Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the immediate short term, the power level supported is too low for the real shiny applications that everyone talks about. But the main one that is screaming at me for this technology sitting in front of us is SQUID sensors and RF antennas that will operate in the lower power range of the potential applications spectrum.
how does superconductivity benefit RF antennas? AFAIK loss at AC still occurs with superconductors because the dielectric loss through the materials still exists.
Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
41–50 of 501 posts
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#42This is going to mess up RoHS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...
There is already a bunch of exceptions for lead, if this is useful with no alternatives they would probably just add more exceptions.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the immediate short term, the power level supported is too low for the real shiny applications that everyone talks about. But the main one that is screaming at me for this technology sitting in front of us is SQUID sensors and RF antennas that will operate in the lower power range of the potential applications spectrum.
how does superconductivity benefit RF antennas? AFAIK loss at AC still occurs with superconductors because the dielectric loss through the materials still exists.
Search "superdirective superconducting antenna". With normal conductors the directivity of an antenna depends on how many wavelengths it spans; the summation of the currents over the effective aperture. With superconducting materials you can exploit the weirdness in current distribution to make very directional antennas that are small relative to the wavelength.
It could be a game changer for making efficient directional small receive antennas. Normally electrically small antennas are just super inefficient but it's made up for either on the transmit side (like with high power AM radio) or with most of the gain coming from some low noise amplifier (like small UHF wireless devices).
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#44This is going to mess up RoHS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...
Not necessarily. The "strained crystal" approach probably extends to other elements; mixing Pb and Cu works well since there's a large difference in their sizes, but rare earths might work just as well as Pb.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#45While we’re waiting for experimenters to reproduce this, it’s worth comparing this amazing announcement to the Cold Fusion affair of 1989[1] It’s notable that the first publications about attempts to reproduce the Cold Fusion experiment all reported positive results. It’s probably because experimenters who got negative results decided they might have done something wrong so they kept trying, and delayed, and they did…
Why did those early experimenters report positive reports? Did they inadvertently do something wrong themselves that looked like cold fusion?
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a reasonable enough paper, and replicating should be pretty easy (an undergrad could do it). Because the implications are so massive if true, people are going to jump on it. From the linked article: > You can bet that furnaces in solid-state materials labs around the world have been cooking yesterday and today to try to reproduce its synthesis and the properties, and we should be hearing about the results of the…
Yes, that quote from the article makes it seem like everyone is dropping everything and jumping right on it. I'm wondering how likely that is we'll find out this Friday vs. in the next couple of months, as people get around to it.
It's an easy thing to attempt to replicate, and it's probably _the_ single biggest goal in a particular field of science in at least decades.
It's impossible that at least some people didn't drop everything to try it.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#47Another comment from a well informed source on the topic:
https://nitter.net/condensed_the/status/1684255515944034304
Also, on the sentences in the manuscripts trying to explain the effect: I think that is wild guess at best. The measurement results done in the manuscripts probably can be taken at at face value (at least until there is a reproduction). Whether they really indicate superconductivity or something else that looks like it in some of the aspects is then a different question.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#48Lots of people are saying there should be a quick turnaround time here for trying the replication. I wonder how much it would cost to try and replicate this, in materials, labor costs, and vacuum furnace time/costs. My naive thought is that that labs in general aren't just going to drop everything to try an replicate every instance of someone declaring they've discovered room temperature superconductivity. Seems more…
I’m sure this is on Applied Science’s (a YouTube channel) radar. He recently went on a deep dive on making YBCO superconductors so it’s right up his alley.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#49This is going to mess up RoHS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restriction_of_Hazardous_Subst...
RoHS has a number of exceptions. Ambient temp/pressure superconductivity will absolutely be excepted too.
Re: Superconductor news: What’s claimed, and how strong the evidence seems to be
#50This video ( https://sciencecast.org/casts/suc384jly50n ) showing the Meissner effect should be the easiest to replicate: just send a sample to another lab and put it over a large magnet. As far as I know, the only explanations for this occurring is room temp superconductivity, or a strong diamagnetism (which would also be very cool to see)!
I don’t know enough about this but shouldn’t the entire superconductor be floating above the magnet? Why is one part still attached (or maybe attracted) to the magnet?
Contamination/impurities or something else in it that's not superconducting?