7 ms·

Yeah. BCS was proposed a half century after the first conventional superconductor was discovered, and even today we don't have a convincing mechanism for "regul

Yeah. BCS was proposed a half century after the first conventional superconductor was discovered, and even today we don't have a convincing mechanism for "regular" high-Tc superconductors. But if it superconducts, it superconducts, and research into the how is useful but not a blocker to using it.

bluGill 3y ago
That depends. If it super conducts, but it isn't useful in the real world, then we will be waiting for theory to - hopefully - give us some insight into how to improve things to useful. This only can carry a small amount of current. I'm not sure how to figure out what small means (numbers are given in the article if you know how to use them!), but if the losses using regular wire are less than the energy needed to make this stuff then it isn't useful. This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead in a factory may mean it is impractical. Or it make leach lead into the real world making it not safe to deploy. There are probably other ways this can turn into a "it works but isn't practical" thing that would force us to wait for theory (or luck!) to point to something better. What I wrote above is what I can think of in a couple minutes. Only time will tell though, I hope it works out.
- reaperman 3y ago
  > If it super conducts, but it isn't useful in the real world, then we will be waiting for theory to - hopefully - give us some insight into how to improve things to useful. This only can carry a small amount of current. Thank you for this. > This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead in a factory may mean it is impractical. Have you been to a hardware store lately? A huge amount of pipe fittings for gas and non-potable water are made from lead. Factories don’t find it hard to work with lead. It might be inadvisable but it’s not hard. We can argue about the "working safely" part, but in terms of "does this make it impractical?" the answer seems to be no under the current global regulatory environment.
  - beepbopboopp 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - mlyle 3y ago
      Nah. We have a reasonable understanding of fluids. It's just that the two things we say as simple explanations (the plane pushes air downwards causing an equal and opposite reaction to push the plane up; faster flow on top of the wing "sucks the plane upwards") are both only partial truths. Sometimes you get arguments between partisans for each of these two simplified explanations, but really both are bogus.
      - didgeoridoo 3y ago
        I’ve never understood how this battle could possibly persist, considering that planes can fly upside-down. The fact that Bernoulli’s Principle creates a low-pressure zone on the top of the aerofoil just gives you laminar flow at higher angles of attack. It really isn’t that mysterious, unless you insist that only a single physical law is allowed to come into play.
        mlyle 3y ago
        > I’ve never understood how this battle could possibly persist, considering that planes can fly upside-down. That's orthogonal. Planes flying upside down still have air flowing faster over the new "top" of the wing than the bottom. Though, a common misunderstanding is that air must be taking the same "time" to go over the top and the bottom. This is not true. You can build a pretty good mental model of flight with either simplified mechanism, but you end up underestimating performance by a fair bit.
        blagie 3y ago
        > You can build a pretty good mental model of flight with either simplified mechanism, but you end up underestimating performance by a fair bit. I've never hear of a good mental model built on Bernoulli's Principle. They are either: - Wrong - Give no intuition The key question is /why/ air moves faster on one side, and once you get away from the misconception of same time, I've never heard an intuitive argument. Redirecting air down: - makes complete sense - can be demonstrated by sticking your hand out the window of a car - works with flat airfoils (sails, kites, etc.), and explains those well too And the shape of the wing comes in from wanting the leading edge parallel to incoming airflow, and the other edge parallel to outgoing airflow. On a sail, I can adjust the shape. On a steel wing, I can't much, so I make a shape which works across different angles of attack. All of the other mechanisms, you can gradually work in from there to get accurate models. Toss in air moving to the low-pressure area, and having momentum, and you get why helicopters are less efficient than planes, as well as vortex shedding. It all builds up. As a corollary, Bernoulli tells you where air moves faster, but that follows from lift. Not the other way around. At least in any model which fits the human brain.
- littlestymaar 3y ago
  > This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead in a factory may mean it is impractical. Or it make leach lead into the real world making it not safe to deploy. Lead is still routinely used in many applications today, either in metallic form, from ICE car batteries, to fishing or hunting gear, or as chemical compound in different kinds of glass. And the same can be said about other heavy metals like Cadmium or Mercury. Industries also routinely work with much more nasty things than lead, so it really doesn't sound like a show-stopper.
  - scythe 3y ago
    In particular, lead is still extremely common in radiation shielding, possibly because the drop in demand for other applications made it so cheap. Lead-lined drywall is the default approach for setting up a radiography, fluoroscopy or CT suite.
    - thayne 3y ago
      > possibly because the drop in demand for other applications made it so cheap Maybe a little bit. But I think it is more that it is a material with heavy atomic nuclei and high density, and thus effective at blocking radiation. And it is also relatively cheap.
      - scythe 3y ago
        Lead is absurdly cheap. One dollar a pound! Cheaper than much more common metals like aluminum or magnesium. So I diagnose a low demand. They used to talk about using barium cement but it just can't compete, price-wise.
        et2o 3y ago
        I believe that most of the lead used today is a by-product or co-product of mining other more valuable metals like Zinc and silver. Lead is quite abundant in the Earth's crust and found in easy to access deposits. I think >80% of the current industrial use of lead is for batteries. It's probably still in the top ten most mined metals by dollar value and definitely by mass.
- phyzome 3y ago
  Unfortunately, most companies seem to have little compunction about exposing workers, consumers, or the environment to toxic materials. The use of lead is not in any way a blocker, for better or worse.
  - OfferFun6595 3y ago
    It seems a 50/50 situation so long as the lead is able to get the products most companies don't seem to bother a lot about the risks of this exposure
- pzber 3y ago
  250 milliamps still sounds great for use in antennas.

bluGill 3y ago

That depends. If it super conducts, but it isn't useful in the real world, then we will be waiting for theory to - hopefully - give us some insight into how to improve things to useful. This only can carry a small amount of current. I'm not sure how to figure out what small means (numbers are given in the article if you know how to use them!), but if the losses using regular wire are less than the energy needed to make this stuff then it isn't useful. This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead in a factory may mean it is impractical. Or it make leach lead into the real world making it not safe to deploy. There are probably other ways this can turn into a "it works but isn't practical" thing that would force us to wait for theory (or luck!) to point to something better. What I wrote above is what I can think of in a couple minutes. Only time will tell though, I hope it works out.

reaperman 3y ago
> If it super conducts, but it isn't useful in the real world, then we will be waiting for theory to - hopefully - give us some insight into how to improve things to useful. This only can carry a small amount of current. Thank you for this. > This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead in a factory may mean it is impractical. Have you been to a hardware store lately? A huge amount of pipe fittings for gas and non-potable water are made from lead. Factories don’t find it hard to work with lead. It might be inadvisable but it’s not hard. We can argue about the "working safely" part, but in terms of "does this make it impractical?" the answer seems to be no under the current global regulatory environment.
- beepbopboopp 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Nah. We have a reasonable understanding of fluids. It's just that the two things we say as simple explanations (the plane pushes air downwards causing an equal and opposite reaction to push the plane up; faster flow on top of the wing "sucks the plane upwards") are both only partial truths. Sometimes you get arguments between partisans for each of these two simplified explanations, but really both are bogus.
    - didgeoridoo 3y ago
      I’ve never understood how this battle could possibly persist, considering that planes can fly upside-down. The fact that Bernoulli’s Principle creates a low-pressure zone on the top of the aerofoil just gives you laminar flow at higher angles of attack. It really isn’t that mysterious, unless you insist that only a single physical law is allowed to come into play.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        > I’ve never understood how this battle could possibly persist, considering that planes can fly upside-down. That's orthogonal. Planes flying upside down still have air flowing faster over the new "top" of the wing than the bottom. Though, a common misunderstanding is that air must be taking the same "time" to go over the top and the bottom. This is not true. You can build a pretty good mental model of flight with either simplified mechanism, but you end up underestimating performance by a fair bit.
        blagie 3y ago
        > You can build a pretty good mental model of flight with either simplified mechanism, but you end up underestimating performance by a fair bit. I've never hear of a good mental model built on Bernoulli's Principle. They are either: - Wrong - Give no intuition The key question is /why/ air moves faster on one side, and once you get away from the misconception of same time, I've never heard an intuitive argument. Redirecting air down: - makes complete sense - can be demonstrated by sticking your hand out the window of a car - works with flat airfoils (sails, kites, etc.), and explains those well too And the shape of the wing comes in from wanting the leading edge parallel to incoming airflow, and the other edge parallel to outgoing airflow. On a sail, I can adjust the shape. On a steel wing, I can't much, so I make a shape which works across different angles of attack. All of the other mechanisms, you can gradually work in from there to get accurate models. Toss in air moving to the low-pressure area, and having momentum, and you get why helicopters are less efficient than planes, as well as vortex shedding. It all builds up. As a corollary, Bernoulli tells you where air moves faster, but that follows from lift. Not the other way around. At least in any model which fits the human brain.
littlestymaar 3y ago
> This is made out of lead. Even if it is useful for transmission, the difficulty of working safely with lead in a factory may mean it is impractical. Or it make leach lead into the real world making it not safe to deploy. Lead is still routinely used in many applications today, either in metallic form, from ICE car batteries, to fishing or hunting gear, or as chemical compound in different kinds of glass. And the same can be said about other heavy metals like Cadmium or Mercury. Industries also routinely work with much more nasty things than lead, so it really doesn't sound like a show-stopper.
- scythe 3y ago
  In particular, lead is still extremely common in radiation shielding, possibly because the drop in demand for other applications made it so cheap. Lead-lined drywall is the default approach for setting up a radiography, fluoroscopy or CT suite.
  - thayne 3y ago
    > possibly because the drop in demand for other applications made it so cheap Maybe a little bit. But I think it is more that it is a material with heavy atomic nuclei and high density, and thus effective at blocking radiation. And it is also relatively cheap.
    - scythe 3y ago
      Lead is absurdly cheap. One dollar a pound! Cheaper than much more common metals like aluminum or magnesium. So I diagnose a low demand. They used to talk about using barium cement but it just can't compete, price-wise.
      - et2o 3y ago
        I believe that most of the lead used today is a by-product or co-product of mining other more valuable metals like Zinc and silver. Lead is quite abundant in the Earth's crust and found in easy to access deposits. I think >80% of the current industrial use of lead is for batteries. It's probably still in the top ten most mined metals by dollar value and definitely by mass.
phyzome 3y ago
Unfortunately, most companies seem to have little compunction about exposing workers, consumers, or the environment to toxic materials. The use of lead is not in any way a blocker, for better or worse.
- OfferFun6595 3y ago
  It seems a 50/50 situation so long as the lead is able to get the products most companies don't seem to bother a lot about the risks of this exposure
pzber 3y ago
250 milliamps still sounds great for use in antennas.