JAG: "There is an isotope effect in High-Tc superconductors. It is often lower than expected. Sometimes it is negative. It has been attacked using BCS as a basis. One feature is that the phonons important are only in the CuO sheets. So, changing the isotope of, say, La, doesn't have the effect one would expect from a simple application of BCS."
I am aware of this and if you go back to what I have posted on the isotope effect you will see that I have said that the coupling with phonons is weaker in the CuO ceramics because the charge-carriers are formed between the layers where the electrons are bonded together by the standard exchange force (similar to the covalent bond). The phonons are within the layers. This does not totally exclude any interaction between the phonons and the charge carriers, but it will be much weaker than in the low temperature metals where both the charge carriers and phonons are internal to the material.
JAG: "That said, scientists start by doing a literature search."
I have and I am still doing so. I must admit that I am still catching up. I have been helped by buying a pair of hellish expensive books from Cambridge U in which the work on high temperature superconductors have been summarised. I am aware of the tunnelling experiments and they are commensurate with my model. Unfortunately I do not have access to STEM; however, I have other data that are commensurate with the tunnelling data. Unfortunately I have not yet obtained the go-ahead from my patent attorneys to publish. Hopefully I will be able to place it on arxive before the end of this year. BTW if you go to my article on my model which I have posted on arxive you will find that I have tried to accomodate your comments which I considered as useful; I also deal with the isotope effect.
DA: "After the way he treated you I wouldn't respond to him if he was up to his neck in quicksand."
If you share this feeling JAG, then I apologise because it has not been my intention to treat you badly.
JAG: " must say that I find his recent arguments odd.
His theory has nothing to say on the isotope effect at all. He has suggested some handwaving arguments in this forum.
BCS explains the isotope effect well in standard materials but not so well in High-Tc."
AS I have just now posted, the isotope effect is discussed in the version of my manuscript on arxive. My model explains the isotope effect well in all materials. If you go back to Wigner's treatment which predicts the formation of a Wigner crystal, you will find that the energy of the electron orbitals that form will depend on the isotope mass. Furthermore, it also gives a reason why superconduction do not accur in good conductors like gold and copper. In these materials the mean-field theory applies well. A Wigner crystal manifests when the mean-field approach breaks down. This is what one expects for a superconductor and this is also borne out by the tunneling experiments you have quoted above. This is another argument against BCS: it is a mean-field theory (patched together with fudge factors called "coherence lengths"); and thus, most probably, a very crude approximation of what the mechanism really is.
DA: "I was taught that anyone proposing a new theory MUST explain how what they write is consistent with the current art and further explain how it may differ from current art.
To have not discussed some of the issues you've brought up is a major shortcoming."
What you say I MUST do, is exactly what I have done in my manuscript; and I have addressed the issues raised by JAG; I even made modifications in my manuscript which I finally posted on arxive.
My whole article has a basic thrust which both JAG and DA ignore completely (why?): this is the following:
BCS cannot model a superconducting current that flows between two contacts; because it has to explain the following; which it cannot:
1. How the charge carriers can increase their velocities without manifesting kinetic energy: if they manifest kinetic energy, they will scatter within the contact they are moving into and this will register as a resistance (just as in the case for electrons in a vacuum diode).
2. In order for the charge-carriers not to accelerate, which must manifest kinetic energy when it occurs, the superconducting phase must "expel" any applied electric field: i.e. the material MUST be a perfect dielectric. BCS does not give a mechanism for this.
My model explains both these requirements and it fits experimental results that have been measured for ALL types of superconductors discovered to date. This is exactly where my model differs from "current art" which cannot explain high Tc superconductors. Thus to accuse me of what you accuse me of above is untrue and petulant.
In addition to the fact that the BCS model cannot explain SC between two contacts (and thus not any superconduction); it is a very complicated model. My model is simpler and can model everything BCS can supposedly model and more. What does Occam's razor tell you?
