1926), Woodward drive 26 years, EMDrive 18 years and room superconductivity finding by 45 years (Grigorov 1984). The scientific ignorance simply has no limits and its spans multiple centuries.

"Unfortunately for you all LENR claims turned to be correct soon or later"

Why that would be unfortunate for me I can't even imagine. But how anyone could possibly make such a statement is beyond the pale.

Anyway, I'll leave you with your zealotry.