Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 236 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
12/07/19 03:58 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 1
True 1
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4
Topic Options
#7034 - 06/07/06 03:04 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
THE RESPONSE:

Ms. Ref. No.: PHYSC-D-06-00046
Title: Superconductivity: coherent "tunnelling" by a dielectric array of
charge-carriers
Physica C

Dear Dr. Kwok,

I am not happy with the way your reviewer has treated me. No reviewer needs
4 months to write such inconsequential tripe (see below). Are you sure
he/she is a scientist? Only a religious freak could have written the
following sentence: "The microscopic mechanism for the description of low
temperature superconductors (s-pairing) is known since 1957. This mechanism
describes well all known experimental data on low temperature
superconductors and it is a text book material. Therefore there is no need
to consider a "new mechanism" for the low temperature superconductors." A
real scientist should know that scientific models are not dogma; a
scientific model is always open to scrutiny and amendment when required.
Furthermore, your reviewer is telling a deliberate lie. In my manuscript I
have argued cogently and logically that the BCS model cannot describe all
known experimental data, even for the low temperature superconductors. As
pointed out in the manuscript, the BCS model does not give a mechanism that
explains why the electric field within a superconductor falls to zero
between two contacts; neither does it explains why the charge carriers
moving with a velocity v, which can be increased at will (below a maximum),
do not scatter when entering the contact they are moving to.

The fact is that I have postulated a single mechanism that models all
superconducting materials discovered to date; i.e. the low temperature
metals, the CuO ceramics as well as the superconducting semiconductors. I
have also given examples of how well this mechanism models the
superconducting behaviour in each of the three cases. Compared to BCS, my
mechanism gives a far better fit to the experimental data that had been
measured for low-temperature metals. One would have thought that the
scientific community would be delighted to find that there could be a single
mechanism that explains all types of superconductors. But no, your reviewer
reacts like the Vatican in the time of Galileo. Something along the line:
"The model of Ptolemy is known since antiquity and is already textbook
material. Therefore there is no need to consider a "new Copernican
mechanism" for the Universe. It is clearly poppycock.

The same can be said of the rest of his/her arguments. 2(i) The
experimental data would not fit if there is not an energy gap involved with
a lower energy. Furthermore, as pointed out, low temperature superconduction
sets in
when the electrons form a Wigner crystal. Wigner already showed in the
1930's that there is an energy gap. It has also been pointed out that in the
CuO ceramics the charge carriers form between the layers as quazi covalent
bonds; and a reference is given to another publication where this mechanism
has been modelled in detail. 2(ii) If you have an energy gap which acts as
an activation energy then the change from one phase to the other (i.e. the
thermodynamic properties) can be derived by a sophomore even when he/she has
a below average IQ. 2(ii) This third argument is of course also poppycock.
It is shown in detail in the manuscript that the model can explain published
experimental data that had been measured for low-temperature metals (Ta and
Sn), for YBCO and for overdoped diamond. Any real scientist, even a below
average one, will easily be able to see from the manuscript what the model
predicts.

It is my conclusion that your reviewer is just acting to suppress new ideas
in physics so as to protect the status quo. No wonder little progress has
been achieved in superconduction modelling since the 1980's. It is becoming
more and more clear that the peer review system is being systematically
abused by editors and reviewers to protect their own ideas instead of
allowing publication of ideas which might threaten what they want to
believe. Therefore I am also going to forward this letter to other parties
so that they can see and verify what has happened here.

Faithfully yours,
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
.
#7035 - 06/12/06 06:57 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
J. Arthur God Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/05/06
Posts: 142
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.

a) work self-published on a website
b) claims that well established theories are incorrect
c) claims that the theory supposedly covers many diverse topics
http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/topics.pdf
d) claims that the establishment is trying to keep your theories from becoming public.
e) comparing yourself to Copernicus is a classic marker of a crank.

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

"This patent covers the design, optimization and manufacture of superconducting artifacts. The patent covers all materials that superconduct above 200?K. The design criteria allow the designer to select any critical temperature. The design logic allows one to determine if a specific chosen material can be optimized to be superconducting at the chosen 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.

Top
#7036 - 06/12/06 01:08 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
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!!!
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7037 - 06/12/06 02:03 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Johnny Boy, why not put your article on arXiv.org, then we can all read your article?

The referee report wasn't that negative. I have received a similar refreee report myself too some time ago and was still able to publish my paper in another journal.

You need to explicitely address the points raised by the referee in your article, even if you feel it is unnecessary. So, your theory may have the answers, but to the referee this isn't clear. Often it is best to modify the introduction of the paper and incorporate the points raised by the referee to explain what you are going to do and why.

Top
#7038 - 06/12/06 03:18 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Johnny Boy, why not put your article on arXiv.org, then we can all read your article?

The referee report wasn't that negative. I have received a similar refreee report myself too some time ago and was still able to publish my paper in another journal.

You need to explicitely address the points raised by the referee in your article, even if you feel it is unnecessary. So, your theory may have the answers, but to the referee this isn't clear. Often it is best to modify the introduction of the paper and incorporate the points raised by the referee to explain what you are going to do and why.
Your advice makes good sense. I have started to modify the introduction because I felt that I might not have kept it short ande simple enough. I am still considering whether I should resubmit it. After all it took 4 months to get this response.

Being a retired old coot, I do not know much about arXiv.org. Pasti also gave me the same advice; however, when I tried to access this portal I could not find any information of the procedure I have to follow. If you guys can tell me step-by-step what to do, I will gladly post it on arXiv.org for your comments. Is it correct that I can then still later submit it to a peer reviewed journal?
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7039 - 06/13/06 12:04 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
J. Arthur God Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/05/06
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:

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.
This is such a common complaint. "they don't like it because it challenges them". "They don't like it because it was "not invented here"".

Guess what--people read journals and go to conferences to get new ideas. A single good paper can make a conference memorable. Whole teams of scientists are just waiting to jump on a new area and do the incremental studies that push it forward until the next breakthrough.

Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:

So J. Arthur God; according to you I have the hallmarks of a crank. According to me scientists like you are harming science.
Both sides can be argued and defended.

Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:

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.
I look forward to hearing these results. I do not look forward to reading about vague promises of results. Somehow, I fear I will experience the latter.

Top
#7040 - 06/13/06 10:33 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:

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.
I look forward to hearing these results. I do not look forward to reading about vague promises of results. Somehow, I fear I will experience the latter.
If you read my papers in Semiconductor Science and Technology vol. 18 (2003) S125 and S131; and you are capable of understanding band theory, interface theory (p-n-junctions, Schottky junctions, etc.) then you will see there is no vague promises there. Except if you want to insult my experimental acumen by saying that "it must be contamination" you will see that the physics cannot be faulted. In fact the physics predicts that in the circumstances charge transfer must occur from the diamond to tha anode without an electric field being present. This is the first time that it could be proved that there can be no electric field between two contacts while charge transfer is occurring. There is no proof whatsoever in the scientific literature that it is the case for any the other superconducting phases discovered to date.

Nobody could fault my physics in those papers to date; but nobody immediately jumped on the bandwagon as you assumed they will. I have presented it at three conferences and nobody "was looking for new ideas there". In fact scientists who have worked in the field of superconduction rather became abusive and walked away, instead of discussing the physics involved. It must be a shock for them to discover that the BCS model might be totally wrong.

I have been willing to prepare diamond samples for them so that they could repeat the experiment; but no takers came forward. Last year Prof. Terry Doyle of the University of Natal retired as chairman of the physics department. He had then free time and asked me to prepare samples for him because he wants to find the "real cause for the results and prove why my conclusions must be wrong". He designed and constructed his own apparatus and found that he reproduced all the results I have measured and even more. He could even see the superconducting phase with a microscope. It is in the form of a pitch black cylinder of about 1 micron diameter. He could send a current through the circuit which would even have caused a bundle of nanotubes to glow white hot. The cylider stayed black up to the point when the anode (stainless steel) started to melt. Prof. Doyle is at present planning further measurements and I hope that he will publish before the end of this year.

I am sure my patent attorneys are not stupid; and if they tell me to first keep material under wraps, I will do it notwithstanding being insulted by anyone.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7041 - 06/13/06 02:10 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Anonymous
Unregistered


"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. "

Let's be a little more careful with our language and refrain from implying that our colleagues are anything other than "esteemed colleagues". It's bad enough from where I sit to call one another "cranks". Let's respect one another at least to the extent that we can keep this forum free from libel charges.

"Amaranth"

Top
#7042 - 06/13/06 03:32 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaranth Rose:
"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. "

Let's be a little more careful with our language and refrain from implying that our colleagues are anything other than "esteemed colleagues". It's bad enough from where I sit to call one another "cranks". Let's respect one another at least to the extent that we can keep this forum free from libel charges.

"Amaranth"
Sorry it seems that I have made a mistake. It was not intended as a direct insult to J. Arthur God or to Physica C, but a general complaint that editors and reviewers should be more sensitive, and not conclude that any result which does not fall within the mainstream ideas that hold sway MUST be cranky. I always thought that physics has to do with new paradigm shifts. A paradigm shift always appears cranky at first to those who have become used to thinking within the present paradigm. To me it is a pompous attitude to just declare that a person is a crank, or just reject a mnuscript without adequate scientific investigation and justification. Unfortunately, it has become the norm nowadays to do so; and I suspect that in some cases the baby is thrown out with the bath water.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7043 - 06/15/06 05:18 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
J. Arthur God Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/05/06
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
Furthermore, as pointed out, low temperature superconduction sets in
when the electrons form a Wigner crystal.
Questions:

1) is the electron crystal the same structure as the nuclear crystal?

2) if the structure is the same, is the electron crystal commensurate with the nuclear lattice? I.e. do the lattice parameters match?

Top
#7044 - 06/15/06 05:45 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
Furthermore, as pointed out, low temperature superconduction sets in
when the electrons form a Wigner crystal.
Questions:

1) is the electron crystal the same structure as the nuclear crystal?

2) if the structure is the same, is the electron crystal commensurate with the nuclear lattice? I.e. do the lattice parameters match?
Excellent questions: Eugene Wigner did not eloborate on this in his paper. He only extrapolated from the "free-electron" model. Furthermore, he was a genius and made some large jumps when he wrote this article.

It seems to me, however, clear that the electron crystal must in some way conform to the nuclear crystal. Probably not on a one to one basis but on a three-dimensional "epitaxial-like" basis. It is possible to have an "epitaxial" relationship between different crystal structures. What Wigner, however, demonstrated to my satisfaction is that a lattice of localised electron "orbitals" can form within metals which are not "ideal" metals. This conforms to my model on superconduction where these electrons can "tunnel" coherently when the spacing between them becomes small enough. This means that they can move with a speed v without gaining kinetic energy thjus maintaining a minimum energy state as is required for superconduction. If I am correct, it also explains why ideal metals, like Cu Au etc., do not superconduct. They cannot form Wigner crystals.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7045 - 06/15/06 10:19 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
J. Arthur God Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/05/06
Posts: 142
If you are looking at conduction in low dimensional (e.g. 2D or quasi-2D) systems, a lot of work has already been done on this. In particular, much work has been done on charge density waves where the electron periodicity is incommensurate with the nuclear lattice. This leads to a type of conduction very similar to superconductivity (at least in theory).

Back to your proposals. You are stating that a Wigner Crystal--a 2D or 1D lattice of electrons-- is responsible for all superconductivity?

You realize that a Wigner crystal can be observed with neutron diffraction. e.g.

"Wigner-crystal and bi-stripe models for the magnetic and crystallographic superstructures of La0.333Ca0.667MnO3 "
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 59 (22): 14440-14450 JUN 1 1999

I don't see any report of Wigner crystals being observed by neutrons in superconductors.

Top
#7046 - 06/15/06 10:31 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
J. Arthur God Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 02/05/06
Posts: 142
Quote:
Originally posted by Johnny Boy:
Furthermore, as pointed out, low temperature superconduction
sets in when the electrons form a Wigner crystal. Wigner already showed in the
1930's that there is an energy gap. It has also been pointed out that in the
CuO ceramics the charge carriers form between the layers as quazi covalent
bonds; and a reference is given to another publication where this mechanism
has been modelled in detail.
Does your paper cite

A possible mechanism of superconductivity based on Wigner crystal and BEC

By J.X. Dai, W. Tao, P. Hor, X.X. Dai

in:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS B 13 (29-31): 3499-3504 DEC 20 1999

The abstract would imply that they have suggested your mechanism for superconductivity:

"A new possible mechanism is suggested based on the Wigner crystal and Bose-Einstein condensation. Our previous studies on the singular states showed that Loudon's singular ground state is rejected by the orthogonality criteria. It is shown that 2D Wigner crystal can exist and to be a possible mechanism for HTS."

I read that you do not believe that a Bose condensate is required, but they seem to have much of what you are proposing.

Top
#7047 - 06/16/06 09:36 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
If you are looking at conduction in low dimensional (e.g. 2D or quasi-2D) systems, a lot of work has already been done on this. In particular, much work has been done on charge density waves where the electron periodicity is incommensurate with the nuclear lattice. This leads to a type of conduction very similar to superconductivity (at least in theory).

Back to your proposals. You are stating that a Wigner Crystal--a 2D or 1D lattice of electrons-- is responsible for all superconductivity?

You realize that a Wigner crystal can be observed with neutron diffraction. e.g.

"Wigner-crystal and bi-stripe models for the magnetic and crystallographic superstructures of La0.333Ca0.667MnO3 "
PHYSICAL REVIEW B 59 (22): 14440-14450 JUN 1 1999

I don't see any report of Wigner crystals being observed by neutrons in superconductors.
I am not stating that Wigner crystals are responsible for all superconduction; but only surmise that this is the case for the low-temperature metals. As far as my knowledge goes, in order to observe a Wigner crystal it has to form an insulating array; i.e. as Wigner surmised, the formation of a Wigner crystal should cause a metal-insulator transition. What he missed, and what I am lifting out in my model, is that the electrons (or electron pairs) forming such a crystal can initiate superconduction as soon as the distance between them (and this can be in a single direction) becomes small enough for coherent tunnelling to occur. This tunnelling is limited by Heisenberg's Uncertainty Relationshipin energy and time.

What you require for superconduction to occur is an array of dielectric centres; i.e. centres which can be polarised when an external electric field is applied. If this is not possible, you cannot have a zero electric field between two contacts as is observed. In the case of a Wigner crystal, the electron-orbitals have to be bound by positive charges in order to form stationary centres. They can thus be polarised. In the case of the CuO ceramics, the dielectric arrays are bi-electron orbitals that form between the crystallographic layers. It is for this reason that the metals have a strong isotope effect while the ceramics have a small or negligible isotope effect. The electron-orbitals foming a Wigner crystal are pseudo-"particles", the energy of which is affected by vibronic states in the material. In the case of the CuO ceramics, the electron-orbitals between the layers are similar to covalent bonds. They do not couple strongly with the phonons within the layers.

I am enjoying this discussion. Thanks for your input.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7048 - 06/16/06 09:46 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by J. Arthur God:
Does your paper cite

A possible mechanism of superconductivity based on Wigner crystal and BEC

By J.X. Dai, W. Tao, P. Hor, X.X. Dai

in:
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MODERN PHYSICS B 13 (29-31): 3499-3504 DEC 20 1999

The abstract would imply that they have suggested your mechanism for superconductivity:

"A new possible mechanism is suggested based on the Wigner crystal and Bose-Einstein condensation. Our previous studies on the singular states showed that Loudon's singular ground state is rejected by the orthogonality criteria. It is shown that 2D Wigner crystal can exist and to be a possible mechanism for HTS."

I read that you do not believe that a Bose condensate is required, but they seem to have much of what you are proposing. [/QUOTE]

I was not aware of this paper. Thanks for directing me to it. I will get it and read it; however, my model is more general than only relying on a Wigner crystal. As discussed above, my model relies on the formation of a dielectroc array which under suitable circumstances can cause coherent tunnelling. The dielectric array can form in different ways. I believe that in the low-temperature metals the arrays are Wigner crystals; in the CuO ceramics they are akin to covalent bonds between the crystallographic layer (donors within the layers donate the required electron); In the semiconductors they are the donors or acceptors. BY accepting this principle I acn model ALL superconductors discovered to date. What is fascinating is that when I model superconduction in highly-doped p-type diamond it turns out that the charge-carriers are single hole (fermions).

And oh, by the way, the dielectric array is NOT a BEC as in the accepted sense. It is more an array of separate (localised entities) quantum mechanical entities. One does not require a macro-wave to model such an array.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
Page 4 of 4 < 1 2 3 4



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.