Talk:Room-temperature superconductor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Blossoming[edit]

I can't really see this page blossoming into anything more substantial anytime soon... - Furrykef 04:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree: This article may be short, but it's about as comprehensive as it needs to be. I'm removing the stub tag. O. Prytz 21:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Claims for 200 K +[edit]

The data on the website superconductors.org are highly spurious and supposed superconducting transitions are willfully misinterpreted. The 'transitions' are almost indistinguishable from the background noise. The fact that the experimenter has never had his work published in a peer-review journal is testament to the fact that these materials are NOT superconducting at the temperature at which he claims. If they were, he would be a very wealthy and/or famous man! References to this work should be regarded as suspect, until these materials have been independenly verified as superconductors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.42.51 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Supercondutor.org posts claims, not findings, so there is no dishonesty. It's very clear, at least for me As for peer reviewing, there wasn't simply time to verify them, since the author of the site is told about claims directly from the source. It's akin to collecting pre prints in arxiv.org and telling everyone. So, what he does, is an invitation to peer review. If he were really bold, he would post evidence of superconductivity between 600k(!) and 1200K(!!) of one of his inteviews http://www.superconductors.org/roomnano.htm. Such evidences were actualy peer reviewed and at Physcial Review B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Review_B , http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/gzhao2/Daniel de França (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

if someone with the proper expertise could be directed to this page...[edit]

i am aware of at least one company which has a working prototype of a Room-Temperature Superconductor, however, strangely enough, they have not been able to get much funding. This does not mean such a thing does not exist and will not soon. Most people just don't care about this sort of thing. It doesn't really help much when everyone in the field says "It's not possible and won't be anytime soon." I suppose wikipedia doesn't have a decent article on this because most of those guys are out there desperately trying to find venture capital funds and doing research, and don't have time to waste writing Wikipedia articles. I know, i asked one of them.

Oh, and no, i can't tell you who or how, because the technology has not yet been patented (to avoid the patent expiring before they get a chance to do anything with it). but still...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.243.14 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research; Wikipedia articles need to be based on things that have been published elsewhere, preferably in a reliable publication. In addition, people with trade secrets probably should not write them into Wikipedia articles, as that will compromise their secret status. Finally, the claim that people just don't care is somewhat contradicted by the High-temperature superconductivity article, which notes over 100,000 published papers on the subject. --Sabik (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Please keep us updated if you know anything more about those supposedly room-temperature superconductors or how it went. Did the patents go through? —Kri (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

150K[edit]

From www.superconductors.org:

InSnBa4Tm4Cu6O18+ (As a 1234/1212 intergrowth.)............~150K

Not sure if that is a serious claim or not, but may supersede the 138K for (Hg0.8Tl0.2)Ba2Ca2Cu3O8.33.

Regards!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.138.90 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

153K[edit]

Founded in a material physics for engineers (William Jr Callister) : the HgBa2Ca2Cu2O8 has a 153K critical temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.88.62 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Silane as superconductor[edit]

Yes, the title of the referenced EEtimes article says "Silicon compound superconducts at room temperature", but the Science article seems to indicate that the measured temperatures where Silane becomes superconducting are between 5 and 20 K for pressures between 50 and 200 GPa. Upon close reading of the EEtimes article, maybe it isn't even claimed that a room-temperature superconductor has been constructed, just that silane still is a candidate for one. Should the section on silane be removed? The original Science article states:

Electrical resistance measurements (Fig. 2A) showed that the sample resistance at room temperature dropped sharply, indicating the transformation to a metal (19). On cooling, a typical metallic behavior of the resistance was observed and eventually becoming superconducting (SC) at Tc ≈ 7 K (Fig. 2B). M. I. Eremets, I. A. Trojan, S. A. Medvedev, J. S. Tse, Y. Yao (2008). "Superconductivity in Hydrogen Dominant Materials: Silane". Science. 319 (5869): 1506 – 1509. 

To me, that seems to indicate that it is not a room-temperature superconductor, but a room-temperature metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickardHolmberg (talkcontribs) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the article; at 96GPa it has a Tc of 17.5K and 17K at 110GPa, and these are both sides of an upwards trend, indicating that the superconducting transition temperature may be higher in the intermediate region, however the authors give NO indication that this temperature could even approach record temperatures of 130+ K let alone room temperature. Its a remarkable experiment, but is not room temperature by more than an order of magnitude. [Signed Andrew Princep, casual reader and physics grad student, Curtin University of Technology, Australia]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.222.90 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Old joke[edit]

A team of scientists at the University Of Alaska recently discovered a room-temperature superconductor. 86.21.227.237 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for comedy blah blah blah... I laughed. --86.182.182.138 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Advanced Materials[edit]

Both graphite and water are diamagnets. This may have been misinterpreted to mean superconductivity. There also has been zero conductivity tests performed in the article or published since - only enough to prove diamagnetism, which also exist in superconductors.

Taken from wikipedia article on diamagnetism: ...pyrolytic graphite, which is an unusually strong diamagnetic material...

Unobtanium[edit]

Should the room temperature superconductor in the film Avatar get mentioned? I think it should, because the way it was portrayed in the film was certainly unique (the Hallelujah mountains, which float. either the superconductor is in the mountains, and is floating in a magnetic field, or there is magnetic material in the mountains floating above the superconductor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt The Tuba Guy (talkcontribs) 02:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of unobtainium in avatar being a superconductor that's just speculation. 114.76.213.189 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the avatar scripment by James Cameron, he states that Unobtanium is a room temperature superconductor.--Matt The Tuba Guy (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Special Edition it actually is.... But wait!!!! Why are we talking about a science FICTION movie in a Wikipedia non-fiction science article discussion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.86.97 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Those "mountains" couldn't exist. They would have eroded away.173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Implications[edit]

It would be nice to see a section in this article discussing what finding a room-temperature superconductor would enable us to do. Right now, the article says the "potential benefits for society and science if such a material did exist are profound", but does not elaborate. —Pie4all88 T C 13:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is an encyclopedia the place for imaginative speculation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.76.155 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

new room temperature superconductor - graphite and water[edit]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in/ 72.128.212.251 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing self-published findings[edit]

I have removed self-published findings, as this clearly contraindicates long-standing wikipedia policy against original research. One of the citations is not even a publication by Prins, but rather a notice by someone else that he has commented upon. 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove 2015 report?[edit]

I found the 2015 report on High-temperature_superconductivity, so it apparently is confirmed. Remove it here? Or link? 81.14.170.194 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)