New Study Bolsters Room-Temperature Superconductor Claim (nytimes.com) 28
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: A magical material that could effortlessly conduct electricity at room temperatures would likely transform civilization, reclaiming energy otherwise lost to electrical resistance and opening possibilities for novel technologies. Yet a claim of such a room-temperature superconductor published in March in the prestigious journal Nature, drew doubts, even suspicion by some that the results had been fabricated. But now, a group of researchers at the University of Illinois Chicago reports that it has verified a critical measurement: the apparent vanishing of electrical resistance. This result does not prove that the material is a room-temperature superconductor, but it may motivate other scientists to take a closer look.
Ranga P. Dias, a professor of mechanical engineering and physics at the University of Rochester in New York and a key figure in the original research, had reported that the material appeared to be a superconductor at temperatures as warm as 70 degrees Fahrenheit -- much warmer than other superconductors -- when squeezed at a pressure of 145,000 pounds per square inch, or about 10 times what is exerted at the bottom of the ocean's deepest trenches. The high pressure means the material is unlikely to find practical use, but if the discovery is true, it could point the way to other superconductors that truly work in everyday conditions. The claim was met with skepticism because several scientific controversies have swirled around Dr. Dias, and other scientists trying to replicate the results had failed to detect any signs of superconductivity.
Dr. Dias has founded a company, Unearthly Materials, to commercialize the research, raising $16.5 million in financing so far from investors. The new measurements, revealed in a preprint paper posted this month, come from a team led by Russell J. Hemley, a professor of physics and chemistry at the University of Illinois Chicago. Dr. Hemley declined to comment because the paper had not yet been accepted by a scientific journal. Nonetheless, he is well regarded in the field, and his report could lead to a more positive reconsideration of Dr. Dias's superconducting claim. "It may convince some people," said James J. Hamlin, a professor of physics at the University of Florida who has been a persistent critic of Dr. Dias's research. "It makes me think there might be something to it."
Ranga P. Dias, a professor of mechanical engineering and physics at the University of Rochester in New York and a key figure in the original research, had reported that the material appeared to be a superconductor at temperatures as warm as 70 degrees Fahrenheit -- much warmer than other superconductors -- when squeezed at a pressure of 145,000 pounds per square inch, or about 10 times what is exerted at the bottom of the ocean's deepest trenches. The high pressure means the material is unlikely to find practical use, but if the discovery is true, it could point the way to other superconductors that truly work in everyday conditions. The claim was met with skepticism because several scientific controversies have swirled around Dr. Dias, and other scientists trying to replicate the results had failed to detect any signs of superconductivity.
Dr. Dias has founded a company, Unearthly Materials, to commercialize the research, raising $16.5 million in financing so far from investors. The new measurements, revealed in a preprint paper posted this month, come from a team led by Russell J. Hemley, a professor of physics and chemistry at the University of Illinois Chicago. Dr. Hemley declined to comment because the paper had not yet been accepted by a scientific journal. Nonetheless, he is well regarded in the field, and his report could lead to a more positive reconsideration of Dr. Dias's superconducting claim. "It may convince some people," said James J. Hamlin, a professor of physics at the University of Florida who has been a persistent critic of Dr. Dias's research. "It makes me think there might be something to it."
Please keep the scientific numbers in place! (Score:2)
Why can't these publishers quote the real figures and place their rough conversions alongside instead of scrubbing the real ones altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would put off the average moron who gets scared when they see units such as "Kelvin".
Re: (Score:2)
Because that would put off the average moron who gets scared when they see units such as "Kelvin".
Which is why Watterson went with "Calvin and Hobbes".
[Yes, I know, not really.]
Re:Please keep the scientific numbers in place! (Score:4, Funny)
Because the real numbers are already published in the paper. The journalist summarizes the paper for an audience that isn't capable of reading it. Then someone copies and pastes a paragraph or two of that article into a submission box on Slashdot, which "summarizes" the summary for people who aren't capable of reading that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: $16.5 million (Score:2)
please pick a unit of pressure (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Great breakthrough! Congratulations (Score:2)
Meissner Effect Needed (Score:3)
Re:Meissner Effect Needed (Score:5, Interesting)
OTOH, a room temperature conductor without resistance and which didn't require being kept under immense pressures would be significant, even if it didn't quite fit the definition of super-conductor.
However, IIRC, the original paper didn't quite say that it was stable when not kept under immense pressures. Just that it didn't immediately revert. So I really have my doubts as to the significance, even if it *is* a superconductor. And, again IIRC, the first paper in this series couldn't be replicated anywhere, including at the issuing lab, because it required so much pressure that it cracked their diamond anvil.
All in all, I think this stuff rates as "interesting, if true". Perhaps with more development it could turn into something great, if it's not all an illusion. But just as likely, or more, it would never be useful.
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, a room temperature conductor without resistance and which didn't require being kept under immense pressures would be significant
Yes but without the Meissner effect, it may well not be zero resistance, just too low for their method to detect. That's why you look for the Meissner effect.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good reason, but if it were just *really* low resistance it should also be useful.
So *IF* their claims are correct, and the stuff is stable at near STP, it would be quite interesting. My doubts tend to lie closer to "it's stable", which they didn't quite claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Real data please, so others can also do it in their own labs on their own dime. Otherwise scam.
Extraordinary claims (Score:2)
Require extraordinary evidence - this guy has a history of lying and won't show his work. But now he's double-promising he's trustworthy this time, so give him millions, yeah?
Anyone treating this guy with anything but contempt is a fool unless and until he helps an independent party replicate his results.
Re: (Score:2)
Maintaining pressure (Score:3)
So... just how much sustained pressure do you suppose could be generated by sleeving a shrunken, super-cooled rod of superconductor in a hot, expanded tube of steel, and then let them return to their original sizes?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure? I would think the compressive strength would be more important.
You could always put a 1mm rod going down the center of in a 1000mm sleeve, giving you a huge tensile cross section compared to the superconducting surface under compression. It's the forces that need to balance, rather than the pressures. But there's no getting around the pressure limit.
You could cheat some though with a thick inner sleeve that's incredibly strong in compression to "scale-down" the pressure, wrapped in an outer
Re: (Score:1)
If so, then it would be even lower. If you want high compressive strength, you don't use steel. You use concrete for that, or better yet marble. You use steel when you want high tensile strength.
But no, in this application, it's the tensile strength that matters. And the tensile strength of steel is pretty good, as materials go, but it's not scrith.
Stop calling these things "room temperature" (Score:2)
Because the kiinds of pressures that they have to put this under are nothing like what you would find an ordinary room that you might ordinarily expect to be able to live comfortably in.
These articles are talking about high-pressure, high temperature superconductors. I know that is more words, but it says what the thing actually is.
The notion of "room temperature" has existed for generations to refer to an environment that is comfortable to dwell in. It should be taken as a given that the phrase also
Practical use (Score:1)
Wasn't there already a breakthrough in 2020? (Score:3)
I'm sure I remember a paper where they showed room-temperature normal pressure superconductivity. The trick was to build a small room, then cool that down to low temperatures.
Samples tested were produced by the Rochester team (Score:1)
If you read the paper (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2306/2306.06301.pdf) it's interesting to see that the U of Illinois team tested samples given to them by the Rochester team. The paper also notes that the Rochester team observed about a 35% success rate in producing material that exhibited room temperature superconductivity. The material itself is hard to fabricate. That could explain the difficulties other teams have had in replicating the results. Although the results here are interesting, we're s
Great (Score:1)