Quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
I know the rules here, but you have made some pretty serious allegations here. The statements below are not a direct attack, but an observation of the facts so far. I hope the moderators allow some leeway here.

I am sorry, but your work has all the hallmarks of crank science.


The part that really makes this look like nonsense is your claim that you can predict structures with any critical temperature

I'm sorry, if you could produce a superconductor with a Tc above 200K, you would have the data to back up some claims.

People do need to challenge the "status quo". People need to challenge well established theories. However, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
I can sympathise with your approach. But not all people are cranks you know. Although I have made mistakes, my track record diamond physics is very good. Good enough that I have been asked to write chapters for encyclopeadias. Why would I now suddenly want to turn into a crank when I retire. So that I can be the laughing stock of the world? I was forced to first write a book because I could not get editors to even send my work for peer review. The only exception was Richard B. Jackman who allowed publication of my intitial two papers, in which I demonstrate that a current can flow between a diamond's surface and an anode without an electric field being present; i.e. clearly superconduction at and above room temperature. He justified his decision as follows: "[These papers] are included here so that the reader can consider the approach developed......., perhaps thinking how this impacts on their own work, even if the end conclusions are open to debate. Indeed, it is hoped that this debate will be opened up through their publication, enabling this area of thought to be more widely explored and critically examined."

This was three years ago. So far there has been no criticism or response from other scientists whatsoever. I know from bitter experience that if anybody could have found fault with the physics, they would have jumped on me. The fact that it has not happened means that my claims are still unchallenged.

In the case of my manuscript in Physica C, I took great care not to make any claims which can be construed by pompous asses as being cranky. All I did was to point out that when circular currents are established by switching on a magnetic field the charge carriers are accelerated by the induced electric field. Only after equilibrium has been reached does the induced electric field disappear and the reason for this is that the magnetic field is not changing anymore. I then point out that when you switch on an electric field between two contacts the charge carriers should also be accelerated by the field; HOWEVER, in this case these is no mechanism known (especially from BCS theory) that can explain why the electric field goes to zero. I then propose a mechanism which will cause this and show that this mechanism can model all superconducting materials discovered to date very well. It even models low-temperature metals better than the BCS theory. What is cranky about this?

There is a problem with scientists today. They think that they are such "Gods" that no worthwhile ideas can come from outside the incestious company they keep within their discipline. Yes there are many cranks; but I usually follow up their ideas to see where the fault is. If you as a scientist cannot find the fault in crank ideas then you should not be practising science. Furthermore, this egotistical approach to science is estranging people from science. Why should a person be insulted everytime he approaches a scientist with an idea? I am usually delighted when this happens because it tests my skills to explain science.

So J. Arthur God; according to you I have the hallmarks of a crank. According to me scientists like you are harming science.

I have more results backing up my claims but has been advised by my patent lawyers to keep it under wraps for a while longer. However, these claims do not impact at all on the claims I have made in the manuscript which I have submitted to Physica C. They did not reject the manuscript by stating that it has obviously been written by a "crank". The reason for rejection given is that they will not tolerate a mechanism that challenges BCS theory. After all BCS is already in "textbooks" (the holy bibles of physics?) and if you challenge such "holy scripture" you must be a heretic (crank?) and should preferably be burned at the stake. Wow, and then one finds scientists who point fingers at the church!!!