Translation: Fefe's blog Who has nice conspiracy links for me: off to felix-bloginput (at) fefe.de! Questions? Answer! See also: no alternative Wed Jul 26 20

Translation: Fefe's blog Who has nice conspiracy links for me: off to felix-bloginput (at) fefe.de! Questions? Answer! See also: no alternative Wed Jul 26 2023 [l] Letter to the Editor on the Superconductor Preprint Paper : I work in the field and we discussed the preprint a bit in the research group this morning. In short, we don't believe a word of it: Figures 1(a) and (c) are implausible. Usually something like this looks like this . Note the gradual increase at low currents, this effect is to be expected especially with magnetic fields. Fig. 1(d) cannot be correct either. At Tc ~ 400K the Meissner effect would displace a much stronger field than 10 Oe = 1 mT. This means that the distinction between FC (field cooled) and ZFC (zero-field cooled) shouldn't be that pronounced. It should look more like this . What the authors might mean is that they are outside the Meissner range, which can occur at higher magnetic fields (keyword: Type II superconductors). It looks like this . In this case, however, the temperature dependency does not agree at all with the critical currents of Figs. 1(a) and (c). Also, that ALL the values in Fig. 1(d) are negative is extremely unusual, but that could perhaps be argued with. The data set in Fig. 4(b) is also a treat. It is VERY unusual when the heat capacity decreases again at high temperatures. This can happen at low temperatures, but not at high temperatures. I am very familiar with the described experimental setup / the cryostat. There is no good reason why the authors did not measure at higher temperatures to show that the behavior is markedly different above Tc ~ 400K. For example, a temperature dependency of the resistance would have been absolutely necessary. In general, the paper is very poorly written. The data is under-discussed, the explanations are sparse, and the work cited is, shall we say, sparse. That doesn't exactly inspire confidence in what the authors measured and claim to have seen. My personal assumption is that the authors measured an insulator, so no current flowed and therefore no voltage occurred (4-point measurement). Then it looks like a superconductor. But if you then turn up the current (i.e. the applied voltage), breakdowns may occur and a current begins to flow. That would explain the sharp increase. You wouldn't believe how happy it is for me to always have an expert in the readership who can explain things to me on any complicated subject. In this case, greetings and thanks to the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research. well A pity. But unfortunately that's often the case. If it looks too good to be true, it probably isn't. whole month Proudly made without PHP, Java, Perl, MySQL and Postgre Imprint, data protection