Talk:Room-temperature superconductor

message: I can't really see this page blossoming into anything more substantial anytime soon... - Furrykef 04:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree: This article may be short, but it's about as comprehensive as it needs to be. I'm removing the stub tag. O. Prytz 21:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blossoming 

message: The data on the website superconductors.org are highly spurious and supposed superconducting transitions are willfully misinterpreted. The 'transitions' are almost indistinguishable from the background noise. The fact that the experimenter has never had his work published in a peer-review journal is testament to the fact that these materials are NOT superconducting at the temperature at which he claims. If they were, he would be a very wealthy and/or famous man!  References to this work should be regarded as suspect, until these materials have been independenly verified as superconductors.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.42.51 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Supercondutor.org posts claims, not findings, so there is no dishonesty. It's very clear, at least for me As for peer reviewing, there wasn't simply time to verify them, since the author of the site is told about claims directly from the source. It's akin to collecting pre prints in arxiv.org and telling everyone. So, what he does, is an invitation to peer review. If he were really bold, he would post evidence of superconductivity between 600k(!) and 1200K(!!) of one of his inteviews http://www.superconductors.org/roomnano.htm.  Such evidences were actualy peer reviewed and at Physcial Review B http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Review_B , http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/gzhao2/Daniel de França (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims for 200 K + 

message: i am aware of at least one company which has a working prototype of a Room-Temperature Superconductor, however, strangely enough, they have not been able to get much funding.  This does not mean such a thing does not exist and will not soon.  Most people just don't care about this sort of thing.  It doesn't really help much when everyone in the field says "It's not possible and won't be anytime soon."  I suppose wikipedia doesn't have a decent article on this because most of those guys are out there desperately trying to find venture capital funds and doing research, and don't have time to waste writing Wikipedia articles.  I know, i asked one of them.
Oh, and no, i can't tell you who or how, because the technology has not yet been patented (to avoid the patent expiring before they get a chance to do anything with it).  but still...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.243.14 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No Original Research; Wikipedia articles need to be based on things that have been published elsewhere, preferably in a reliable publication. In addition, people with trade secrets probably should not write them into Wikipedia articles, as that will compromise their secret status. Finally, the claim that people just don't care is somewhat contradicted by the High-temperature superconductivity article, which notes over 100,000 published papers on the subject. --Sabik (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please keep us updated if you know anything more about those supposedly room-temperature superconductors or how it went. Did the patents go through? —Kri (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  if someone with the proper expertise could be directed to this page... 

message: From www.superconductors.org:
InSnBa4Tm4Cu6O18+ (As a 1234/1212 intergrowth.)............~150K
Not sure if that is a serious claim or not, but may supersede the 138K for (Hg0.8Tl0.2)Ba2Ca2Cu3O8.33.
Regards!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.138.90 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  150K 

message: Founded in a material physics for engineers (William Jr Callister) :
the HgBa2Ca2Cu2O8 has a 153K critical temperature.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.88.62 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  153K 

message: Yes, the title of the referenced EEtimes article says "Silicon compound superconducts at room temperature", but the Science article seems to indicate that the measured temperatures where Silane becomes superconducting are between 5 and 20 K for pressures between 50 and 200 GPa. Upon close reading of the EEtimes article, maybe it isn't even claimed that a room-temperature superconductor has been constructed, just that silane still is a candidate for one. Should the section on silane be removed? The original Science article states: 
Electrical resistance measurements (Fig. 2A) showed that the sample resistance at room temperature dropped sharply, indicating the transformation to a metal (19). On cooling, a typical metallic behavior of the resistance was observed and eventually becoming superconducting (SC) at Tc ≈ 7 K (Fig. 2B). 
To me, that seems to indicate that it is not a room-temperature superconductor, but a room-temperature metal.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by RickardHolmberg (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article; at 96GPa it has a Tc of 17.5K and 17K at 110GPa, and these are both sides of an upwards trend, indicating that the superconducting transition temperature may be higher in the intermediate region, however the authors give NO indication that this temperature could even approach record temperatures of 130+ K let alone room temperature. Its a remarkable experiment, but is not room temperature by more than an order of magnitude. [Signed Andrew Princep, casual reader and physics grad student, Curtin University of Technology, Australia]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.222.90 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Silane as superconductor 

message: A team of scientists at the University Of Alaska recently discovered a room-temperature superconductor. 86.21.227.237 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old joke 

message: Should the room temperature superconductor in the film Avatar get mentioned?
I think it should, because the way it was portrayed in the film was certainly unique (the Hallelujah mountains, which float. either the superconductor is in the mountains, and is floating in a magnetic field, or there is magnetic material in the mountains floating above the superconductor)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt The Tuba Guy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of unobtainium in avatar being a superconductor that's just speculation. 114.76.213.189 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Special Edition it actually is.... But wait!!!! Why are we talking about a science FICTION movie in a Wikipedia non-fiction science article discussion??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.86.97 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "mountains" couldn't exist. They would have eroded away.173.60.95.232 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unobtanium 

message: It would be nice to see a section in this article discussing what finding a room-temperature superconductor would enable us to do.  Right now, the article says the "potential benefits for society and science if such a material did exist are profound", but does not elaborate.  —Pie4all88 T C 13:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Is an encyclopedia the place for imaginative speculation?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.76.155 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications 

message: http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in/  72.128.212.251 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  new room temperature superconductor - graphite and water 

message: I have removed self-published findings, as this clearly contraindicates long-standing wikipedia policy against original research. One of the citations is not even a publication by Prins, but rather a notice by someone else that he has commented upon. 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing self-published findings 

message: I found the 2015 report on High-temperature_superconductivity, so it apparently is confirmed. Remove it here? Or link? 81.14.170.194 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 2015 report? 

message: The sentence starting with "Further support for anomalous spin states is found in" seems partly incomprehensible.
--Mortense (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Partly incomprehensible sentence 

message: Hi, seems that actinide hydrides are generating interesting results.
The latest one seems to be ThH10 under GPa pressure, that superconducts at 161K
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-11/miop-tss110719.php
the problem here is pressure. I suspect that hydrides though interesting will not work at
any sensible pressure ie tens or hundreds of kPa without the Tc dropping like a stone.
Pressure seems to stabilize the hydrogen in a quasi-metallic state so making it work at
room temperature OR ambient pressure but not both at the same time.
There still may be hope of a metal-actinide-hydride but again its unlikely.
On the flip side experiment and theory seem to agree, in that the properties of a simulated
material agree within 10% to experimental results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.35.83.107 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  ThH10 

message: Reference 21 discusses how how 3/2 electron spins could lead to new mechanisms for superconductivity, but other than that oblique reference, nothing in the final 2 paragraphs of the "Reports" section is supported by any references. I suspect it may be original research or a copy and paste from a source not referenced.  Appropriate citations should be provided or the paragraphs deleted. 
"Further support for anomalous 3/2 spin states is found in[21][clarification needed] though YPtBi is a relatively low temperature material it does suggest proof of concept. It has also recently been discovered that many superconductors including the cuprates and iron pnictides have two or more competing mechanisms fighting for dominance ie Charge density wave[citation needed] and excitonic states so, as with organic light emitting diodes and other quantum systems adding the right spin catalyst may by itself increase Tc: a possible candidate would be iridium or gold IrAu placed in some of the adjacent molecules or as a thin surface layer so the correct mechanism then propagates throughout the entire lattice similar to a phase transition. As yet this is speculative however some efforts have been made notably adding Pb to BSCCO which is well known to help promote high Tc phases by chemistry alone though relativistic effects similar to those found in lead-acid batteries might be responsible suggesting that a similar mechanism in Hg or Tl based cuprates may be possible using a related metal ie tin (Sn).
Any such catalyst would need to be nonreactive chemically but have properties that affect one mechanism but not the others, and also not interfere with subsequent annealing and oxygenation steps nor change the lattice resonances excessively. A possible workaround for the issues discussed would be to use strong electrostatic fields to hold the molecules in place during one of the steps until the lattice is formed.
Bgovern (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems/Original Research  in the last 2 Paragraphs of "Reports" 

message: Feels like in the last few years, the latest and greatest item has just been prepended to the lede, without moving older items out to the "reports" section. I'm having a bash at that now. DewiMorgan (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup of the lede 

message: Hi, it looks like this material is genuine but need to come up with a coherent theory
that explains the anomalous re-entrant behavior and lack of a clear Meissner effect
in the test sample.
Now hooking it up to an XRD rig of my own design based on firmware modified IO dental sensors though it will also work using the GM tube array method.
Hopefully this will once and for all prove priority.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.137.12 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, WP:original research is not accepted as a source for Wikipedia articles.  Even if your research is published in a refereed scientific journal, WP:primary sources like research papers are not enough to support Wikipedia content.  WP:Secondary sources like survey papers or books are required. --ChetvornoTALK 09:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

text: I've had preprint papers kicked out as references from articles I created for various reasons, including that they were published on the medical counterpart medRxiv . - Bri.public (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patent search 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_temperature 66.175.171.109 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of "room temperature" apparently being changed 

message: A perforated graphene wetted with aliphatic hydrocarbon is claimed to be a superconductor up to 150°C. based on . I don't think it is well enough confirmed to work, but noting it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Perforated graphene

message: Hi, there are rumblings on some science pages of a new superconductor that exhibits properties similar to earlier discussions. Essentially the material rather than pairing up electrons arranges for electrons and holes to pair as a double Cooper pair quasi-particle of sorts at a much higher temperature than normal (301K) due to spin-antispin coupling when the material is of monoisotopic composition.
It appears that it works because one of the quenching mechanisms for Cooper pairs in cuprates is excess lattice vibration (Type II) tearing apart the electron pairs and the cited mechanism is less temperature sensitive than theory alone would predict as well as being less vulnerable to ferrous and other contamination.
It may also link in with organic polymers and research with OLEDs tentatively suggests that random bursts of HTSC may cause non radiative recombination that stops otherwise promising compounds from working properly.
OLEDs also use a variety of mechanisms to prevent NRR and the structure can be incredibly complex as a result.
Variations on this theme include materials with a window re-entrant effect and these may have been the catalyst for the most recent discoveries. 91.190.161.160 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New potential "Type III" superconductor