Slashdot Log In
Nanoclusters Break Superconductivity Record
Posted by
kdawson
on Fri Apr 11, 2008 11:03 AM
from the room-temperature-in-siberia dept.
from the room-temperature-in-siberia dept.
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."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
still a little chilly (Score:4, Informative)
But still very exciting.
Re:still a little chilly (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re:still a little chilly (Score:4, Funny)
- RG>
Parent
Re:still a little chilly (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
combine this nanoscale aluminum (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Parent
in soviet russia even our electrons (Score:5, Funny)
oh never mind. the idea was Russian but the result was in the US
Dry Ice (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Dry Ice (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
What's a "strong" superconductor? (Score:5, Funny)
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? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re:What's a "strong" superconductor? (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Exact? (Score:5, Funny)
That is the number range for exact ?
Dis ain't that significant (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:GODDAMIT (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The reference says :
1) 'Aluminum' predominates only in the USA.
2) It's 'prefered' by the Canadian Oxford dictionary.
3)
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:GODDAMIT (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:GODDAMIT (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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:minus 73 ! (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Grain of salt (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Grain of salt (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: