1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Mar '12 20:44
    I found this news of a room temperature superconductor that is 4 months old:

    http://www.superconductors.org/28c_rtsc.htm

    According to this, a room temperature superconductor (with the formula of (Tl5Pb2)Ba2Mg2Cu9O17+ ) has been made. But the problem is that I think I may be missing something here because, if this is true, why on earth have I not heard anything about it on the news on TV? I mean, surely this would be a massive scientific breakthrough more than worthy for the news? I presume there’s a catch?
    Has the catch got something to do with one thing the link it says which is:

    “...Unfortunately, like the 18C superconductor discovered in March 2011, these transitions occurred in a noisy environment, suggesting the volume fraction is very low. ...”

    ?

    I don't know what the technical jargon in the above means. What does “ noisy environment” mean in the above and what is “the volume fraction “?
    anyone?
  2. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    07 Mar '12 22:19
    Originally posted by humy
    I don't know what the technical jargon in the above means. What does “ noisy environment” mean in the above and what is “the volume fraction “?
    anyone?
    I have no idea if this is legit or not but...

    In answer to this bit what I believe they are saying is that a small proportion of their sample
    became superconducting.

    Superconductivity is all about the structure of the compound, and it sounds like that they are
    claiming part of their sample became superconducting but not the whole thing.
    So this wouldn't be any good for making superconducting power cables.

    However if they can work out what the structure is that works and get the entire (or high
    enough majority) of their materiel to have this structure then it would be usefully superconductive.

    The noisy bit seems to be that they had to use statistical methods to pick their signals out of the noise
    rather than having a clear and total transition from conducting to superconducting.


    I hope this is helpful.
  3. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    07 Mar '12 23:39
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    I have no idea if this is legit or not but...

    In answer to this bit what I believe they are saying is that a small proportion of their sample
    became superconducting.

    Superconductivity is all about the structure of the compound, and it sounds like that they are
    claiming part of their sample became superconducting but not the whole thing.
    So thi ...[text shortened]... g a clear and total transition from conducting to superconducting.


    I hope this is helpful.
    Yes that is helpful -thanks.

    I have just noticed another catch that I overlooked before which is it contains a lot of Thallium which is an expensive rare chemical element in short supply.
    Hopefully there is a way of making a reasonable room-temp superconductor out of common chemical elements only.
  4. Joined
    31 May '06
    Moves
    1795
    08 Mar '12 00:16
    Originally posted by humy
    Yes that is helpful -thanks.

    I have just noticed another catch that I overlooked before which is it contains a lot of Thallium which is an expensive rare chemical element in short supply.
    Hopefully there is a way of making a reasonable room-temp superconductor out of common chemical elements only.
    Well if the final manufacturing process looks anything like this...

    "The chemical precursors were pelletized at 70,000 PSI and sintered for 35-36 hours at 865C. The pellet was then annealed for 10 hours at 500C in flowing O2."

    ... Then it's never going to go into any kind of mass production.
  5. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    08 Mar '12 11:301 edit
    Originally posted by googlefudge
    Well if the final manufacturing process looks anything like this...

    "The chemical precursors were pelletized at 70,000 PSI and sintered for 35-36 hours at 865C. The pellet was then annealed for 10 hours at 500C in flowing O2."

    ... Then it's never going to go into any kind of mass production.
    Well that is the final nail in the coffin for this superconductor.
    But at least this does prove (I think) that room-temp superconductors IS possible ( ? )
    So I live in hope that a practical one will be found eventually.
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    08 Mar '12 13:56
    Originally posted by humy
    Well that is the final nail in the coffin for this superconductor.
    But at least this does prove (I think) that room-temp superconductors IS possible ( ? )
    So I live in hope that a practical one will be found eventually.
    The hitch is this is a patent application. Not a peer reviewed and independently tested piece. It has to be independently verified before anything will be done in the way of recognition.
  7. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3091
    10 Mar '12 10:31
    I could not find a link to a paper through that link.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    625
    12 Mar '12 11:191 edit
    I have some other question:

    are there any people here on these forums that are experts on superconductor research?

    If so, then I like to ask them:

    In your personal opinion, how probable do you think it is that a practical room-temp superconductor made entirely of non-rare chemical elements ( such as carbon, hydrogen, potassium etc but not Thallium etc ) can be made to exist ( lets allow for a billion more years of intensive scientific research into this ) ?

    also:

    If you were forced to give your best guess what is the upper limit of the highest possible temperature the superconductor with the highest temperature for superconducting that can exist and which is made entirely of non-rare chemical elements, what would you say that temperature is?
Back to Top