10 ms·

Room Temperature Superconductivity Found in Graphite Grains

177 points by ZoFreX 14y ago

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
orangeduck 14y ago
If this becomes verified then it is very exciting - give me my hover board. Even if it is entirely impractical in use, the thought that a room temperature superconductor may exist in one form or other is just more evidence that little stops the march of science :)
- ZoFreX 14y ago
  Absolutely! I really liked that this article didn't over-hype it and made the limitations and caveats very clear. While it's extremely far from usable, if we know of even one instance where this phenomenon occurs, we can try to figure out why, and then replicate on a wider scale. Obviously it's not going to be in our living rooms anytime soon, but when we do crack this it's going to have a rather radical impact.
- Graham24 14y ago
  hover boards for all! that's what the future was _supposed_ to look like. next stop: jetpacs.
th0ma5 14y ago
One could do this at home right with a pencil, a small glass of water, and some time?
- 46Bit 14y ago
  The first issue you'll run into is that the graphite grains they are using "several tens of micrometers grain size graphite powder" [1]. It might not be straightforward to make that from a pencil, but you could buy the powder online. I've not read the full paper so there might be more significant barriers to trying this at home, but it looks plausible. Good luck! [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1.pdf (end of page 1)
eykanal 14y ago
This is an attention-grabbing headline, at best. As described in the article, the scientists found highly transient evidence of superconductive behavior in a tiny subset of graphite grains. While that is incredible, it's not the same as "room temperature superconductivity found!!!".
- ZoFreX 14y ago
  I think it is the same, if (and correct me if I'm wrong here) this is the first time we've observed room temperature superconductivity of any kind? It would mean that a hypothesized phenomenon has been confirmed as possible, and more importantly would mean we could start to understand the conditions under which it occurs and see if we can apply that to anything on a slightly larger scale.
  - jcfrei 14y ago
    The overall results indicate that room temperature superconductivity appears to be reachable The paper goes into more detail: The observed magnetic characteristics as a function of temperature, magnetic field and time, provide evidence for weakly coupled grains through Josephson interaction, revealing the existence of superconducting vortices. [0] My layman interpretation is that they've observed a property of superconduction, however their graphite flakes didn't demonstrate any actual superconductivity. [0] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.1938.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.1938.pdf
    - jpdoctor 14y ago
      1. Thanks for the arxiv link, (OP: it belongs at the top) 2. Magnetic characteristics of perfect diamagnetism are indeed "actual superconductivity." If there were some residual resistance, the magnetic field would not be completely expelled from that part of the material. Wikipedia's entry serves as a nice intro to diamagnetism, which is the underlying principle for the measurement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
      - 14y ago
joshuahedlund 14y ago
I'm gathering from the article and comments here and there that "room temperature superconductivity" would be an awesome breakthrough that would lead to lots of awesome things, but I'm not familiar with this sort of thing. Can you guys give some examples of why this would be so awesome?
- saulrh 14y ago
  One simple answer: lossless power transmission over long distance. A measurable percentage of our electrical generation is lost in powerlines or transformers without doing any useful work.
  - glhaynes 14y ago
    I would imagine this might also affect strategy regarding power plant placement.
    - fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
      Exactly, one of the big barriers to renewable energy now is that the sources of it, like areas with more wind or sunshine, are very far from the main consumers, like large east coast cities in the US. On a global scale, with no transmission loss, Egypt could use the Sahara to export solar energy to Japan.
  - thirdhaf 14y ago
    Zero loss is only true for DC transmission. It's true, loss is lower than copper at 50-60Hz AC but radiative losses don't magically disappear. You're also limited in how much current you can carry since superconductivity breaks down in sufficiently high magnetic fields. For all that room temperature superconductors are revolutionary because of the jump in power density in things like motors and yes power lines.
    - andrewflnr 14y ago
      But didn't we only use AC because it was more efficient? So we switch back, and turn it back into AC for our houses, until we can switch over completely.
greenmountin 14y ago
Doug Natelson at Nanoscale Views is a physicist who works with nano stuff, and I expected him to comment[1] on this. Basically he said it looks interesting but isn't really proof. Which fits with my viewpoint, where I discount anything reported in Technology Review or that starts with "MIT/Harvard Scientists". When it's real, it'll be in Nature. [1] http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/09/room-temperature-superconductivity.html http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/09/room-temperature-super...
- sp332 14y ago
  It was published in Advanced Materials, a peer-reviewed journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201202219/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201202219/ab... Here's the pre-print PDF http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1
  - shardling 14y ago
    Thanks for the article link; but in the future please consider linking to the main arxiv page[1], not a specific PDF. The direct link will become outdated if a new version of the paper is uploaded; also, the main page will contain a lot of useful data about the publication (citations/etc), will include the abstract in the page, and give a choice of what format you read it in. 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1938 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1938
  - nirvana 14y ago
    Hacker News is "peer reviewed", but that doesn't mean every top voted story is correct. I worked in a major lab in this exact area (high temperature superconductivity) and had papers published in much more prestigious journals, and getting published was often a question of politics more than science- if your results undermine a theory that one of your "peers" built his career on, you may not be getting published in that journal, no matter how scientifically correct. And back in those days things were a lot less political than they are now. Don't presume that "peer review" means anything. It really doesn't. It doesn't mean the peers have reproduced the results, and it doesn't mean the peers are even up to speed specifically enough to be able to authoritatively say the results are correct. It is about as equivalent as the fact-checkers at the New York Times, and you know how often they print retractions. At the time, quality was slipping too and it was getting more political. I'm skeptical about this claim, but it has been awhile since I worked in that area, so I won't say either way. But don't take "peer review" as meaning anything significant. It's like saying Obama is telling the truth because democratic "truth squads" blessed his opinion.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

177 points by ZoFreX 14y ago

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

If this becomes verified then it is very exciting - give me my hover board. Even if it is entirely impractical in use, the thought that a room temperature superconductor may exist in one form or other is just more evidence that little stops the march of science :)

ZoFreX 14y ago
Absolutely! I really liked that this article didn't over-hype it and made the limitations and caveats very clear. While it's extremely far from usable, if we know of even one instance where this phenomenon occurs, we can try to figure out why, and then replicate on a wider scale. Obviously it's not going to be in our living rooms anytime soon, but when we do crack this it's going to have a rather radical impact.
Graham24 14y ago
hover boards for all! that's what the future was _supposed_ to look like. next stop: jetpacs.

th0ma5 14y ago

One could do this at home right with a pencil, a small glass of water, and some time?

46Bit 14y ago
The first issue you'll run into is that the graphite grains they are using "several tens of micrometers grain size graphite powder" [1]. It might not be straightforward to make that from a pencil, but you could buy the powder online. I've not read the full paper so there might be more significant barriers to trying this at home, but it looks plausible. Good luck! [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1.pdf http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1.pdf (end of page 1)

eykanal 14y ago

This is an attention-grabbing headline, at best. As described in the article, the scientists found highly transient evidence of superconductive behavior in a tiny subset of graphite grains. While that is incredible, it's not the same as "room temperature superconductivity found!!!".

ZoFreX 14y ago
I think it is the same, if (and correct me if I'm wrong here) this is the first time we've observed room temperature superconductivity of any kind? It would mean that a hypothesized phenomenon has been confirmed as possible, and more importantly would mean we could start to understand the conditions under which it occurs and see if we can apply that to anything on a slightly larger scale.
- jcfrei 14y ago
  The overall results indicate that room temperature superconductivity appears to be reachable The paper goes into more detail: The observed magnetic characteristics as a function of temperature, magnetic field and time, provide evidence for weakly coupled grains through Josephson interaction, revealing the existence of superconducting vortices. [0] My layman interpretation is that they've observed a property of superconduction, however their graphite flakes didn't demonstrate any actual superconductivity. [0] http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.1938.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1209/1209.1938.pdf
  - jpdoctor 14y ago
    1. Thanks for the arxiv link, (OP: it belongs at the top) 2. Magnetic characteristics of perfect diamagnetism are indeed "actual superconductivity." If there were some residual resistance, the magnetic field would not be completely expelled from that part of the material. Wikipedia's entry serves as a nice intro to diamagnetism, which is the underlying principle for the measurement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamagnetism
    - 14y ago

joshuahedlund 14y ago

I'm gathering from the article and comments here and there that "room temperature superconductivity" would be an awesome breakthrough that would lead to lots of awesome things, but I'm not familiar with this sort of thing. Can you guys give some examples of why this would be so awesome?

saulrh 14y ago
One simple answer: lossless power transmission over long distance. A measurable percentage of our electrical generation is lost in powerlines or transformers without doing any useful work.
- glhaynes 14y ago
  I would imagine this might also affect strategy regarding power plant placement.
  - fghh45sdfhr3 14y ago
    Exactly, one of the big barriers to renewable energy now is that the sources of it, like areas with more wind or sunshine, are very far from the main consumers, like large east coast cities in the US. On a global scale, with no transmission loss, Egypt could use the Sahara to export solar energy to Japan.
- thirdhaf 14y ago
  Zero loss is only true for DC transmission. It's true, loss is lower than copper at 50-60Hz AC but radiative losses don't magically disappear. You're also limited in how much current you can carry since superconductivity breaks down in sufficiently high magnetic fields. For all that room temperature superconductors are revolutionary because of the jump in power density in things like motors and yes power lines.
  - andrewflnr 14y ago
    But didn't we only use AC because it was more efficient? So we switch back, and turn it back into AC for our houses, until we can switch over completely.

greenmountin 14y ago

Doug Natelson at Nanoscale Views is a physicist who works with nano stuff, and I expected him to comment[1] on this. Basically he said it looks interesting but isn't really proof. Which fits with my viewpoint, where I discount anything reported in Technology Review or that starts with "MIT/Harvard Scientists". When it's real, it'll be in Nature. [1] http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/09/room-temperature-superconductivity.html http://nanoscale.blogspot.com/2012/09/room-temperature-super...

sp332 14y ago
It was published in Advanced Materials, a peer-reviewed journal. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201202219/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/adma.201202219/ab... Here's the pre-print PDF http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1 http://arxiv.org/pdf/1209.1938v1
- shardling 14y ago
  Thanks for the article link; but in the future please consider linking to the main arxiv page[1], not a specific PDF. The direct link will become outdated if a new version of the paper is uploaded; also, the main page will contain a lot of useful data about the publication (citations/etc), will include the abstract in the page, and give a choice of what format you read it in. 1. http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1938 http://arxiv.org/abs/1209.1938
- nirvana 14y ago
  Hacker News is "peer reviewed", but that doesn't mean every top voted story is correct. I worked in a major lab in this exact area (high temperature superconductivity) and had papers published in much more prestigious journals, and getting published was often a question of politics more than science- if your results undermine a theory that one of your "peers" built his career on, you may not be getting published in that journal, no matter how scientifically correct. And back in those days things were a lot less political than they are now. Don't presume that "peer review" means anything. It really doesn't. It doesn't mean the peers have reproduced the results, and it doesn't mean the peers are even up to speed specifically enough to be able to authoritatively say the results are correct. It is about as equivalent as the fact-checkers at the New York Times, and you know how often they print retractions. At the time, quality was slipping too and it was getting more political. I'm skeptical about this claim, but it has been awhile since I worked in that area, so I won't say either way. But don't take "peer review" as meaning anything significant. It's like saying Obama is telling the truth because democratic "truth squads" blessed his opinion.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]