Talk:Superconductivity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

critical field and current density

I'm not sure how to do it but i think the article needs more on the critical field(s) (Hc) and critical currrent density (Jc) of SC as these greatly affect the potential use of SC materials. A table of Tc, Hc, Jc for various SC might be useful here. Even a diagram of Tc v Hc with curves for various SC. Rod57 (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Indefinate flowing current?

'An electrical current flowing in a loop of superconducting wire can persist indefinitely with no power source.' I was under the impression that a current in a superconductor would not persist for ever. "The decay of supercurrents in a solenoid was studied by File and Mills using precision magnetic resonance methods to measure the magnetic field associated with the supercurrent. They concluded that the decay time of the supercurrent is not less then 100 000 years." From 'Introduction to solid state physics' C. Kittel (Wiley, 1996). Which is true the article or the above quote or are they both true and I've misinterpreted something. -- 137.222.14.123

I'm probably the source of that vague word "indefinitey". I didn't want to say something like "forever" or "100,000 years" because that has no practical meaning. Long before 100,000 years goes by, something else is going to stop the current -- loss of coolant, meteors, funding cuts, you name it. In the intro, we just want to make the point that the decay time of the current is longer than every other timescale a human is going to care about. Later in the article, yes, that would be interesting to point out the measurements of decay. Does anyone know more about this kind of experiment? I suspect decay is seen only in Type II superconductors. Spiel496 17:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

There is an inconsistency in this article which should probably be addressed. The article states correct in the section Superconducting phase transition that the specific heat of the material varies as exp(-\alpha/T), and that this provides evidence for the energy gap in BCS theory. On the graphic to the right, the graph shows a curve with \rho \propto exp(-Δ/kT_c). As T_c is a constant (and \Delta(T) is closed to constant for T < 0.8T_c) these graph would be plotting a straight line and contradicting the text.

The graphic should be updated to read exp(-Δ/ kT) instead. (2006-10-14 Kiwidamien )

Good catch. Although I think you meant to refer to the $C_{v}$ label, not ρ. Should the caption be this?: $c_{v}\sim \ e^{-\Delta /kT}$ Spiel496 22:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Junk at the top

I'm sure cobalt oxides are interesting research, but it's far too obscure a topic to be in the intro. Perhaps this class of materials could be mentioned in a section on exotic superconductors. Spiel496 15:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

---

I would like to see some information on the nuclear resonnance properties of type II superconductors. If electromagnetic radiation is applied to the superconductor at its main resonnance frequency will the radiation be deflected or absorbed? --cacapitol

---

Somewhere we need to mention the specific temperatures for some superconductors - and note that high temperature is not high in normal life. Probably need to use Celsius, not Kelvin scale for general readers. --rmhermen

It would be ridiculous to use any non-absolute temperature scale while talking about superconductivity. We would end up saying things like "X degrees Celsius above absolute zero." By the way, I am a general reader when it comes to superconductivity (or physics in general). -- 130.94.162.61 13:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

However, it would be nice to provide a link to another article that explains the relationship between various temperature scales, including Kelvin, Celsius, and Fahrenheit. A conversion table for low temperatures might be nice in this article, just to give the general reader an idea of how cold these temperatures really are. -- 130.94.162.61 13:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course Kelvin notation can be translated into Celsius or Fahrenheit notation -- any online temperature conversion applet can do it. Zero degrees degrees Kelvin equals -273.1500000 degrees Celsius. Professor Muller at UC Berkeley provides this information in his online courses -- just Google "pffp" and you will find about the most accessible explanation of superconductivity on the Internet.

---

I have re-written the article so that the distinction between conventional superconductors and unconventional superconductors is made clear. This is important, because although the field of unconventional superconductivity (including high-temperature superconductors) is very ebullient, conventional superconductivity on the other hand is a very well-established subfield of solid-state physics (and particularly BCS theory is a fully-working theory, if you apply it to conventional superconductors). But the article seemed to have more about unconventional superconductors than conventional ones, which is odd. I have not deleted that material, but moved it to new articles (unconventional superconductors, high-temperature superconductors, technological applications of superconductivity). Hope this is all right.

By the way, I think keeping the Kelvin is all right, since it is the natural unit in superconductivity. It is important to have links to its definition, though. --quintanilla

It is good that you decided to keep it in Kelvin considering that it is the SI unit for physics. --west

---

I'm a bit in doubt about the first line. I'm not sure superconductivity is a "state of matter", but a characteristic of certain elements and substances in given conditions.

--

We know that superconductivity is not a property of metals, but a thermodynamic state of matter different from the metallic state, because of the Meissner effect. The argument is quite standard: a perfect metal (i.e. one with zero resistivity) would support resistanceless flow of an electric current and expel magnetic fields from its interior, just like a superconductor, but if at high temperatures, when the resistivity is finite, a magnetic field is applied, and then the temperature is lowered, the perfect metal does not expel the field, while the superconductor does. In contrast superconductivity is really a thermodynamic state which is characterised by zero field inside the sample however you got there (applying field first, cooling down afterwards, or the other way around). I know this is very sketchy. When I have time I will write it more carefully in the articler about the Meissner effect. Or if you have more time than me maybe you can look it up in "Superconductivity", J.B. Ketterson and S.N. Song, Cambridge University Press 1999, Section 1 - Introduction (pages 1 and 2) or in any other textbook on Superconductivity (e.g. the one by Tinkham, or the one by Schrieffer). Since this argument usually appears in the introduction of such textbooks, it is usually written in a way that is relatively easy to understand. Ciao, jqt

---

Why change "External links" to "Web resources"? The former is more common in wikipedia? Tiles 08:06, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

I'm very curious what energies have been achieved in superconductors, as a novice. I have heard rumours that superconductors have potential applications as energy storage devices. --dikaiopolis

---

Currently it says Superconductivity was discovered in 1911 by Onnes. This is somewhat disputed and it is more diplomatic to write Onnes was awarded the Nobel Prize for discovering superconductivity in 1911. I have not rewritten it yet, awaiting more comments before doing so.

Any references? -- CYD

This is known within the superconductivity research community, which is where I picked it up. As with much dirty linen it is not washed in public, thus the rewrite proposal that Onnes got the Nobel prize for it in 1913 (which is undisputed) for the discovery made in 1911 (which is where the controversy lies). A number of Nobel Prize laureates have turned out to be under some controversy. Very, very little of this can be found on the net, one example is the omission of Bell for discovering pulsars. You could make a Wikipedia entry for this alone, that is if you wanted the mother of all edit wars; there is a lot of prestige at stake. Thus I propose Onnes was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1913 for the discovery of superconductivity in 1911.

Might do better to del any ref 1911, N? I've seen him cred with it that yr, & this's first mention of controversy over it I've seen (tho I'm no superconductivity splst...) Trekphiler 18:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

The first publication on superconductivity by Onnes was in 1911 - Ref. H. K. Onnes, Leiden Comm. 120b 122b 124c (1911). Onnes received the Nobel prize in 1913 for the liquefication of Helium, not superconductivity - this can be found on the Nobel prize website (where Onnes Nobel lecture can also be obtained).--Dodecagon 21:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

---

Tesla / Superconductor myths

I deleted reference to Tesla. The patent mentions the well known fact that resistance increases with temperature. The patent talks about reducing the resistance by cooling, but no mention of zero resistance. He discusses metallic conductors and liquid air cooling. Even today, there is no metallic conductor which is superconducting in liquid air. pstudier 23:05, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

The patent mentioned is:

• Tesla, Nikola, 685,012, "Means for Increasing the Intensity of Electrical Oscillations". 1900 March 21. USPTO.

pstudier 23:13, 2005 Jan 24 (UTC)

See classications @ http://www.uspto.gov/go/classification/ of US patent 685,012. The patent current U.S. Class is classified as :

Class 327 MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVE ELECTRICAL NONLINEAR DEVICES, CIRCUITS, AND SYSTEMS

527 Superconductive (e.g., cryogenic, etc.) device

Class 505 SUPERCONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGY: APPARATUS, MATERIAL, PROCESS

888 Refrigeration

870 Power supply, regulation, or energy storage system : Including transformer or inductor

856 Electrical transmission or interconnection system

This is besides the mention of the recent US patent citation of US4869598.

Does it matter how the patent office classifies the patent? It should be important. Does wikipedia just deny the facts? I hope not. This patnet does describe the process that would result in superconductivity.

Sign your edits! I have read that whole patent and NOWHERE included in it does Tesla mention any phenomena which describe anything other than the already widely known effect of ordinary reduction of resistivity with the lowering of temperature. It does NOT describe the observation of any superconductive phenomenon. Who cares if the clueless patent officer doesn't know the difference between mere cryogenic conditions and those of superconductivity! Jeez who knew there were so many fawning hyper-obsessive Tesla fanboys here. STOP ADDING this inconsequential, unrelated, nothing edit to the article!--Deglr6328 18:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Deglr6328, "Fanboy" that is not NPOV!

The patent office classifies the patent as superconductivity tech (that is important). The patent suggests superconductivity.

The process patented is to increase the ability to keep current (as Onnes himself verified in 1912).

It does describe "zero resistance" .. read the patent, Page 2, lines 50 - 85.

The theory necessary for superconductivity was established by Dewar and Flemming. Tesla understood this and was using Linde's machines [the same thing that Onnes himself used and modified]. Tesla had best equipped lab in the world (from the vast amount of money he made from Westinghouse; and he had many wealthy financiers backing him).

Tesla achieving this, not in secret (read his notes written in colorado springs), with prior knowledge on super-cooling (he had a physics degree and was widely known in europe and america by the best scientists (note who is in his quotation section)). The theory of superconductivity was established nearly a decade earlier than Onnes (again, Dewar and Flemming set forward the notion!).

The superconductor is not an oscillator, but the particular winding of the coil sets up the oscillations. (But you'd have to understand coils (like the bifilar that Tesla invented), each have a specific resonance and frequency, to grasp that!)

The above Page 2, lines 50 - 85 is about operation of the apparatus. You can read the following to get a better idea: Page 1, lines 25 to 39 (best results method). Page 1, 62 to 78 (previous experiments, discovery of circuit to vibrate freely). Page 1, 79 to 83 ("extraordinary degree magnified and prolonged"). Page 2, 3 to 12 (agents used and how-to construct). There is alos the claims, the fifth one is interesting to this discussion

Also read the discussion at Talk:List of Tesla patents. Same Tesla nonsense going on there also. pstudier 19:15, 2005 Mar 12 (UTC)

---

Is this true? Additionally, melanin is an organic, polymeric superconductor currently in use in bio-tech research as a possible replacement for gallium arsenide and silicon in high-tech devices -- most notably in nanotechnology and plastic electronics applications. What is its critical temperature? 69.225.131.186 00:53, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right. The three edits by Deeceevoice were vandalism. I have reverted them. Thank you for catching that. RJFJR 01:48, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)

(The prior statement that the edits were vandalism may have been unnecessarily strong; however, the contention that melanin is a superconductor is not supported by mainstream science and does not belong in this article. RJFJR 02:11, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC) )

I do not engage in vandalism. I have reinserted the passage -- but placed it in a previous paragraph that refers to unconventional superconductors. Please don't speak/write on matters about which you know nothing. Use your computer's search engine and investigate before making groundless charges. No one can know everything. [I believe the winners of the 2000(?) Nobel Prize in science were engaged in this kind of research.] There are numerous biotech companies currently engaged in melanin research. What is with you folks, anyway? If melanin were ketchup (or any other organic substance) and not associated with black folks, and if I were not black, would you have been so quick to assume "vandalism"? Very telling. Ya better take a couple of steps back and check yourselves.deeceevoice 03:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK, not knowing anything about that, I'm leaving that alone, but I cut out the link to black supremacy because the connection between superconductivity and black supremacy is really tenuous. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:34, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, melanin is not a superconductor. Curiously enough, when I used "my computer's search engine", I came up with this. -- CYD

I'm not finding any claims that melanin is a superconductor except in reference to claims of black supremacists... if it really were a superconductor I don't think people would be hush-hush about it (because, quite frankly, I don't think that would provide any real benefit anyway... and Hell, we already know that extra melanin is good to have because it prevents sunburn and skin disease, so it's not like we're keeping benefits of melanin a secret). - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:50, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Go to http://nobelprize.org and search on melanin. The only mention's are in the medicine prizes and concern its biological role. The 2003 physics prize was about superconductivity theory with no mention of melanin. The 2000 chemistry prize was for conductive polymers, no mention of either superconductivity or melanin. Can anyone cite any evidence for melanin being either a conductor or a superconductor? pstudier 05:49, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)

My profoundest apologies. My edits to Superconductor were the result of an inexplicable cognitive trip (of the really stupid sort that people often make while typing and composing at the same time). The Melanin Theory holds that melanin is a superconductor, when it is widely known to be a semiconductor. This is commonly known in the scientific community (even in its more mundane areas of application such as dermatology and cosmetics with regard to sunburn/melanoma prevention) -- which is why, in reading your comments about my edits, I took such exception to your reactions. I simply didn't understand them.) In editing Black supremacy, I thought to mention the subject of MT and so included it. I explained that MT holds that melanin is a superconductor, but when I went on to explain its recognized physical properties, I inadvertently continued to use "superconductor," when I intended to switch to the appropriate "semiconductor" in its stead. I will allow the reverts of my edits to superconductor because they certainly were not what I intended. I have also made the appropriate changes in related articles, with an added "erroneously" in Black supremacy, where this all started, to emphasize the difference between "superconductor" and "semiconductor."

Come to think of it, I will have to see if black supremacist theory actually recognizes the difference -- that melanin is, in fact, a semiconductor; and if the notion of it being a superconductor is just a misnomer and a distortion of information by the ill-informed that occurred over time. If so, I'll have to go back and correct that, as well. deeceevoice 11:44, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added a lot of information to melanin regarding its properties as a semiconductor. You may want to visit and read up. (I think if you were familiar with this subject, you might have caught my earlier slip. Sorry -- again.) The 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was, indeed, awarded to three scientists involved in research into melanin as a polymeric semiconductor. deeceevoice 13:19, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And, FYI, the earliest research (with which I'm familiar, at least) on the semiconductivity of melanin was published in 1974. The related Melanin Theory has been around since about that time and brought this knowledge of the scientific research to members of the African American community 30 years ago. deeceevoice 15:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perfect diamagnetism

"The Meissner effect is distinct from perfect diamagnetism because a superconductor expels all magnetic fields, not just those that are changing."

As I read this line from this Wikipedia article, I am also reading this paragraph from my copy of Serway and Jewett's "Physics for Scientists and Engineers with Modern Physics 6th Ed." textbook:

"The Meissner effect is illustrated in Figure 43.34 for a superconducting material in the shape of a long cylinder. Note that the field penetrates the cylinder when its temperature is greater than T_c [the critical temperature]. As the temperature is lowered to below T_c, however, the field lines are spontaneously expelled from the interior of the superconductor. Thus, a superconductor is more than a perfect conductor (resistivity ρ = 0); it is also a perfect diamagnet (B = 0)."

To me, it seems like whoever wrote the Wikipedia article was implying that the Meissner effect has nothing to do with perfect diamagnetism, thus, implying that superconductors are not perfect diamagnets; on the other hand, Serway & Jewett seem to imply that the Meissner effect occurs because superconductors are perfect diamagnets. Can anyone explain this apparent contradiction to me? RTL 03:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The answer is that Serway and Jewett are wrong. A perfect diamagnet can only cancel out any change in the applied magnetic field. It cannot expel an existing magnetic field, unlike a superconductor. -- CYD

Many thanks, I appreciate it. I'll scribble that in my textbook margin :) RTL 06:38, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Serway and Jewett are right. The Meissner effect is synonymous with perfect diamagnetism. What they explain is that infinite conductivity doesn't imply perfect diamagnetism and thus that both properties are important characteristics of superconductors. _R_ 16:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by "perfect diamagnetism". It's probably better to avoid this ambiguous term. -- CYD

Since "diamagnetism" means "tendency to expel magnetic flux", "perfect diamagnetism" means "complete expulsion of magnetic flux". I don't see how it's ambiguous. _R_ 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The articles Meissner effect and Superdiamagnetism are almost entirely inferior versions of material here. Does anyone else think they should be merged into Superconductivity? I'll do it myself eventually. --newbie

They definitely ought to be merged. But I'm not sure they ought to be merged into this article: it's easier to link to Meissner effect than to Superconductivity#Meissner effect. _R_ 02:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Podkletnov "Gravity Shield"

I know the Tampere Gravity Shield has been largely discounted, but still, some metnion of the phenomenon should be noted here, no? I really don't know enough about the subject to write about it, but, from what I understand, the acceleration due to Earth's gravity decreases by ~3% above a rapidly spinning superconducting disk. - ZelmersZoetrop

I agree that it should be mentioned. It seems to have enough scientific merit, and congruity with General Relativity, which is widely accepted. I believe Gravity Probe B is supposed to finish gathering its data soon. Perhaps someone with enough insight into the subject could write something based on these results when they are available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.169.88 (talk) 11:52, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like it has merit to me. It's hardly given any weight even in the GravityShielding article. Leave it out. 67.188.29.71 (talk) 14:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Classical superconductors

I took the liberty of adding a sentence at the top of the article distinguishing real superconductors from classical superconductors -- this is a perennial source of confusion among physics students who have learned about resistivity but not about Cooper pairs. If folks find it problematic, please feel free to move it down to a section somewhere. zowie 18:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's fine, except that I've never seen the expression "classical superconductor" used in that sense. It seems to me that it's actually a less common synonym to "conventional superconductor". I replaced it everywhere by "perfect conductor", which is commonly used and unambiguous. _R_ 02:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, that rephrase misses the point. Both classical superconductors and real superconductors are perfect conductors; the concept of a classical superconductor is a useful contrast to the strange phenomenon that is real superconductivity. Although the more sloppy usage has become vogue, it is arguably incorrect ("classical" is most commonly used in physics contexts to mean "non-quantum"). Perhaps that calls for a disambiguation article. zowie 19:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Unified theory?

If superconductivity is a phase of thermodyn, as suggested, it implies to me a connection between EM & thermodyn, a "unified field theory" of a sort. Or am I blowing it out my stern? Trekphiler 18:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Um, IIRC the phrase "unified field theory" usually describes a unification of fundamental forces, especially the historical case of Einstein attempting to unify EM and gravity. Since thermodynamics isn't a fundamental force, its interaction with EM probably ought to be called something else, even when it is manefested in a field theory. I'm afraid I don't have any real insights into the connection, though. Melchoir 19:31, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

necessarily low temperatures?

IIRC. although low temperatures seem to be a requirement for phase transition for superconductivity, it seems like a relative kind of thing ie. compared to that substance's boiling and melting points rather than say, "cold or hot" per se. Ideally, we want to discover substance that has superconductivity at relatively high temperatures...so we could use them in nuclear fushion for example. Not quite concrete, but not fantasy either. Would definition need adjustment for exception? -- Natalinasmpf 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, a more precise intro would say "Superconductivity is a phenomenon occurring in certain materials at sufficiently low temperatures". Even if we discover/synthesize room-temperature superconductors, superconductivity is still a phenomenon that takes place below some critical temperature, and not above. It also happens that all known superconductors have critical temperatures lower than everyday experience, so the word "low" is kind of doing double duty. For now, it's fine. Melchoir 22:02, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Did someone delete two image files associated with this article?

File:Superconducting-transition.png and File:Superconductor-b-vs-h.png are both missing. What's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter bertok (talk • contribs) on 04:25, 20 December 2005

I can confirm that they were once present, but it apparently requires admin privileges to see the history for deleted pages. Most likely reason was that they couldn't be verified to be under an acceptible license (copying textbook figures for this article wouldn't be "fair use"). For the actual reason, wait until an admin notices the thread, or painstakingly search for it under WP:IFD.--Christopher Thomas 20:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin and stubled across this. Here's the info from the deletion logs... --Samuel Wantman 08:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log File:Superconducting-transition.png

• 09:29, 10 December 2005 JesseW deleted "Image:Superconducting-transition.png" (WP:CSD Image #4 - "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status"which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.")
• 09:29, 10 December 2005 JesseW deleted "Image:Superconducting-transition.png" (Deleted old revision 20030715072604!Superconducting-transition.png.)

Page history

• 23:19, 10 January 2005 . . RedWolf ({{unverified}})
• 12:05, 14 July 2003 . . CYD (superconducting phase transition diagram)

Deletion log File:Superconductor-b-vs-h.png

• 09:29, 10 December 2005 JesseW deleted "Image:Superconductor-b-vs-h.png" (WP:CSD Image #4 - "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status"which have been on the site for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded.")

Page history

• 23:19, 10 January 2005 . . RedWolf ({{unverified}})
• 11:55, 26 July 2003 . . CYD (B vs H curves for Type I and II superconductors)

zero resistance?

I was wondering about what exactly zero resistance means. Usually, the lower the resistance of an element in a circuit, the higher the current through it will be, increasing toward infinity. If superconductors truely have zero resistance, the does this mean that the current through it is only limited by the resistance and current capacity of the source of voltage? I would expect that even superconductors have a very tiny resistance (if they didn't, then why would larger currents heat up the superconductor?). It seems like "zero resistance" means "unmeasureable resistance, but theoretically still there. Fresheneesz 03:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The resistance really is zero. I think the article muddles this point a bit, and maybe I'll rewrite the section after I make sure this hasn't been argued about before. The article states that the "easiest way" to measure the resistance is to place a voltage across the sample and measure the current. So, you're looking to measure an infinite current?? That doesn't sound "easy" to me, and that's not how it's done in practice. It's much clearer to describe what is done in practice. You pass a current through the sample and measure the voltage across it. If it's a superconductor, the voltage will be zero, by V = I*R. Using separate contacts for the voltage measurement, you can eliminate the effect of contact resistance, but that is probably unnecessary detail. Spiel496 18:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, in normal use the current through a superconductor is only limited by the resistence and/or current capacity of its supply. In practice, there is a limiting current density above which the material stops being a superconductor -- but below that, yup, there's zero resistance. The easiest way to demonstrate that is to notice that L/R yields a time constant for circuits with both an inductor and a resistor in series. Since every circuit element has some inductance to it, if you momentarily induce a current in any closed passive circuit (like a loop of wire) there will be a decay time before that current dissipates. If the wire happens to be made of a superconductor, it will *never* dissipate until some external system interferes with the circuit -- R is zero, so the decay time L/R is infinite. zowie 03:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

How would one measure that the current doesn't dissipate? I suppose if you let it sit there, and then connect a multimeter looking for a blip... It just makes more sense to me that the resistance is tiny, but not 0. Fresheneesz 05:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

From its induced magnetic field. A ring of superconductor carrying a current is effectively a permanent magnet. zowie 13:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"theoretical estimates for the lifetime of persistent current exceed the lifetime of the universe."

The universe does not have a defined lifetime, and is expected to expand forever. This could be changed to say "...exceed the amount of time the universe has been in existence", but I do not know what the original author was trying to say. No citation is given.

Superconductors and ac

Do they go together?--Light current 22:45, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Short answer is "no". In addition to the impedence you get from any wire's inductance, my understanding is that you also get the flux vortices moving around under AC conditions, which causes losses. Not sure what the equivalent is for Type I superconductors, but my understanding is that some similar mechanism causes (very small) resistance. --Christopher Thomas 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are some interesting developments with detectors which apply an ac voltage across a superconductor at its critical temperature, to detect tiny changes in temperature (due to incident particles) by the change in resistance. They're called Transition Edge Sensors, and are used in CDMS (though that project may use a dc voltage, I'm not sure) --AlmostReadytoFly 21:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Superconductors and space

In space, the temperature is zero, right? So wouldn't space-travel related superconductors work fine in space, because there is no temperature in the vacuum? --01:13, 31 July 2006

Not quite. First of all, space isn't a perfect vacuum, and even if it were, things in space are still heated by radiation. For human-launched missions, that means sunlight. Melchoir 01:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

the ambient temperature in space is very close to 3 degrees Kelvin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.73 (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

History Section Misses an Important Player

I was told by a Physics professor than Onnes was NOT the discoverer of superconductivity. It was one of his graduate students. And Onnes refused to share any credit. I am having a difficult time tracking down the name of this student, but the previous link may be a clue. --Bex 01:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Power Applications of Superconductivity

This article, like many others, promotes the idea that superconductors could revolutize electric power applications like tranmission, machinery, and transformers. I agree that a zero-resistance conductor would reduce losses in these applications, but I disagree that superconductors are likely to see widespread use in such applications (at least in the foreseeable future).

Regarding power transmission lines, very little of the grid loss occurs during transmission, which is 98% to 99% efficient across even very long distances. Yes, improving this would save "millions" of dollars, but only with incredibly high investment on a financial scale that is in the billions. Further, widescale change to different conductor is also impractical, even if superconductors were somehow free, reliable, mechanically strong, and had very high critical temperatures. Very little transmission has been built in the last two decades due to siting conflicts and legal battles. Further, power generation is moving toward more distributed, rather than centralized, architecture. Consider solar-electric generation, for example, which can be placed on rooftops. In developing countries with no infrastructure, distributed generation would likely be very common, with little need for long transmission.

-actually, since we'd get continuous savings from any improvement we make, the theoretical "savings" are infinite. It is true, however, that the low temperatures required for superconductivity are infeasible in the current infrastructure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.73 (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider that some superconductor transmission proposals involve hydrogen "supergrid" ideas. Such ideas involve piping liquid hydrogen everywhere. In the pipes, we would use superconductors to transmit electrical energy. The hydrogen would be used to power fuel cells. This is even less practical than replacing existing transmission, with similarly little benefit. Compare this to simply using the liquid hydrogen (or whatever) for cooling copper by 120 K, which would roughly cut the resistance in half. This would roughly halve the losses without using superconductors at all! However, generally speaking, I would be in favor of more DC transmission for reasons beyond the scope of this discussion.

Regarding transformers, there are, as mentioned, many technical difficulties in implementation. The difficult mainly lies in the AC nature of transformers. However, I would also argue against the need for such a device. Like transmission, very little loss occurs here. There is a huge installed infrastructure of high efficiency, high reliability, transformers based on very inexpensive steel and copper. By the time that an AC superconducting transformer could be invented and be anywhere near cheap enough to compete, I would argue that there would be no need at all for such a device. Transformers are needed to step-up voltage of low-current transmission, but if we had superconducting transmission (which I don't think we will) there would be no need to transmit at low current. There are already many advances being made on electronic transformers that would offer many benefits over conventional transformers. Such devices are far more practical than any superconducting technology, yet still are considered too unreliable and too expensive today. Finally, as above, as power generation becomes more distributed, it is hard to see where highly efficient transformers have significant advantage.

Consider that even with steel and copper, much of the loss is in the magnetic core, not in the wire. A superconducting transformer would presumably not use a magnetic core, but in that case the flux would not be contained to a small area, potentially causing interference with nearby electronic devices. If a conventional steel and copper transformer is 99% efficient at full load, and that is somehow not good enough, then we need only make the thing twice as big (roughly) to halve the losses. This would make the transformer about 99.5% efficient, for "only" double the cost with no technology revolution at all. Compare this to the huge cost of researching, developing, and manufacturing superconducting transformers which would only save about 1% of the power transmitted.

Widespread use of superconductors in motors and generators is similarly flawed. Few machines use DC current. Synchronous generators do in their field winding, but this is only part of the total loss. Such experiments have shown improvements in efficiency but at debatable payoff considering the cost of cryogenics and decreased reliability. Even so, affordable generators with permanent-magnet rotors already eliminate conductor losses, and are now quite common. As stated, future power generation will rely more on distributed, renewable resources like solar power or fuel cells. Superconducting generators could be used in wind-power systems, but again, conductor losses are only a small part of the total loss and hardly worth much additional cost.

There already exist many ways to make motors more efficient, but they are not used in nearly every motor because they cost more. The whole motor industry is obsessed with cost and cares little about efficiency. Only in specialty applications, but increasingly so in an "EnergyStar" sense does efficiency take precedence over cost. In high power applications, motors already have efficiency in the upper 90s. Like transformers, we can make them more efficient by making them bigger. Superconductors would only offer an advantage if weight is a major factor, such as in space or aerospace applications.

To summarize, the power applications of superconductors are problems that have already been solved. True, superconducting versions would be better in some ways, but also cost much more and have reliability concerns. This is a "do more with more money" engineering approach, which seldom wins in the market. If superconductors can somehow be cheaper and more efficient than copper, while offering no sacrifice in temperature (e.g. RTS), mechanical strength, or reliability, then they would be worth consideration. This would be a "do more with less money" approach, which is a market winner, but hardly seems likely. It is my opinion that few of the superconductors researchers really know anything at all about the applications, such as power applications, they promise to revolutionize. Only in the very distant future, when humanity's needs and challenges hardly can be predicted and the needed advances in physics have been made, might superconductors play a widespread role in such applications.

“ And non-heating computers. The wires won't heat up, so small devices won't need cooling fans, and annoyingly large waste of space. ”

this is actually untrue. the computers themselves will make heat when they erase bits (ie, in every computation they perform) unless they are computers that utilize reversible computations) but the wires themselves won't heat up due to electrical resistance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.99.84.73 (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

With any CMOS technology similar to today's, superconducting wires would make no difference to power dissipation. CMOS works by charging capacitors through resistors (devices and wires). The energy needed to do this is 1/2 CV^2 no matter where the R is located. So zero R wires would just lead to more dissipation in the devices, with the total unchanged. What superconducting wires *could* do is lead to faster operation. A good fraction of the delay in today's chips is due to the RC time constant of the wires themselves. A lower R (though it will not be zero, this is AC) would help here. So the chip might operate faster, but would take the same power when run at the same speed. LouScheffer (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The anlysis by 38.99.84.73 was perceptive; new technologies are often oversold. But he missed some things. A large scale SC power system would require few transformers at all; the only reason we transform to (dangerously) high voltages is to transport power efficiently through resistive wires. SC cables could distribute power at the consumption voltage, say 5V. The whole infrastructure of overhead wires, giant pylons, switch stations, transformers, circuit breakers and wall warts could be junked. They would not need much electrical insulation at all, the current would preferentially flow through the superconductor. --Chetvorno^TALK 01:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 00:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Disorder Field Theory

I admit I'm just an experimentalist, but the statement added 2006-09-29 goes way over my head: "The Lambda transition can also be understood as a consequence of the proliferation of vortex lines in such systems. A theoretical description of superconductors and superfluids in terms of their vortex lines is known as disorder field theory." Is this really about superconductivity? Can someone explain why it belongs? Spiel496 03:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess the answer is "no"; sentence deleted. Spiel496 17:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to answer the original question. Each vortex line carries with them an area of normal state material (the area has the radius of about a healing length). One interpretation of the normal-superconducting phase transition is that by adding more and more vortices, eventually, the entire sample is now in the normal state. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.19.5.150 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

How to remove an "improper" sentence?

Someone wrote:

Also if you have sex with out a condom you can get AIDS

in the article, in the "Zero electrical DC resistance" section. Can someone remove it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.237.20.183 (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

A. Sign your posts. Use 4 tildes, ~~~~

B. You could edit the page, use the little edit link at the top of the section. C. If it dosen't show up you have a problem, dunno how to fix it... D. Problem has been fixed. 64.198.215.3 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Mistaken new user edit, hiding IP in history

Is it possible to hide my IP and the subsequent UNDO in the history? I've never edited a wiki article and was showing a family member how wonderful Wikipedia is, and apparently it's even faster to make an edit than I thought. Now I have a user-id, but don't know how to get rid of the public visibility of my past-edit's IP.

Thank you.

SeaProgrammer 17:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this line correct?

It cannot be understood simply as the idealization of "perfect conductivity" in classical physics.

Or should it be:

It can be understood simply as the idealization of "perfect conductivity" in classical physics.

Themania 08:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"cannot" is correct. The article is trying to make the point that a superconductor acts differently than a hypothetical "perfect metal". (Maybe it's not making that point very well.) Spiel496 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Breakthrough =

Might be interesting :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070531135457.htm

--170.252.72.61 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

can someone elaborate on the breakthrough pls

Considered a definite answer to whether superconductors are metals or insulators...

http://www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/media/releases/2007/mr-07-054.html?src=ubcca

I'd like to know more, too. Short answer: Good science, bad press release. Perhaps someone with access to the Nature article could help here. Here are my objections to the press release:

• It does not say what the material is. Other clues indicate it was YBCO or one of the other cuprate superconductors.
• It identifies the key discovery simply as "quantum oscillations" with no explanation -- as if the lay reader should know what that is. I think it refers to the De Haas-van Alphen effect which is exhibited by metals in a magnetic field.
• It implies that all experimental and theoretical progress has been stalled, waiting for the answer to a "yes" or "no" question.

For these reasons, I doubt the original premise that this experiment is "greatest advancement in superconductor research in a decade". Spiel496 03:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

According to the nature article, they measured the hall resistance ($R_{xy}$) of $YBa_{2}Cu_{3}O_{6.5}$ in a strong magnetic field (up to 62 T) applied normal to the copper oxide planes, with current applied along the a-axis. The hall resistance had an oscillatory component as a function of the inverse magnetic field: kind of like Shubnikov-De Haas effect. From this study they learned something about the Fermi surface it seems. Bamse 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Flux Trapping & meissner effect

I want to start by saying that i am ot expert on superconductors. I consider myself a scientist with general knowledge on many subjects, thats it. I noticed in this page the meissner effect is mentioned several times, however its closely related flux trapping effect is not. In fact there is even an image posted of a magnet levitating above a superconductor indicating it is due to the meissner effect, when in fact it would be more accurate to describe it as the flux-trapping effect. My understanding is that the meissner effect does cause repulsion similar to diamagnetic material, when levitation occurs it is the flux trapping effect. When flux trapping occurs instead of straight up diamagnetism the magnet and the superconductor both attract and repel each other. Essentially the magnet will want to float at a particular distance, if you pull it away it will be pulled back to the superconductor, and if it is pushed closer it will be pushed away again. Until it reaches the point in the middle, thus giving you levitation. So i think this page needs a section on flux-trapping effect and correct a few of the parts that refer to the meissner effect to indicate flux-trapping instead. Debeo Morium 17:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember seeing in a textbook a picture of a bar magnet levitating above a sheet of superconducting lead (Pb). Lead is a type-I superconductor, so there is no issue of flux-trapping. You don't need flux pinning to set a equilibrium distance. In the case of the magnet over lead, that distance is just where gravity and the magnet force happen to cancel each other. However, I also recall the lead sheet was bowl-shaped. I imagine this was to keep the magnet from simply sliding off to one side. My belief is that flux-pinning provides a restorative force in the horizontal direction. In other words, without flux-pinning, the magnet would still levitate via the Meissner effect, but it would immediately "slide" off to one side or the other. So, yes, in that picture one is seeing the actions of both flux-pinning and the Meissner effect, but the point is really the Meissner effect. When one sees the levitating magnet, the question that comes to mind is not "Why doesn't it slide off to the side?", but rather "Why does it levitate?". Spiel496 19:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The flux-trapping effect does nto behave how you described at all. Just as an object can levitate above an object using flux-trapping, when you pick the magnet up the super conductor will dangle the same distance below the magnet off the ground. Such that the meissner efect and gravity are both pushing the superconductor down, it should fall to the ground if it wernt for the flux-trapping effect. Meissner effect appears to act as a repelling force, flux-trapping effect appears to repel or attract depending on distance, quiet different and as far as i know nothing at all like the meissner effect. Debeo Morium 21:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm just describing a weaker example of the flux-trapping. Spiel496 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

After starting this thread and finding it a bit difficult to explain the difference between these two effects i wanted to show a video i just found that shows them fairly well: meissner effect vs. flux trapping Debeo Morium 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's an amazing video -- thanks for sharing the link. Regarding the flux-pinning vs Meissner effect distinction, we're really getting into semantics. The simplest behavior is that when a sample becomes superconducting, it expels the magnetic field, causing it to repel a magnet. If the magnet is above the superconductor, repulsion = levitation. In what are called Type II superconductors, the magnetic flux does penetrate the sample, confined to little non-superconducting lines called vortices. The situation gets a lot more complicated because the vortices may move around freely, or creep, or get pinned to defects (flux-trapping). Yes, all this affects how the magnet behaves, and in the case of that video the effects are really strong. But the Meissner effect is the more fundamental phenomenon, and that is responsible for the repulsion. The fact there are vortices at all is due in part to the Meissner effect. I advise strongly against muddying up that beautiful introductory image by introducing all of this into the caption. Spiel496 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think all this being said, it would be important to have a section somewhere on flux-trapping, and specify in the picture flux-trapping in place of meissner effect. The meissner effect may play a role in the flux-trapping effect. But the effect in that picture is of the flux trapping effect (with the meissner effect alone it would slide off the side no matter how you shape the super conductor underneath. Just like two magnets of opposing poles, you cant levitate it without a support keeping it from sliding off. Im not sure exactly why you oppose labeling the picture as the flux-trapping effect, seems to me from everything you said and everything I've looked up, thats exactly what it is. Of course i wont make the change until we atleast get a few more people giving their opinion, so id love to hear someone else chiming in too. Debeo Morium 02:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree it is very important to distinguish the difference between the Meissner effect and flux-trapping. This is not simply a case of semantics, the difference maybe subtle but is highly important. Flux-trapping causes fixed levitation of magnets. Importantly flux-trapping tends to be a field-cooled effect i.e. as the type II superconductor is cooled in the presence of a magnetic field the field lines will become trapped in the superconductor in the form of vortices - Once in this state the superconductor will resist the removal of the vortices hence flux is trapped and the source of the flux is trapped - this effect is very different from the Meissner effect which arises from the generation of surface currents which generate a magnetic field which exactly opposes the applied field which leads to a repulsive `force' acting on any localised source of magnetic flux NOT a `holding' force as shown in the picture. --John 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Another point occurred to me. Strictly speaking, a demonstration of the Meissner effect would be for a magnet resting on the superconductor to lift off as the material is cooled below T_c. That really happens, and that is the important point about the Meissner effect: magnetic flux is expelled as you cool below the transition temperature. From a still picture, one can't tell if that's how the hovering magnet got there. If it was brought to the SC after cooling, then it's really just a demonstration of zero electrical resistance. Flux-trapping also plays a role even in the true Meissner effect demonstration. The Meissner effect doesn't happen completely, so some flux lines remain stuck in the sample. If you try to move the magnet later, then there's a restoring force. Spiel496 03:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Another area of the Meissner effect article that is very unclear is the constant referral to the penetration depth as the "London penetration depth". The London penetration depth is merely a penetration depth obtained from the solution of the London equations which fits the generalised definition of a penetration depth given in most graduate level textbooks - in reality this is different to the penetration depth quoted in the literature which is more general. Penetration depths also range from ~16nm for Al to ~200nm for YBCO.

Finally, the statement "The Meissner effect was explained by the brothers Fritz and Heinz London..." is incorrect - the London equations are phenomenological in nature i.e. they were derived by considering physical observations and a key assumption in deriving the London equations hence the London equations can be used to describe the behaviour of a superconductor but they do not explain the origins of the physical observations.--John 22:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I could try to add the proper sections on flus-trapping and correct this. But i dont think im most qualified( but if the only one who will put in the time, i will). Anyone else want to add it who is up to the task who knows a thing or two about this topic? Debeo Morium 22:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well seeing as no one stepped up to add flux-trapping to the article im gonna start digging around and do my best to add the appropriate section and corrections. This is not a subject i am entirely educated on, so im sure my edits will need to be reviewed and changed. But i welcome any preliminary input before i take a crack at it. Debeo Morium 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Meissner current

Please not that the superconductor underneath the levitating magnet is not in the Meissner phase. It is all about flux pinning in hard type-II superconductors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.170.3.41 (talk) 12:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

a question

In the future can we hope for vehicles which work under the phenomenon of superconductivity? that is a vehicle made of magnet elevated on superconductor whose temperature is decreased below critical temperature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhanuprakashapr (talk • contribs) 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

    -we already have transportation that operates under a similar principle, maglev trains.

Image:Meissner effect.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Meissner effect.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Papa November (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please include the incomplete understanding of superconductivity

Someone more proficient with the subject should include in the article the problems current theories have as well as their incompleteness

e.g. http://www.physorg.com/news119272244.html

Slicky (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The link you gave doesn't refer to any 'problems current theories have', just a new regime of superconductor action that doesn't obey the Ginsberg model. Superconductivity is an active field. Current theories explain the action of low temperature superconductors well, but new discoveries are made every week, and some areas, such as the mechanism that causes high temperature superconductivity, are still a mystery. This doesn't mean the existing theories are wrong. The article mentions that high temperature superconductivity is unexplained, although maybe it should be more prominently stated. --Chetvorno^TALK 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Delisted from GA

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of February 18, 2008, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR. As with many articles listed before the GA requirements were updated, this article is now lacking sufficient inline citations for GA status. I'll pass in on to the unreferenced GA task force; hopefully once citations have been added, the article will easily be able to reattain GA status. --jwanders^Talk 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perpetual motion machine

I am thinking about adding information on the idea that superconductors are related perpetual motion machines and I thought I could address some of the reasons for and against this idea. --Ilikemangos (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

room temp superconductivity

[1] --24.96.180.121 (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

That article is not one of EETimes' finest, to say the least. We need something better before adding content on this subject. There's no mention of the critical temperature, or anything quantitative for that matter. It's not even clear whether the resistivity of a sample was measured. According to [2] the researchers were able to compress silane to the point that the hydrogen density becomes high enough that a theory predicts superconductivity. Spiel496 (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is Hebel-Slichter effect not mentioned?

I have recently written an piece (The Hebel-Slichter effect) on the field-cycling NMR experiment which led to the discovery of the Hebel-Slichter effect and on the role the latter played in confirming the BSC theory and continues to play in superconductivity research. I believe that the Hebel-Slichter effect is something that should definitely appear in any treatese on superconductivity, yet it is not included in the wiki article. I am afraid to include my page as an external link since I was just rebuked for including links to my own stuff. --Stan Sykora (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Class of materials

It is stupid to redirect Superconductors to Superconductivity. Superconductors are a class of material. Superconductivity is a phenomenon. Is there any way to decouple this redirection? If not let's then have Semiconductors redirect to Semiconductivity. This is idiotic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freecat (talk • contribs) 02:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Why not start an article about superconductors, as opposed to superconductivity. You can do this by editing the current re-direct page. LouScheffer (talk) 03:57, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I notice also that "criminal" redirects to "crime"; "Protestant" redirects to "Protestantism"; "mammalian" redirects to "mammal". Often the class and the phenomenon are combined into one article when there's nothing else to say. What would this a "superconductor" article contain except to say "a material exhibiting superconductivity"? Spiel496 (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a good point in general, but I suspect (I'm not an expert here) that's there is lots you could say about superconductors that does not go well into superconductivity. In particular, the practical aspects of making superconductors, and their practical uses, could go into 'superconductors', but does not fit well into 'superconductivity', which seems more of an explanation of the phenomenon and not practical matters. Just my two cents, LouScheffer (talk) 14:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I hadn't thought about that angle. Yeah, maybe there could be an article there. The article Technological applications of superconductivity exists, but it doesn't seem complete. Spiel496 (talk) 04:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion it is better to treat those aspects as sections. It is much better having a good and complete article about a subject, than splitting it in 12 incomplete articles (unless, of course, the main article is already too big, but of course in that case we wouldn't have 12 incomplete articles, but probably 12 good articles). But Superconductivity is currently just 31k long, so it is much better if we expand it a bit before. Note that in other wikipedias the "many articles are better than one article" philosophy is quite different (see for example Frodo Beutlin/Frodo Baggins in the German wikipedia, which is redirected to the corresponding section of Middle Earth characters). Eynar Oxartum (talk) 12:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree Superconductor should continue to redirect to this article. Superconductivity is the theory of how superconductive materials work, so 'superconductors' should be covered here. Maybe this article should include a list of superconducting materials, with their specifications (T_C, H_C, I_C, etc.) --Chetvorno^TALK 03:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

SnPbInBaTmCuO

I've removed the claim about 180K superconductivity in SnPbInBaTmCuO. I didn't do any kind of search to see if the claim is true, but the last time I looked into it, the only reference I could find was a patent showing a small change in resistivity near 180K. If the claim is really true, someone should be able to dig up a real reference. Spiel496 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

procedure how superconducty is found

if u can help please which is needed for my studies —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.69.1 (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Classification by physical properties

The main article classifies superconductors by "their physical properties: they can be Type I (if their phase transition is of first order) or Type II (if their phase transition is of second order)." I think that this is incorrect. Can anybody fix this. TomyDuby (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

paramagnetic intrinsic Meissner effect

In the Meissner Effect section, this blurb [3] was recently added by 128.196.189.146. Is this notable? It's legitimate research, from a peer-reviewed paper. However, it's pretty obvious that 128.196.189.146 is the author of that paper. Spiel496 (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Removed it. --Chetvorno^TALK 08:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Kamerlingh Onnes worked for many years to liquify the element which persisted as a gas to the lowest temperature. Using liquid air to produce liquid hydrogen and then the hydrogen to jacket the liquification apparatus, he produced about 60 cubic centimeters of liquid helium on July 10, 1908. Its boiling point was found to be 4.2 K. Onnes received the Nobel Prize in 1913 for his low temperature work leading to this achievement. When helium is cooled to a critical temperature of 2.17 K (called its lambda point), a remarkable discontinuity in heat capacity occurs, the liquid density drops, and a fraction of the liquid becomes a zero viscosity "superfluid". Superfluidity arises from the fraction of helium atoms which has condensed to the lowest possible energy. An important application of liquid helium has been in the study of superconductivity and for the applications of superconducting magnets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tara6413 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Break Superconductor Record, Theory Suggests (2006)

I don't if this will be helpful or not. This is a May 8, 2006 article and may have been surpassed already. Here 'tis: New 'Metal Sandwich' May Break Superconductor Record, Theory Suggests. Proposed alloy could 'open the door' in the search for promising electric superconductors. Ti-30X (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

These are exotic forms of old-style BCS superconductors, if I'm reading correctly. I'd wait until they actually synthesize and test the material before adding it to the article. It'd fall into the same class of superconductors as magnesium diboride (I think). --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Heavy Fermion Superconductivity

This apparently was discovered in 1979, according to a side-note on pg 66 of the August 2009 Scientific American (paper copy). "Heavy-fermion superconductors such as uranium-platinum (UPt3) are remarkable by also having electrons that effectively have hundreds of times their usual mass. Conventional theory cannot explain these materials' superconductivity." There appears to be a fair amount about this subject on the Web, so there's no reason for it to not be mentioned in the article here. V (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

200 Kelvin superconductor?

http://www.superconductors.org/200K.htm

Ah, no - not a real research site. Try the ArXiv to get confirmation on that. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction?

The article says
"For instance, all superconductors have exactly zero resistivity to low applied currents when there is no magnetic field present."
and later
"Thus, a superconductor does not have exactly zero resistance, however, the resistance is negligibly small. [1]"
Is that not a contradiction?
Larsholmjensen (talk) 17:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge from superconducting wire

A merge of superconducting wire into this article has been proposed. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Certainly superconducting wire is a topic that in an ideal encyclopedia would get independent treatment, as many aspects of the topic don't really relate to superconductivity (production techniques, prices, and volume, advantages and disadvantages versus other wire types, etc.) I guess I lean toward leaving it an independent stub but I don't feel strongly on the matter. (I created that article.) Gruntler (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem like a good fit for all of the above reasons. Superconductivity is a natural phenomenon, Superconducting wire is a product using that phenomenon. Either subject is worthy of an article. They should be left separate with cross-references where appropriate. Perdustin (talk) 20:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly object this merger because superconductivity is about science, mostly observed in the lab., and "wire" is about converting that superconducting science into real technology. The latter is a vast field of its own where practical aspects (critical current, material processability, etc.) beat Tc values. That said, a merge of powder-in-tube into superconducting wire might well be appropriate. How about that? I think I have SC wires and tapes lying around and can make photos. Materialscientist (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on all of the above comments, I've removed the merge template, and put a "please expand this" note at talk:superconducting wire. Re. powder-in-tube, a merge (with redirect) seems reasonable, as the only articles linking to it are ones that discuss superconductors. Might want to start a merge thread at powder-in-tube for courtesy's sake first, though. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Color

Are superconductors always black? Do they change color at their transition temperature (I would think so, due to the Meissner effect and the fact that light is (partly) a magnetic field)? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:20, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Good question. Does the material they're made of have anything to do with it? (I would think cuprous varieties would be green{er...}. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

At room temperature, there aren't any constraints that I'm aware of on the colour of ceramic superconductors. Metals that superconduct (lead, tin, and many others) would tend to be silver-grey before the transition.

While a perfect conductor would always appear silvery, in practice superconducting behavior isn't perfect at optical frequencies (hundreds of THz). Colour would depend on surface excitation modes. For Type II superconductors, some of the material is non-superconducting when a magnetic field is present (external or current-induced), which might change the colour as well.

In short, I don't have an answer, but it's a great question! --Christopher Thomas (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that is a great question. Maybe we could work this into the article. The optical properties of a superconductor do change at the transition temperature. However, the effect occurs not in the visible spectrum, nor even the infrared, but only in the far infrared. In order to "see" the superconductivity, the the photon energy (hc/λ) must be less than the energy gap of the superconductor -- that's on the order of k_B*T_c, which corresponds to millimeter wavelengths. At temperatures far below T_c, at these wavelengths, the reflectivity is (nearly) perfect, whereas in the normal state, the metal absorbs a little bit of the light. P.L. Richards is the author that I recall, if anyone feels motivated to dig up a reference. Spiel496 (talk) 00:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Question

.. to somebody being familiar with superconducting physics: Would it be possible to gain energy out of a magnetic field like Earth's field by a switchable superconductor?

Suppose, a superconducting disk is placed near a coil, and the superconductor would be very small (say, 1mK) above its transition temperature. So, the external magnetic field (for instance Earth's field) would be able to penetrate that disk. Now, the disk is cooled to remaining 1mK and becomes superconducting. Then, it is perfectly diamagnetic and expells the external field. Thus, the field lines now will be inhomogeneously around the disk, so a change dB/dt<>0 occurs, resulting in a voltage and current pulse at the surrounding coil.

Now, an induction could be achieved also, when the superconductor in its superconduction state is heated 1mK above its transition temperature. Then, the external magnetic field would be penetrating again the disk, and the inhomogeneously concentrated field lines would no longer be concentrated at the coil. So, at the moment of reaching the transition temperature, there would be again a dB/dt<>0 and an induction impulse at the coil.

That there is an induction at the coil would be independently, whether cooling down the disk below transition temperature or heating it up above that temperature. It would work in both directions, and even fully reversible (as superconductors are). The magnitude of the induced voltage pulse would be dependent only on the geometrical size of the disk and the external magnetic field, but not on the actual value of the transition temperature or the temperature change.

So, therefore, the question arises, where the energy at the coil is originated? Is it converted from the external magnetic field (like a reverse electric magnet)? From my viewpoint, it could not come from the heating/cooling of the superconducting disk, as one could place that disk also in an environment (like on a satellite or in outer space), where naturally low temperatures exist. Also, the formulas concerning the induction in the coil, would have no thermodynamic terms.

An apparatus converting permanently energy from Earths magnetic field would thus be very simple: Just place a superconducting disk at an holder in a bath of liquid nitrogen, and a coil around that disk, and then let the disk mechanically be moved by a electric clapper in and out the LN2, synchronized by the voltage output of the coil, thus having periodic cooling and heating below or above transition temperature.

It could be even done without changing the temperature, i.e. iso-thermal, by choosing a superconductor having a critical magnetic field of, say, 95% the applied external magnetic field. Then, an additional alternative magnetic field (5%) is added by a second coil to that field, so that at the positive superposition the superconductor becomes normal-conduction, and otherwise is superconducting. Because of the expelling of the total magnetic field out of the superconducter (ideal diamagnet), the full field would originate the induction pulse at the first coil (100%).

Could you tell me your opinion about that thought experiment?

Note that WP talk pages are not a forum to ask questions or propose WP:OR. There are excellent fora on the Web for asking such a question. (Note that since your experiment requires significant energy input, any small energy output is unlikely to be useful as a practical energy source.) David spector (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT

A long NbTi wire is achieved by joining shorter wire segments and due to joints it DOES NOT have absolutely zero electric resistance!!! It is something approx. 10E-13 Ohm/cm when superconductive. In addition in a superconductive magnet system, the joints for the superconducting switch also influence the resistance. When you put current for the first time in the superconductive coil, the normal conductur has to be attached somewhere to the superconductor. This joint is the most critical part of a magnet. In a typical magnet the coil is several thousand meters of NbTi wire (eg. in a 4.7T Oxford NMR magnet the length of the wire of the coil is = 27 km) there is measurable current change / B-field change, called natural decay. This can be measured by looking at cyclotron frequencies of ions in a Penning trap placed in the magnetic field generated by the superconductor. Due to natural decay, this cyclotron frequency (which depends linearly on the magnetic field) decreases e.g. by 1 part in 10E9 in an hour.

Clearly, the proper way to induce a current in a superconducting coil is not by using a switch, but by applying an external magnetic field of any magnitude smaller than critical (varying the field to induce the desired current). Then there would be no decays due to breaks in the circuit. David spector (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a question

Okay, if volts/amps = resistance, and a superconductor has zero resistance, then the amps must be infinite, correct? Also, because watts = volts*amps, wouldn't that mean there would be infinite watts flowing through the superconductor? I'm sure theres some sort of quantum limit to the amount of amps that can flow through something, but could anyone clear this confusion up for me? Thanks in advance. --Bejitunksu 06:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The missing piece is that because a superconductor's resistance (to DC) is effectively zero, when you apply any finite current, you don't have a voltage drop across the superconductor. Power dissipated in the superconductor is zero (for a DC current) because of this. In practice you get two things happening to give you nonzero power dissipation. First, your power supply isn't superconducting. It dissipates power in its own internal resistances (this is why batteries get warm when under heavy load, for instance). Second, the superconductor still has inductance. This means that to _change_ the current, you have to put in (or take out) energy that corresponds to the change in the amount of energy stored in the magnetic field around the superconductor. When the current is changing, the superconductor has a voltage across it (like any other inductor). The power dissipation for this case is finite, and any energy put in can be taken out again (or at least, isn't lost in the superconductor, though non-superconducting parts of the equipment may have losses). All of this applies at DC or nearly-DC. If you have a quickly changing voltage or current, other forms of loss occur within the superconductor (it isn't an ideal conductor for AC). I hope this explanation is useful to you. --Christopher Thomas 07:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Another question: Why does this work? I'm talking about the movement of the electrons, not math. I need help, would you please help me?

Electrons are not matter (even though they are constituents of matter). Although in some ways they can certainly be considered to move, their behavior is mostly best indicated by probabilistic graphs (that is, they are waves rather than localized particles). The way superconducting works is not explainable in simple, commonsense ways, because it is a quantum mechanical phenomenon. Our common sense simply does not extend much beyond our sensory experience with "normal" scales of temperature, size, velocity, time, etc. It is therefore unlikely that your question can be answered to your satisfaction. Physics explains phenomena that are truly unusual. To understand such "outlying" phenomena, there is no alternative but to learn the physics involved (in this case, I believe this would be mostly electron band theory, but I could be wrong; I suggest finding a good physics textbook or doing a Web search for more information). David spector (talk) 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Haj33 High-Tc additions

The editor Haj33 has contributed 14 kB of what seems to be good content. However, at first glance this article now seems to have more material about High-Tc superconductors than the main High-Tc article does. What do you all think of moving the new material over to High-temperature superconductivity? Spiel496 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Let's not get carried away with hi Tc here, when there's a dedicated page. (Presumably Haj33 was unaware of it.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Microphotograph needed

The article states:

Depending on the geometry of the sample, one may obtain an intermediate state consisting of a baroque pattern of regions of normal material carrying a magnetic field mixed with regions of superconducting material containing no field.

The word "baroque" is intriguing, reminiscent of such phenomena as Bénard cells and Magnetic domains, and my curiousity is piqued. Unfortunately, the cited paper costs $31 USD to view. Is there a microphotograph in the public domain that could be added to the article at this point to make the meaning clear? David spector (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me the cite should be removed, then; I thought the idea was for cites to go to publicly-accessible docs, not ones requiring a subscription or fee. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I this is about ref. 9, it is from a peer-reviewed scientific journal - these are not to be removed whatever the fee they are asking (one can have or order a free copy in a library, it is same as a book). I can tell more about that article when I get to workplace next week. Materialscientist (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Open up a little

Lossen up, Superconductivity is not only levitating magnets. It's used in particle accelerators too in a different manner. It's in a vacuum and you can get better results when you drop the temps and introduce a particle beam, So open up a little...

Hope you get to see the picture at *SNS before it goes away. Scotty (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

List of Superconductive Materials already mentioned in Wikipedia

Niobium, Niobium-titanium, Niobium-tin, Niobium nitride, Rhenium, Rhenium-tungsten, Rhenium-molybdenum, Zirconium, Gadolinium, Ruthenium, Protactinium, Tin, Technetium, Aluminum, Magnesium diboride, Strontium titanate, Yttrium barium copper oxide, Bismuth strontium calcium copper oxide, Boron-doped diamond, Vanadium, Vanadium-gallium.

Superconductivity not mentioned: Indium, Lanthanum, Indium-telluride, Lead, Mercury, Wood's metal, Rose's Metal, Gold-tin eutectic, Bismuth nanotubes, Graphine

--214.13.130.100 (talk) 08:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Obscure References

I note that there are two references to some obscure papers by Kleinert. I have not looked them up, but I am quite certain that they are not really relevant to informing anyone about the subject of superconductivity. Properly, research articles should not be referenced unless they present important and relevant results. --74.192.212.139 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Search methods

Forgive my ignorance, but I have not found any mention of wether the same types of super-computers, used to map the human genome, have been employed to assist scientists with formulations and combinations of materials for superconductivity testing. Has testing overall been limited to cumbersome trial and error? How far away from near room temprature superconductivity are we? EBourgeois (talk) 13:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty is that we don't know exactly what causes high-temperature superconductivity. Without a detailed model, it's hard to perform simulation-assisted searches. So, most of it is indeed done by trial and error, testing variants of known superconducting compounds and testing alternate compounds with similar crystal structures. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 15:31, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Then the work being done at cornell with the STM, showing the checkerboard pattern at the atomic level of Ca2-xNaxCuO2Cl2 will be of great value. So if materials can be manufactured atom, by atom, to resemble the observed patterns, then (possably with only minor refrigeration)we could hope to see superconductivity at higher temps than ever imagined.[[EBourgeois (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 15:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Superconductivity and moving magnetic fields

"...superconductivity is sensitive to moving magnetic fields so applications that use alternating current (e.g. transformers) will be more difficult to develop than those that rely upon direct current..." -looks like Tesla had it right after all![[EBourgeois (talk) 05:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC) 17:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Errors

There are a huge number of factual inaccuracies in this article, (the second sentence for example was completely wrong). Type II superconductors can and often do carry a magnetic field. There are many examples of type II superconductors doing exactly that on youtube ie . The diagram at the top gives an explanation of electromagnetic induction which it wrongly labels as the Meissner effect.

To demonstrate the Meissner effect you must do the following:

1. Place a light weight magnet on top of a superconductor.
2. Cool the superconductor below its critical temperature.
3. Observe the spontaneous levitation of the magnet.

That it how to demonstrate the Meissner effect.

The following does NOT demonstrate the Meissner effect:

1. Cool the superconductor below its critical temperature.
2. Bring up a magnet.
3. Demonstrate repulsion between the superconductor and magnet.

That does does NOT demonstrate the Meissner effect, instead it demonstrates Faraday's law of induction and Lenz's law - a purely 'classical physics' result for a perfect conductor. The Meissner effect on the other hand can only be explained by quantum mechanics, and was entirely unexpected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.131.109 (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It is also implied that superconductivity vanishes in the presence of a magnetic field. This is only true if the field is sufficiently large.--92.29.131.109 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

which makes it true because neither the field value nor the material is specified (as you certainly know, not all semiconductors need large fields for that) Materialscientist (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Vortex glass

This reference to the vortex glass/Bragg glass state is totally out of place. Going suddenly from simplistic discussions of resistivity to suddenly discuss an obscure aspect of the vortex state is probably only going to confuse people. It should be in a separate article on "flux pinning" or "state transitions in type II superconductors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.131.109 (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Cuprate superconductivity

Superconductivity in cuprates are now well understood. (See 'High temperature superconductivity in cuprates, the nonlinear mechanism and tunneling measurements' by Andrei Mourachkine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.29.131.109 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

"Does not occur in noble metals" in the lead

This is not entirely true. Iridium does display superconductivity at around 0.15 K. Its congeners Rhodium and Cobalt don't superconduct at all, though (the former is a noble metal, the latter is ferromagnetic). The statement about ferromagnetic materials is not true either; Gadolinium superconducts at 1.1 K. [4]. Stonemason89 (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

True (Gd is arguable though because it turns paramagnetic at 292 K). I have removed that whole paragraph as loose and incorrect. Materialscientist (talk) 00:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How it works?

Zero explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the sections about this should be expanded, but low-temperature superconductivity is described in the "Theories of superconductivity" section, and high-temperature superconductivity is described at high-temperature superconductivity, linked from the section of that name.

Both work by causing electrons to act in pairs. These pairs move and act (in many ways) like single particles. Because they have integer quantum spin rather than half-integer quantum spin, they act like bosons rather than fermions. This allows them to all enter the same low-energy state, rather than being forced to occupy different states (as with a normal Fermi gas of electrons within a conductor). Electrons normally scatter off of each other and off of defects in the crystal lattice. This causes resistance (some of the energy in a current flow is turned into heat). For any of the electron pairs in a superconductor to do this, though, would move them to a higher energy state - scattering can only occur if there's enough stray thermal energy to pay this "cost". Below a certain temperature (the critical temperature of the superconductor), there isn't enough thermal energy available, and electron pairs can't scatter. As a result, the material behaves as if it has no electrical resistance.

The mechanism causing electrons to pair with each other in low-temperature superconductors is described by the BCS theory. The short version is that interactions between electrons and the surrounding ions in the crystal lattice can cause an attractive force mediated by phonons (lattice vibrations). The mechanism causing electrons to pair with each other in high-temperature superconductors is still poorly understood. There are presently two competing explanations, described at high-temperature superconductor#Possible mechanism. One proposes coupling due to magnetic effects, and the other proposes enhancement of lattice-vibration coupling due to confinement of electrons into 2D layers, and interactions between layers. It's possible I'm getting the description of the second mechanism wrong, as I'm having trouble finding details about it.

I hope this addresses your question, and is useful to whoever decides to rewrite the mechanism sections. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Main article: High temperature superconductivity

Does this really need to be stated five times in a row?

Why not yank out everything that is under that article and state the main article redirect exactly once? Hcobb (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes - the HTS section is huge and detailed and should just briefly summarise HTS. Some content may need to be moved there or even further. Rod57 (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

New Evidence That Magnetism Is Driving Force Behind Superconductivity

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/12/101213121751.htm

Put this under theories section or under one of the theory articles? Hcobb (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't belong in the main Superconductivity article. That's not to imply that it isn't interesting research; it's just a very narrow topic. Despite the very general-sounding title of the Science Daily article it's really about explaining the superconductivity in a particular material. Spiel496 (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Heavy electrons

Superconductivity (bipolaron): phonon interaction gives inertia to electric current

• front electron gives rise to phonon
• it is necessary to include not only the independent pair excitations, but also the phonon excitations
• the electronic excitation is the driving force for the coherent phonons in semimetals
• inertia of superelectrons
• mass of electron may be effectively increased - inertia increase of electron - heavy electron superconductors

I have found this picture here. I think it is right to use my picture in the article, maybe with different caption. ManosHacker (talk) 08:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Can someone assess whether it is useful? My understanding of the relevant part of the Cooper pair model is that a single electron attracts ions around. They shift toward it (thus phonons) and bring positive charge which attracts another electron. Thus another electron comes in forming the Cooper pair. In other words, the phonons help forming a pair, here they appear to be related to the motion of previously formed pair. Maybe slowing down the first step - showing that the first electron moved in, and then second electron joined it - will clarify the matter? Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Since we say our opinion in the talk page, I guess spontaneus phonon rise is chaotic and does not help because phonon direction cannot be pre-determined. It would most probably kick back electron pairs, as soon as it creates them, if it goes the opposite direction of the electron current. They need to co-exist, as the cooper bipolaron pair can exist only inside the wagon of a phonon. They travel together, electrical energy is stored inside the acompanying wave (phonon) and helps maintain the electrical current.ManosHacker (talk) 09:29, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I see two problems: 1) Electrons in a cooper pair are much much farther apart than that, from 1.3nm to 38nm, let's say between 5 atoms and 1000 atoms apart; 2) Electrons in a cooper pair have opposite k-vector (momentum), not the same. Actually the image looks more like a small bipolaron. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong :-) --Steve (talk) 13:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

There's a simple solution to that: tag the caption "not to scale". ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:21, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, the 1.3nm examples are cuprates which do not pair by lattice distortions. Minimum electron-electron distance should be at least 3nm, maybe 10 atoms. I think labeling "not to scale" is inadequate: People will still infer that the lattice constant is bigger than the electron-separation. "Not to scale" means people should not trust the exact ratios, but usually they can still trust that bigger things are bigger and smaller things are smaller. In fact a continuum model would be better -- the color darkens where the density has increased, or something. And show the electrons orbiting circularly around a common center, I think that's at least somewhat closer to reality than following each other in the same direction (because, again, their momenta should be opposite). --Steve (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bipolaron. Here (first page, third row), it talks about how polaron contributes to superconductivity and gives an example. So for cooper pair superconductivity we do need a different picture.--ManosHacker (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Zero Electrical DC Resistance?

The paragraph below is copied from the 8/12/2011 version of the article:

The situation is different in a superconductor. In a conventional superconductor, the electronic fluid cannot be resolved into individual electrons. Instead, it consists of bound pairs of electrons known as Cooper pairs. This pairing is caused by an attractive force between electrons from the exchange of phonons. Due to quantum mechanics, the energy spectrum of this Cooper pair fluid possesses an energy gap, meaning there is a minimum amount of energy ΔE that must be supplied in order to excite the fluid. Therefore, if ΔE is larger than the thermal energy of the lattice, given by kT, where k is Boltzmann's constant and T is the temperature, the fluid will not be scattered by the lattice. The Cooper pair fluid is thus a superfluid, meaning it can flow without energy dissipation.

Surely the energy gap for creating quasiparticles from Cooper pairs can't be relevant, otherwise GaAs and Si would be superconductors, wouldn't they? I was thinking that the relevant excitation spectrum would be for the creation of vortices. Thoughts? Csmallw (talk) 19:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

An electron-excitation-gap is necessary for superconductivity. (Normally electrons scatter, but if there's a gap then they don't scatter, because there's no state to scatter into, as long as the temperature is low enough that they cannot jump the gap.) It is necessary but it is NOT sufficient. The filled states also have to be able to carry a current! The electrons in a filled semiconductor valence band have an electron-excitation-gap, like you say, but they do not carry a current. (If you think about it, in intrinsic GaAs near absolute zero, there are no electron scattering events!) On the other hand, the filled states in a superconductor CAN carry a current because...well I wasn't sure but I read the old BCS paper and they have a pretty basic explanation:

"Our theory also accounts in a qualitative way for those aspects of superconductivity associated with infinite conductivity...the paired states (k_1_spinup, k_2_spindown) have a net momentum k_1+k_2=q, where q is the same for all virtual pairs. For each value of q, there is a metastable state with a minimum in free energy and a unique current density. Scattering of individual electrons will not change the value of q common to virtual pair states, and so can only produce fluctuations about the current determined by q." And these scattering events raise the free energy, unless all of the electrons scatter simultaneously in exactly the right way to make a new metastable state centered at a different q, which is extremely unlikely.

Well that makes sense to me, although I'm sure there are more sophisticated explanations too. :-) --Steve (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thermal Superconductivity

This wiki-page only deals with electrical superconductivity. There is also something called thermal superconductivity. e.g. http://www.orra.com/e_p3.htm. Google will also show up some hits. Maybe both (thermal - electrical) are interrelated. I don't know. It is indeed (yet) little known but it shouldn't go unmentioned IMO. BartYgor (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thermal Superconductivity may be a real phenomenon, but the orra.com link appears to describe something different, possibly a heat pipe. The combination of poor English and marketing hype makes it impossible to tell what they are trying to say. I didn't see much on Google. Are there example materials? Spiel496 (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be describing a thermocouple. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 17:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The Orra company -as I understand it- produces (or develops) products based on two technologies (thermoelectric effect and thermal superconductivity). The page I linked to uses both (heat is transported from deep in the earth through superconductivity - otherwise all heat would be lost before it reaches the surface- and than transformed into electricity through some thermoelectric effect). The page link isn't that important. I just looked on wikipedia for mor info and didn't even find a section on 'thermal' under superconductivity. So I suggested to mention it. Maybe in the first few paragraphs? Even if it's just not much more than a concept. Something like: "This article deals with electrical superconductivity. There also exist thermal superconductivity albeit in experimental stage" with some links to http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4212 or http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/993888. An example material would be superfluid helium (https://www.jyu.fi/fysiikka/en/research/accelerator/igisol/eurdt/nipnet/workshop/presentation/Peter_Dendooven.pdf or http://iopscience.iop.org/0038-5670/19/11/A11) BartYgor (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Vdovenkov's work http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.4212 is not part of the refereed literature. Not something to be included in the article. Brienanni (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

holography

The article begin to be obsolete. It doesn't talk about holography and its relationship with superconductivity. Holographic Superconductors are not covered in the article and it's interesting to add as much info as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.119.211 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

critical temperature

i really doubt whether the "critical temperature" in this context is the "critical point (thermodynamics)". This seems to be wrong--92.203.20.67 (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The link is to an irrelevant page. Eroica (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

miracle?

A miracle or what? http://www.superconductors.org/28c_rtsc.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.112.112.235 (talk) 18:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

A hoax. None of the research results from that cite has been verified elsewhere or/and reported in scientific literature. Materialscientist (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Or possibly just a deluded amateur scientist. Anyone familiar with magnetic susceptibility measurements knows that there are many things that can cause a tiny "blip" like the ones that the website attributes to superconductivity, e.g. a non-superconducting diamagnetic response or (more likely) just an experimental artifact. If it were really a superconductor, they would show a resistance versus temperature curve showing a transition to zero resistance. Tls60 (talk) 11:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Phenomenological explanation

I believe that this expression, 'phenomenological explanation', can find no reference in wikipedia.

london equation article is no help as yet in this regard.

Some effort should be made to provide a PE article for reference as a citation really would not suffice in the context of an expository treatment such as this article.

Someone specializing in writing on the history of physical laws might be helpful where exposition is concerned.

G. Robert Shiplett 11:50, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I've used the term "phenomenological" myself, but if pressed for a definition, I'd be at a loss. I know it when I see it. It means a theory that doesn't try to go all the way to the fundamental cause. The article Phenomenology (science) talks about this topic, but even this is not very complete. Spiel496 (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Graphite and water at 300K?

arxiv:1209.1938 from reputable researchers at a world-renowned institution has been accepted for publication in Advanced Materials and covered in the secondary technology news press (please see). I am not expert enough to try to add this but it does appear to me as a layperson to be substantially significant. —Cupco 02:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

doi:10.1002/adma.201202219. Note that they haven't measured electrical conductivity, only magnetic moment. The effect only concerns a thin surface layer. The authors implied hydrogen doping-like effect, which can be easily achieved by other means; i.e. the evidence is circumstantial and needs confirmation (both for reproducibility and interpretation of the results) and a better explanation. Materialscientist (talk) 03:53, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Addition of "safety reference" on Oct 8, 2012

I wanted to know if I could find more about "solid air".. So I found this

<ref>{{cite web
| url= http://cryo.gsfc.nasa.gov/introduction/liquid_helium.html
|title="Introduction to Liquid Helium"
|work="Cryogenics and Fluid Branch"
|publisher=Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA
}}</ref>

<ref>{{cite web
| url= <snip>
|title=Section 4.1 "Air plug in the fill line"
|work="Superconducting Rock Magnetometer Cryogenic System Manual"
|publisher=2G Enerprises
| archiveurl= <snip>}}</ref>

Is this appropriate as a "reference"?

Also, is the 'since 1993' part still correct? Jimw338 (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Looks reasonable. I'm slightly copy-editing it (you missed a close-paren, and I think a sentence belongs in a different paragraph). As for the "since 1993", I believe it's correct. There have been lots of reports of indications of superconductivity at higher temperatures, but not a lot of confirmations. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

History of superconductivity

A reference at the bottom of the paragraph reads directly, "An overview of the past and present of superconductivity can be found in the book 100 years of superconductivity.[30]" - This seems out of place to me. This seems bibliographical and belongs in that section, no? 173.54.185.103 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Agree and removed - there are dozens of books on this topic; this one is from 2012, i.e. was likely added to attract attention to the book. Materialscientist (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Help Request

I am new to Wikipedia editing .I wish to add something related to observed isotropic effect on superconductivity.my content had been wiped out .let me now if it is wrong or it is inappropriately placed or anything that annoys others.your comment will be help ful to me.

here is what i wish to add.

Isotope effect

Isotopes are variants of a particular chemical element sharing same atomic number but having different mass number. It has been observed that such Isotopes of a superconducting element has different critical temperature.Higher the mass of isotope ,lower is the critical temperature.Indeed the two holds a relation $M^{(}1/2)T=constant$. As per the relation, as M tens to infinity,T tends to zero.Now M tends to infinity is equivalent to no lattice vibration and T tends to zero means no superconductivity. This shows that presence of lattice vibration is necessary to exhibit superconductivity.Lattice vibration is prime cause of resistance in metal,others being crystal defect,impurity.Lattice vibration creates phonons in solid and these phonons cause resistance in the movement of conducting electrons by scattering them. For a good conductor at room temperature such as gold, lattice vibration is very low and hence while they are good conductor, they do not exibit superconductivity while for lead which has high resistivity at room temperature,superconductivity occurs at 7K.Anoop ranjan (talk) 05:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That looks like the edit to the main article which Materialscientist just reverted. The question raised by your edits is what you are trying to accomplish. This article is about superconductivity in general, the above seems to be a description which applies to Type I superconductors only. This seems to be ground already covered in the Bcs theory article, so it's not clear it belongs here. The other major problem is that your text is difficult to even parse. A better start would be if you can explain what it is you are trying to add and why - we could then discuss whether the changes belong in this article and what improvements they need. Regards. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Vacuum at billions of degrees?

I am not a physicist, but the concept of "vacuum at billions of degrees" seems to be meaningless. In a vacuum what is vibrating to give a temperature number? Maybe that section could use a touchup? I'm not qualified to do it, so this is just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.74.13.100 (talk) 13:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We should probably remove that paragraph ("Possible superconductivity of the vacuum"). It was speculation and talks about an article which might be published in the future, but I don't think it has. It doesn't add anything useful to the understanding of superconductivity, so probably doesn't belong here. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess we've achieved consensus on this paragraph being less than useful, the first response by anyone was simply deleting the paragraph. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Propose major shift of content

I suggest that the following subsections are tangential to the general topic of superconductivity and therefore propose to move them to High temperature superconductivity, which lacks this very pertinent content.

• ===Crystal structure of high-temperature ceramic superconductors===
• ====YBaCuO superconductors====
• ====Bi-, Tl- and Hg-based high-''T''_c superconductors====
• ===Preparation of high-''T''_c superconductors===

--Smokefoot (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Lede vs "Explanation"

Can some editors weigh in on what information belongs in the Lede? Most of the content in the following "Explanation" section seems appropriate for the main Intro. It talks about what makes superconductors different from non-superconductors and mentions the importance of cuprates. In general, I'm not clear on the role of a section called "Explanation" in an encyclopedia article. Spiel496 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I merged "Explanation" with the Lede. Spiel496 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was the right answer. See WP:Lead_section#Introductory_text. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Too much detail? It should mention the cuprates, but not go into the candidate theories, for example. I don't know. Spiel496 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

If you mention the high-temperature perovskites at all in the lead, it should be a single sentence. Something like "Superconductivity became much more available in 1986, when materials were discovered which superconducted at temperatures above the 77 K achievable with liquid nitrogen". The paragraphs which had been "Explanation" should be separated, perhaps under a title of "Mechanism of action"?

I agree, the phonons, Cooper pairs, and resonating valence bonds should go elsewhere in the article (I assume they're already down there). It looks like over the years, editors added sentences here and there into the lead, until it had so much detail that someone felt it was better to split most of it off to a separate section. Trouble is, that section wasn't a coherent topic, but rather the last few paragraphs of the wordy intro. Does this 2010 revision seem closer to the ideal?

I think the points we want to have in the lead are:

• Resistance drops abruptly to zero at a critical temperature
• For contrast, how non-superconductors behave (disclaimer: I wrote that paragraph, so I think it's wonderful)
• Meissner effect
• It's a quantum phenomenon, distinct from just high conductivity
• Discovery in 1908 and BCS theory in 1957
• In 1986 the cuprates spawned a renewed surge of research

Spiel496 (talk) 18:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we want to get it down to one paragraph, the 2010 version seems overly involved. Most of the points you make above are about right - something like:

Superconductivity is a phenomenon of exactly zero electrical resistance and expulsion of magnetic fields occurring in some materials when cooled below a characteristic critical temperature. This is a macroscopic manifestation of a quantum mechanical phenomenon, characterized by both the drop in electrical resistance to actual zero, and the Meissner effect, the complete ejection of magnetic fields. The effect was discovered in 1911, and the field received new attention in 1986 with the discovery of perovskite materials having a critical temperature above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen.

That may even be too telegraphic, but a lot of the details (like who made the discovery) belong in the body of the article rather than the lead. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Original research

According to Wikipedia:No original research, you are allowed to do original research when it's very obvious to almost everyone that a certain piece of information implies another piece of information. However, there's 2 possible reasons original research could lead to an incorrect conclusion. One is the obvious reason that the conclusion doesn't mathematically follow from the premises in the sources and the other reason is making a mistake about how English works. The latter type of original research is what happened in the concluding the sentence An electric current flowing through a loop of superconducting wire can persist indefinitely with no power source. from In a superconductor, the resistance drops abruptly to zero when the material is cooled below its critical temperature. unless the source actually stated that piece of information but it's too long for me to check whether it did and even if I did read the whole source, I'm not sure I have the background information that would enable me to understand it. Maybe what it really means to say a substance is superconducting means that if the gravitational constant were zero, the resistivity approaches zero as the current approaches zero and the thickness of the wire approaches infinity. It might still have a zero resistivity in a circular wire of finite thickness but that just means ⁠resistance/current⁠ approaches zero as current approaches zero. It doesn't mean it has a zero resistivity for a nonzero current. If a substance has resistivity that varies as the square of the current, doesn't that mean it's a superconductor and yet current in a coil of that substance will still gradually decrease with time with no power source. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:07, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

This isn't original research, I added 4 sources. As the introduction tries to emphasize, superconductivity is unlike normal conduction in metals. A superconductor has exactly zero resistivity for finite currents, at finite conductor thicknesses, and according to current physics persistent currents really can flow indefinitely without losing energy. Experimental evidence gives a lifetime of at least 100,000 years 1, p.64. This is not just theory, but is used practically every day in particle accelerators, mass spectrometers, and MRI machines in doctor's offices. If you've ever had an MRI, the magnetic field in the machine's donut-shaped superconducting magnet is created by a persistent current that may have been flowing for months without a power source. Current is applied to the magnet's coils only when it is being turned on, then the coil is short-circuited by a piece of suprerconductor, the power supply is turned off, and persistent currents flow, maintaining the magnetic field.

By the way, it wouldn't have been all that difficult to resolve the question yourself; all you had to do is Google "superconductivity" and "currents persist" or "persistent currents". The statement that superconducting currents persist indefinitely is on dozens of university physics websites, and dozens of respectible physics textbooks on Google Books. --Chetvorno^TALK 02:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dr Wolf and Halpern's work from 1969 to the 1980s

I am attempting to add some significant information to the Superconductivity articles in Wiki.

I'm running into people that are undoing my work. They called the facts I wrote ridiculous and hit undo. I added more references - same thing. Then I was accused of creating an editing war and engaging in self promotion.

These people are deleting valid referenced history. Calling it self promotion? Dr. Wolf and Dr. Halpern are both dead. They ran a program that lasted 18+ years that including building the first Super Conducting powered Naval Vessel done with the help of General Electric. This is important history that they are removing with one finger hurting the future of superconductivity. Someone may read their work and duplicate or even improve it. Fix my tone if you like but don't delete facts that reference MAJOR PEER REVIEWED publications and US Patents. I am a Wiki rookie.

If Wolf and Halpern had done this work 10 years ago instead of 35 years ago you would not dare question it because it'd be all over the Internet already. Dr Wolf had over 150 papers published and received 24 US patents including 4 or 5 in Superconductivity. His PH.D. adviser was Dr. Y.H. KU.

Suppressing their work by just saying his results were wrong sounds improper to me. He worked closely with Dr. Schrieffer in this work. This was a major research effort that should not be ignored because it was ahead of its time.

Dr. Wolf and Dr. Halpern predicted cupric oxides would superconduct. The guys in Switzerland who read their papers back then won a Nobel Prize by following up on it. The next guy to duplicate the sodium cholates 277K results will get one too. Laurencejwolf (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Are their contributions discussed in textbooks? When you say things like Bednorz and Mueller were following on leads from Wolf, you risk sounding like a conspiracy theorist. The evolution of experiments conducted in Switzerland on mixed valence perovskites has been analyzed intensely, but I do not recall any one complaining that they were just following a recipe recommended by others. Sounds almost like sour grapes, which is a recurring theme after a Nobel Prize (see Nobel Prize controversies). --Smokefoot (talk) 05:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Patents are not screened for science, only for novelty; the only other supporting source is from Proceedings of the IEEE, which is a minor journal. I don't know them, but "Proceedings" journals had a very light peer review in old years. We are talking about signs of superconductivity (a sharp drop in some electromagnetic property), and too many of them were misinterpreted even my experienced scientists, or simply could not be reproduced by anyone. Materialscientist (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You are sounding like if you haven't read it yet it must be wrong. Text books are wrong and incomplete all the time. Sour Grapes??? These guys are dead - the prize was 28 years ago. They won plenty of prizes and awards trust me. No one said those Swiss guys followed a cookbook. Wolf and Halpern theorized about cupric oxides very clearly - they also thought them a dead end wrt room temp SC. They followed the organic path as their work predicted it would achieve room temperature. Stop blocking this information - someone may read it and duplicate or exceed their results. They do provide a cookbook for some compounds in the cited patent. Dr. Halpern got his Ph.D. at age 20 from the Colorado School of Mining in Chemistry. These guys were not backroom alchemy hacks. They spent 10s of millions of US Navy research funds on SC projects. Often their work was redacted or unpublished due to security concerns. Nonetheless it does not make the work wrong. Dr. Halpern's chemistry in creating the cholate compounds was complex. Even Dr. Wolf said without Ernie they never could have made the compound.

If we can't get people to about read their work because people keep suppressing it we have a problem. Instead of calling these pre-internet pioneers fakes because they are hard to find on the Internet, let the public read learn of their work. I'm telling you that room temp superconductivity will happen and it will be organic.

While they published in the IEEE and other well known peer reviewed journals like the Journal of the Franklin Institute, they were not alone in this thinking. Dr. Goldfein published "Some evidence for high-temperature superconduction in cholates", Physiol. Chem. Physics, vol. 6 in 1974. They worked with Dr. Schrieffer for a number of years. Call Bob up and ask him. Dr. Schrieffer was also my freshman physics professor at Penn :) Laurencejwolf (talk) 05:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In various comments people have accused me of self promoting, sour grapes, unlikely claims, advertising, etc. Well hey - I didn't do the work - I'm not claiming I did anything. I'm not making a penny on this and I'm glad that Bob Schrieffer and the guys in Swiss land got Nobel prizes. Anyone getting a Nobel in Superconductivity is good for the field.

I knew these guys well. I worked with them and took two semesters of Graduate Level courses in Superconductivity taught by DR> Wolf at George Washing University. They were both actual geniuses with many super accomplishments outside of superconductivity. You know that famous expanding circle display used in sonar and now tinder to sound out the opposition? Yes Dr. Wolf invented that in the 1950s. The classic electronic expanding circle sonar display was US Pat.# 2,915,629. If Dr. Ku was alive he'd straighten you guys out.

What I want is that real history is included in these articles so that people can read and decide for themselves. What I really want is someone to try to follow up their work. Imagine how cool it would be if someone duplicated their work. I hope they do and I hope they get the Nobel for it. Yet all I'm seeing is undo and nay saying and personal attacks.

If i do not see a valid argument to exclude these real facts then I'm putting them back in. Laurencejwolf (talk) 06:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

In the late 1980s Dr. Wolf, Dr. Halpern, myself and a financial advisory team formed an R&D firm that planned to follow up on the prior work. The companys goal was to figure out how to make high temperature superconducting cables to be used for Data Communications. This was my idea. Even currently fiber optic cables transfer data at less then 80% of the speed of light in a vacuum. Additionally, signal loss requires signal repeating or regeneration...more delays. In an office or city no big deal. Moving data over large distances is where these delays show up. If a cable ran say 9,300 miles it might take .072 sec or more to reach the far end. If a superconducting cable was used it would take .05 seconds. No real impact on a phone call, but if you need to maintain mirrored databases around the world with hundreds or thousands of transactions per minute there is a huge impact. As an IT expert who designed mirrored and resilient systems for Wall Street and the Pharma Industry having such a speed increase would solve many problems...not to mention the potential increase in bandwidth. We never got off the ground due to malfeasance by our crooked financial advisory group. OK now I'm finally doing sour grapes :) Laurencejwolf (talk) 06:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You should take a look at http://booksc.org/book/2089220 from the Journal of the Franklin Institute. This publication is a solid mathematical thermodynamic based theory on what materials would make for high temperature superconductors. "If an Ohmic material becomes a superconductor then its transition temperature is directly proportional to its net internal energy and inversely proportional to its entropy. This implies that for superconducting Ohmic materials, in which the internal energy is high and the entropy is low, the transition temperature will be high. Although this relationship between transition temperature, internal energy and entropy does not predict the transition temperature, it does give an appreciation for the factors involved and therefore one can conjecture that high temperature superconductors are possible. Furthermore...if the ordering of the material is improved, the transition temperature increases."

The math is correct. Give Dr. Wolf some credit and respect and help the field of superconductivity by bringing to light this important information.

If their experiments are duplicated, and they will be, as in their lab they duplicated the results multiple times. A basic method for compound formulation is outlined in the cited patent. The issue with the Cholonate stuff is getting it into a useable form...even harder then the cupric materials. They were ahead of their time. So was the Swiss team, but even with easier to work with materials it was huge struggle to get useful product out and it took years even with the IBMs of the world involved. Laurencejwolf (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like a case where evidence of superconductivity (some diamagnetism) was seen in some samples, but it was never confirmed. It's true, if you have a mixture of phases and compounds, even if just a tiny fraction becomes superconducting, that can be detected. Then through hard work, one increases that fraction to ultimately discover what the superconducting compound is. But sometimes, it just doesn't pan out. Maybe the earlier hint was spurious, or maybe the chemistry just never got solved. Whatever the story is, there's no point in describing it in this article until the result is confirmed, and in secondary sources. Spiel496 (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Laurencejwolf, the sources you cited were primary sources. See WP:PSTS: "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source". I'm sorry if these experiments have not received due recognition as you claim, but Wikipedia is not the place to try to rectify that. Read WP:Righting great wrongs. Wikipedia articles cannot break new information themselves; they must follow mainstream, secondary sources. When this work is recognized in reliable secondary sources, such as texts and survey papers, it can be incorporated into the article. --Chetvorno^TALK 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I just started reading this contentious discussion. I found this a mention of this in the 1977 book "Dielectric and Related Molecular Processes" (ed. Mansel Davies; p. 240), which reads "no discussion of the electronic properties of biological materials would be complete without a reference to the (controversial) possibility that superconductive phenomena may play a biological role..", and a few journal references. I have no idea where these rank on the "reputable journal" scale (or indeed, whether the journals still exist). I admit, it does seem rather "kooky" to me. But perhaps someone else with more knowledge take a look at this and the references as this discussion continues. Jimw338 (talk) 18:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not a "contentious discussion" just some dingaling who seeks recognition. "My work is more important than people realize, if only you'd give me a chance to explain.... And BTW, the Nobel Committee really blew it because they did not recognize my genius." Happens frequently in various manifestations here.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dubious phrase

The second hypothesis proposed that electron pairing in high-temperature superconductors is mediated by short-range spin waves known as paramagnon

This phrase caught my eye because of new term I made redlinked. I did some reading and found this text saying that paramagnons are in fact suppress superconductivity. So, how they can "mediate"? Does somebody have access to the footnoting articles to verify what it actually says? Staszek Lem (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

New research results should probably be integrated

In Nature, dated Aug 18th, 2016: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7616/full/nature19061.html

In particular the summary of the research seems to indicate that BCS was wrong... But I'm no physicist so I cannot comment more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.220.167.7 (talk) 14:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

It's very new, and we haven't seen the reaction be digested yet. That article indicates shows that over-doped cuprate superconductors don't follow a pattern they would have expected based on BCS. As best I understood it, it does not overturn BCS for type-I superconductors. We already knew that BCS couldn't explain type-II superconductors, so this, while interesting, isn't a paradigm breaker. Let it ferment a bit more and see what comes out of this. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Careful with the type-I vs type-II terminology. The cuprates are type-II, but so are a lot of conventional BCS superconductors like Nb₃Sn. Spiel496 (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superconductivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930121223/http://www.superconductivitynewsupdate.com/ to http://www.superconductivitynewsupdate.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:46, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superconductivity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100821182614/http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/ascg/lectures/ to http://www.msm.cam.ac.uk/ascg/lectures/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

superconductor

I just notice that superconductor links here. Seems to me that there could be a separate article, with, for example, more practical details on actual superconducting materials. This article should describe the physical phenomena, pretty much as it does, with limited details on specific materials and how they are used. Gah4 (talk) 19:29, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

What do others think? - YBCO 92K 93 K ?

Back in March I (Eric Kvaalen) edited the article to change a temperature from 92 K (which has no reference) to 93 K (given in the title of a reference) and to explain a graph in its caption (see my edit). Tarl N. reverted my changes, and we had the following discussion on my talk page:

I reverted your changes; please discuss them. Which reference are you citing for 93K? The original discovery in 1987 had wide error margins. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Tarl_N., I specific'ly went to that article because I redd something in New Scientist that gave −173°C as the temperature for "cuprate superconductors", which is 100 K, and I didn't remember seeing such a round number for cuprate suuperconductors before. I looked at the YBCO article and at the High-temperature superconductivity article, and I saw the paper giving the range 80 to 93 K. Then I looked at the Superconductivity article, and I found that someone way back in 2003 had put in the figure of 92 K, with no reference. Later someone put in a reference to the original paper, which in its title says 93 K (though it gives the range in the abstract). The Wikipedia article has a graph made by a woman in Denmark for her Master's degree thesis, which shows YBCO at over 100 K. It uses various colors and symbols for different kinds of superconductors. So I edited the article to include an explanation of the colors, and to correct the figure of 92 K to 93 K. And I wrote in parenthesis in the caption that her point for YBCO is higher than what's in the text. I think that's better than deleting the whole graph! And I don't see what's wrong with putting 93 K when that's what the original paper says in its title. Why should we (or you) put it back to 92 when there's no support for that and we know that the range goes higher than that? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:40, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

O.k. - points:

• • The 1987 paper says "from 80 to 93 K". The issue is that each batch made at the time had different transition temperatures, and they couldn't come up with a single number, they cited a range of what they had seen. That does not say they saw 93 K, they saw a range between 80 and 93. That does not mean they saw 93 K, and indeed, if my recollection serves (it has been 30 years since I read that paper), they saw 92.something.
  • We know now that the reason for the variation is that the transition temperature varies very sharply with the oxygen content, and with the methods they were using at the time, it was hard to control for that.
  • Specifying a single critical temperature for YBCO is incorrect; the temperature will vary considerably between O(6.5) and O(7). I don't know if they have explored values higher than 7, they are hard to reach. In any case, for that material it's probably best to say "up to" a value.
  • The graph in question was derived from an earlier graph by the same author, here. It looks like the author simply mispositioned that point - it's a low resolution graph, intended to show relationships not precise values. Perhaps you should ask.
  • I would prefer you not add confusion to captions. That simply makes the article harder to read, and presumably nobody is extracting precise values from low resolution graphs.

Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 17:20, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think the original graph was by Pia. It dates back to 2011 and she only did her Master's in 2015. She says hers is "based on the Wikimedia Commons figure "Sc history.gif" at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sc_history.gif where the timeline stopped at 2010 and did not contain more than one iron-based compound." So she made her own improved version for her thesis.

So what do we do? Leave the article as it is with an arbitrary number of 92 and no explanation for the different colors and symbols in the graph?

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Unless you have WP:RS to justify removing things, I'm simply not going to allow you to make changes you don't understand. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

What do other people think? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2018 (UTC)