Nanoclusters Break Superconductivity Record

KentuckyFC writes "A couple of years ago, two Russian physicists predicted that metal nanoclusters with exactly the right number of delocalized electrons (a few hundred or so) could become strong superconductors. Now an American group has found the first evidence that this prediction is correct in individual aluminium nanoclusters containing 45 or 47 atoms. And they found it at 200 K (abstract). That's a huge jump over the previous record of 138K for a high-temperature superconductor. There are a few caveats, however. The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm. And 200K! That's practically room temperature in the Siberian winter."

still a little chilly

[HawkinsD (267367)]

Maybe not room temperature, even in Siberia: by my advanced calculations, 200 K = minus 100 F (or -73 C).

But still very exciting.

Re:still a little chilly

[Colonel Sponsz (768423)]

Maybe not room temperature, even in Siberia

O RLY? ;)

But yes, if this actually works in practice it's indeed exciting - while a room temperature superconductor is the Holy Grail of materials science, a 200 K superconductor is a great leap forward. A critical temperature of 200 K would make it possible to cool it with ordinary dry ice (CO2 sublimates at around 195 K) instead of LN2, which is much more expensive and difficult to handle.

Re:

[Firethorn (177587)]

Of course LN2, being a liquid, is easier to pump around than the solid dry ice. Both have the beneficial properties of being non-explosive, though you have to be careful to ensure sufficient ventilation, especially if you're dealing with large amounts of it.

I wonder if 200k is reachable using some sort of heat pump system using a thin oil(so it remains liquid) as a medium?

Re:still a little chilly

[RealGrouchy (943109)]

Now if they can make a superconductor at 640K, that should be enough for anybody!

- RG>

Re:still a little chilly

[locofungus (179280)]

The definition of the kelvin scale is 0K is absolute zero and 273.16K is the triple point of water. These two points are by definition.

Now the triple point of water is 0.01C

Hence the melting point of ice is 273.15K

Note, therefore, that a change of 1K only equals a change of 1C to the limit of experimental error.

Tim.

Re:

[Amouth (879122)]

ok.. so i was taught wrong

Re:

[marcansoft (727665)]

No, a change of 1C is exactly a change of 1K because they're defined that way. Which means that the melting point of ice is only approximately 0 C, or 273.15K, and that the boiling point of water is approximately 373.1339 K or 99.9839 C.

Re:

[stjobe (78285)]

0 Kelvin = -273.15 Celsius http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelvin [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[polar red (215081)]

no, (s)he is right, 0K = -273.15C (altough I think that's still a rounded number)
0K = absolute lowest temperature possible.
0C = freezing temp of water at 1 atmospheric pressure.

Re:

[locofungus (179280)]

0 degrees C is defined as 273.15 degrees K (exactly).

No. The triple point of water is defined to be 273.16K

(Which is what the page you've linked to says now I look at it!)

The triple point of water is at 0.01C to the limits of experiment. Hence 0C = 273.15K to the limits of experiment.

(Note that a change of 1K only equals a change of 1C to the limits of experiment. They are not required to be the same. One is 1/273.16 of the temperature difference between absolute zero and the triple point of water, the oth

Re:

[locofungus (179280)]

(Note that a change of 1K only equals a change of 1C to the limits of experiment. They are not required to be the same. One is 1/273.16 of the temperature difference between absolute zero and the triple point of water, the other 1/100 of the temperature difference between melting ice and boiling water.)

Actually that's wrong.

Reading further 1 degree Celcius is defined to be identical to 1 degree centigrade and the triple point of water is defined to be 0.01C. So it's actually the melting point and boiling po

combine this nanoscale aluminum

[circletimessquare (444983)]

with my desktop cold fusion apparatus, and i can power los angeles from my basement!

seriously, i hope this pans out. this is earthshattering. if they can successfully scale the production process, combined with its functionality with cheap and nontoxic aluminum, then cheap room temperature superconduction in the general public will occur in our lifetimes, with all of the neergy saving and future device classes that this breakthrough implies

It's cool, but NOT because of superconductivity

[FuzzyDaddy (584528)]

This looks like a great piece of work, particularly on the theoretical side.

However, it's really unclear if it's possible to make a BULK superconductor out of this. The effect depends on a nanocluster having the correct number of atoms. Once you put two together you have - a nanocluster with the wrong number of atoms. Which is to say, a little piece of aluminum. Perhaps you could have a bunch of cluster that were separated enough to be weakly coupled so you could maintain the superconducting state, but allow current flow. But there's a whole lot of "ifs" between here and there.

What I find exciting about this is the ability to theoretically predict the properties of nanoclusters (to say nothing of fabricating and measuring them.) Understanding nanoclusters is a step in the direction of engineering bulk materials from first principles with the characteristics you need. You know how much time and effort went into discovering Halfnium as a component for a dielectric in transistor fabrication? Imagine if that could have been discovered by running a supercomputer for a while until it found the compound with the desired properties. THAT is where this will ultimately go.

mod parent up

[circletimessquare (444983)]

mod parent up

in soviet russia even our electrons

[museumpeace (735109)]

put up no resistance...

oh never mind. the idea was Russian but the result was in the US

Re:

[aiwarrior (1030802)]

In Soviet Russia electrons displace metal Clusters to create superconducting Iron Curtains.

Sincerely Yours
Karma Whore

Dry Ice

[BlueParrot (965239)]

Carbon dioxide ( or dry-ice ) is bellow 195K at standard pressure, so this material wouldn't even need liquid nitrogen for cooling. If this can be made to scale it would without doubt give countless of applications.

Re:Dry Ice

[imsabbel (611519)]

Not everything larry niven wrote in ringworld is literal truth....

Re:

[pragma_x (644215)]

Interesting thought - the increased surface area of the inside of the tube would allow for a higher cooling capacity for a given volume of coolant. However, you're talking about a *LOT* of coolant for transmission lines. The system supplying it would have to be something on par with what is used for city water. Insulating that mess is another problem. And then, how do you exchange the heat out, install heat sinks on the towers perhaps?

There's also the concern of what is an acceptable failure mode is for

What's a "strong" superconductor?

[Rogerborg (306625)]

Isn't that like a "strong" Superman?

What would that make a "weak" superconductor? A conductor?

Yours sincerely,
- Puzzled, Intartubes.

Re:What's a "strong" superconductor?

[TheLink (130905)]

Not sure. I'm no expert but I believe that many higher temperature superconductors lose their superconductivity if exposed to strong magnetic fields. You could say these are weak superconductors in a way.

Whereas the "conventional" liquid helium superconductors can retain their superconductivity in very strong magnetic fields.

Being able to "tolerate" strong magnetic fields is very useful if you actually are intending to use the superconductors in many interesting applications - like MRI scanning devices, or maglev stuff and so on.

Re:What's a "strong" superconductor?

[ParanoidJanitor (959839)]

There is a limit to how much current superconductors can carry before they become non-superconducting (depends on the material and the cross-section of the specific chunk of material.) A strong superconductor will be able to carry more electrons while remaining in the superconducting phase.

Size matters

[PIPBoy3000 (619296)]

It looks like the size of this is pretty darn small (Figure 1 shows plots of heat capacities determined for aluminum cluster anions with 43-48 atoms for temperatures below room temperature. At that size, it's not particularly useful except when creating tiny electronics. I'm not sure you can string together these tiny atom clusters and get the same effect. Sadly that means we can't send power across the country without significant energy loss.

200K

[sm62704 (957197)]

That's -73.15 celcius, or -99.67 Fahrenheit. 294.3 Kelvin would be a very comfortable temperature for superconductivity, I wonder if I'll see it in my lifetime?

Coldest Temperature (North America): [islandnet.com] -81.4 oF/-63 oC, Snag, Yukon, Canada, February 3, 1947

Re:

[jandrese (485)]

With the way the science has been going, I wouldn't be surprised to see room temperature (300k) superconductors in my lifetime. Practical use may take longer, but thus far the field has been quite exciting.

Re:

[Yvanhoe (564877)]

With the way the science has been going, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 400K room temperature in my lifetime. Bah, to be fair, I also expect my lifetime to exceed 300...

Exact?

[TimothyDavis (1124707)]

A couple of years ago, two Russian physicists predicted that metal nanoclusters with exactly the right number of delocalized electrons (a few hundred or so) could become strong superconductors.

That is the number range for exact ?

Grain of salt

[SirGarlon (845873)]

The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.

Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.

Re:

[by Anonymous Coward]

The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.

Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.

It's called arxiv and it's a beautiful thing.

Re:Grain of salt

[tepples (727027)]

The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.

Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.

The article "Preprint" on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] appears to disagree with your assessment.

Re:Grain of salt

[PhysicsPhil (880677)]

Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.

It is common practice in many scientific disciplines to publish a preprint of work before it is submitted for publication. This has the advantage of rapidly disseminating advances to the scientific community and to the world at large, since it's a public server. In the case of work in competitive fields, posting a preprint helps establish priority in who did what first.

Because it's not peer reviewed and the preprint server is open to all, preprints must be taken with a grain of salt. Their value depends largely on the author's reputation within the scientific community. If the person who published this work is known to have produced good work in the past and/or works with those who have produced reliable work, the report within the preprint is generally taken at face value.

Re:

[Trintech (1137007)]

The result is only partial evidence of superconductivity and the work has yet to be peer-reviewed. But its mere publication will set scientists scrambling to confirm.

Why the hell did they publish before peer review? That ain't how science is supposed to work.

Please read this [wikipedia.org] or at least the following excerpt:

In academic publishing, a paper is an academic work that is usually published in an academic journal. It contains original research results or reviews existing results. Such a paper, also called an article, will only be considered valid if it undergoes a process of peer review by one or more referees (who are academics in the same field) in order to check that the content of the paper is suitable for publication in the journal. A paper may undergo a series of reviews, edits and re-submissions before finally being accepted or rejected for publication. This process typically takes several months. Next there is often a delay of many months (or in some subjects, over a year) before publication, particularly for the most popular journals where the number of acceptable articles outnumbers the space for printing. Due to this, many academics offer a 'pre-print' copy of their paper for free download from their personal or institutional website.

Re:

[SirGarlon (845873)]

3) science works the way the peer community thinks it should -that is science-. And right now the community accepts this behavior.

I subscribe to Richard Feynman's idea of scientific integrity [lhup.edu], which I suppose is why I don't fit into the "peer community."

Quoth Feynman:

It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think

Dis ain't that significant

[Ancient_Hacker (751168)]

It's a big jump from superconductivity in 45 or 47 atoms and usable superconductivity.

For instance, a usable superconductor has to be able to tolerate a strong magnetic field, i.e. substantial current. Plenty of alloys are superconducting but cannot carry much current.

And very basic: temperature is a very hazy concept when applied to a small cluster of atoms. What's the acceptable range of energies? Very significant.

Almost room temperature...

[divisionbyzero (300681)]

on Mars!

200K is not that cold

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

.."is" 200k in Soviet Russia... in the summertime! aaa ha ha ha!

(note: this is the variant of the ISR joke where you insert something and then "is this something in soviet russia... in the summertime! AAA HA HA HA)

Re:GODDAMIT

[fructose (948996)]

Not everyone lives in a "-ium" country. And IUAPC swings both ways [wikipedia.org]. Get used to it.

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

Heh. You linked to:

Aluminium
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Aluminum redirects here.

Re:

[dwater (72834)]

Not how I read it.

The reference says :

1) 'Aluminum' predominates only in the USA.
2) It's 'prefered' by the Canadian Oxford dictionary.
3) ...and everywhere else uses 'Aluminium' or analogies thereof.
4) The IUAPC recognises 'Aluminum' only as a 'varient'.

wrt 4) - that's not what I call 'swings both ways'.

More like "I'm distinctly heterosexual, but someone showed me a picture of a naked man once. I threw up, but I did see it".

Re:GODDAMIT

[EricR86 (1144023)]

If you prefer the slang version it's "GODDAMMIT" or "GODDAMNIT", there's no entry for your "GODDAMIT" in urban dictionary. Or if you wish to be proper, there's always "God damn it". Get used to it :).

Re:

[Waffle Iron (339739)]

Why the hell would you want to pronounce that highly awkward, useless and redundant fifth syllable? We've spent centuries over here cleaning up the English language by expunging extraneous letters and normalizing spelling to match pronunciation. Much has been accomplished, but more needs to be done. Get with the program.

Re:

[Idiomatick (976696)]

wuh-hi the hel wood u wont to pro-noun-se that hi-li ok-werd, u-se-les and ri-dun-dant fifth sil-a-bul?

Yeahhhh because English really cleaned up its spelling didn't it? If it were a concerted effort to clean up strange spellings you wouldn't have gone after the letter u and ium words before taking on 'knife'. The reason america is wrong isn't because of how it is supposed to be spelled (from a pronunciation point of view). It is because the rest of the world spells it differently. Its like using in

Re:

[peragrin (659227)]

you do realize the british use miles right? In the UK you get both meteric and English imperial units. Some things are commonly done in one other's are commonly done in the other.

Re:

[dwater (72834)]

Right.

I have no objection with the American's changing the spelling to make more 'sense' - for some definition of 'sense'; but, lets face it, they completely cocked it up.

I mean, at least be thorough. Why not get rid of all silent letters for a start?

Planearium

[Jhan (542783)]

It's "aluminium". Get used to it.

I'm sorry, but I have a speech defect [mrtwig.net] which prohibts me from intong the second "i" in any one word.

Re:GODDAMIT

[philspear (1142299)]

You know, if it weren't for us and our aluminum, you'd be talking about "das aluminium" right now.

Re:GODDAMIT

[dwater (72834)]

(in a deep Northern Brittish Accent)

you mean Scottish?

Re:minus 73 !

[somersault (912633)]

Haven't you heard? Global warming means that the north pole is already booked for rainforest plantation next year. Though superconducting maglev rides do sound fun..

Re:

[somersault (912633)]

Mods on crack.. yada yada..

Re:

[Rei (128717)]

Well, it's sure trying to get to that point. [bbc.co.uk] Looks like another big melt this summer, perhaps even another record-setter despite the cooling from last year's strong La Nina. :P