4 ms·

Can someone much smarter than me clarify if this is supportive of, or related to, the US Navy patent from several years ago for Piezoelectricity-induced Room T

Can someone much smarter than me clarify if this is supportive of, or related to, the US Navy patent from several years ago for Piezoelectricity-induced Room Temperature Superconductor? [0][1] [0] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190058105A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20190058105A1/en [1] https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/02/us-navy-patent-makes-room-temperature-superconductor-claim/ https://eandt.theiet.org/content/articles/2019/02/us-navy-pa...

Panoramix 6y ago
This finding is real science. The patent you cite is unrelated and 100% bullshit. For example, it states preposterous sentences such as this: "The fact that the fine structure constant can be expressed as a function of (2e) shows how important the notion of electron pairing is in the composition of the Universe, and gives credence to the theory that the fundamental cosmic meta-structure may be thought of as a charged superfluid, in other words, a superconducting condensate." This guy is a scammer who was able to bamboozle his patent attorneys, presumably he gets some incentive to publish patents?
- adamiscool8 6y ago
  Is that preposterous? The idea that "spacetime"(?) may have superconductive properties doesn't seem facially outlandish, but again I'm not a fancy scientist. He is an awarded US Navy scientist though, and these patents were specially requested by Navy brass, so I'm not inclined to think he's a scammer that slipped one by his attorneys.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    I have met someone who got a stupid patent — IIRC it was a two bit binary adder — because the patent lawyer messed up what he sent to them. He didn’t check before it was filled because he didn’t care (the point of the patent was “we needed a patent protected system to be granted a license to a codec”), and it was granted anyway.
    - dennnis 6y ago
      If you look up the history of this patent, the first few times it was submitted it was denied, then some US general comments and basically rubber stamps it through.
360walk 6y ago
From what I can see using a very basic understanding of superconductivity, in that patent superconductivity is achieved by: 1) Taking a wire, and mechanically inducing a wave of lattice vibrations 2) Firing a pulse of electricity down the wire to "ride the wave" of superconductivity produced whereas normal superconductors (including this one) produce superconductivity because the first positively charged electrons in a wave of current "pulls up" the negatively charged lattice behind it as it passes over creating a wave that attracts the second wave of electrons traveling behind (which in turn does the same to the third.)

Panoramix 6y ago

This finding is real science. The patent you cite is unrelated and 100% bullshit. For example, it states preposterous sentences such as this: "The fact that the fine structure constant can be expressed as a function of (2e) shows how important the notion of electron pairing is in the composition of the Universe, and gives credence to the theory that the fundamental cosmic meta-structure may be thought of as a charged superfluid, in other words, a superconducting condensate." This guy is a scammer who was able to bamboozle his patent attorneys, presumably he gets some incentive to publish patents?

adamiscool8 6y ago
Is that preposterous? The idea that "spacetime"(?) may have superconductive properties doesn't seem facially outlandish, but again I'm not a fancy scientist. He is an awarded US Navy scientist though, and these patents were specially requested by Navy brass, so I'm not inclined to think he's a scammer that slipped one by his attorneys.
- ben_w 6y ago
  I have met someone who got a stupid patent — IIRC it was a two bit binary adder — because the patent lawyer messed up what he sent to them. He didn’t check before it was filled because he didn’t care (the point of the patent was “we needed a patent protected system to be granted a license to a codec”), and it was granted anyway.
  - dennnis 6y ago
    If you look up the history of this patent, the first few times it was submitted it was denied, then some US general comments and basically rubber stamps it through.

360walk 6y ago

From what I can see using a very basic understanding of superconductivity, in that patent superconductivity is achieved by: 1) Taking a wire, and mechanically inducing a wave of lattice vibrations 2) Firing a pulse of electricity down the wire to "ride the wave" of superconductivity produced whereas normal superconductors (including this one) produce superconductivity because the first positively charged electrons in a wave of current "pulls up" the negatively charged lattice behind it as it passes over creating a wave that attracts the second wave of electrons traveling behind (which in turn does the same to the third.)