Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

New Superconductor World Record Surpasses 250K 271

myrrdyn writes to tell us that a new superconductivity record high of 254 Kelvin (-19C, -2F) has been recorded. According to the article this is the first time a superconductive state has been observed at a temperature comparable to a household freezer. "This achievement was accomplished by combining two previously successful structure types: the upper part of a 9212/2212C and the lower part of a 1223. The chemical elements remain the same as those used in the 242K material announced in May 2009. The host compound has the formula (Tl4Ba)Ba2Ca2Cu7Oy and is believed to attain 254K superconductivity when a 9223 structure forms"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Superconductor World Record Surpasses 250K

Comments Filter:
  • by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) * on Monday October 12, 2009 @05:40PM (#29724807) Journal
    If you have some time to read, I'll explain my vision for the future: If we put solar panels across the desert, we'll need to have a transmission line to get it to places where people live. I reason that a super conductive line would do the trick. It is costly in terms of energy to cool the lines, but if you have an excess of energy to begin with, it could actually cost less than the loss of power you get in copper lines. Basically you just leech off the super conductive line for cooling.

    The demand for energy will only increase with time regardless of conservation efforts, and this isn't a bad thing. The more energy we have, the cheaper transportation and food is which in turn lets people have more money for charity to help people who need food. So creating a surplus of energy soon could have worldwide benefits instead of just keeping up with demand.

    I have a second vision that goes along with solar in the desert and superconductivity lines. It is tidal/solar near the coast, to fuel up hydrogen tanker trucks. These hydrogen tanker trucks could run on hydrogen themselves and take the energy inland. In the same processing plant that creates the hydrogen from electricity, they could also produce clean water for countries that need that as a critical resource.

    Both of these visions takes a little bit of technological advancement, but not too much from what we have. My key question would be: Would this new superconductor be possible to mass produce, and could it be used as a new transmission line?
  • I too have a vision. It involves electricity becoming mondo-expensive and people switching to energy saving devices en-masse. Governments around the world turning to nuclear, and where convenient, hydro and air power, not because they have low carbon emissions (that's only a plus), but because they are actually cheaper! People finally turning away from 1800's oil and coal based technologies and moving, triumphantly towards 1950's engineering solutions!!

  • Re:Not likely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dch24 ( 904899 ) on Monday October 12, 2009 @05:53PM (#29724965) Journal
    It is very much like other high performance thallium-cuprates. This is my favorite quote from TFA: "we are near the upper limit of cuprate superconductivity postulated by V. Kresin, et al, in 1997."
  • Re:Not likely (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2009 @05:57PM (#29725033)
    My favorite quote from TFA is, "This discovery is being released into the public domain without patent protection in order to encourage additional research."
  • by joelholdsworth ( 1095165 ) on Monday October 12, 2009 @06:04PM (#29725111)
    ...makes you think, doesn't it?
  • by Bender_ ( 179208 ) on Monday October 12, 2009 @06:11PM (#29725201) Journal

    Actually you don't need superconductors for this. High-voltage direct current [wikipedia.org] transmission lines are very well capable of delivering electricity with high efficiency across long distance without superconductors. Existing projects, like the Quebec-New Englad transmission line [abb.com] are capable of carrying >2GW of electrical energy over distances of >1100km. This is far more than even the largest photovoltaic power plant can generate today.

  • What? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Monday October 12, 2009 @06:14PM (#29725227) Journal

    This achievement was accomplished by combining two previously successful structure types: the upper part of a 9212/2212C and the lower part of a 1223. The chemical elements remain the same as those used in the 242K material announced in May 2009. The host compound has the formula (Tl4Ba)Ba2Ca2Cu7Oy and is believed to attain 254K superconductivity when a 9223 structure forms

    Ok. I now physics and chemistry. But WHAT? Those numbers make no sense, and is about the most useless quote ever quoted on slashdot. And that's saying something.

  • by MoxFulder ( 159829 ) on Monday October 12, 2009 @07:21PM (#29726049) Homepage

    Yeah, he may be a crackpot. But even if the data presented are 100% accurate, it's not really clear that the phenomena he observes constitute superconductivity.

    The first chart (labeled "4-point resistance test") seems to show a slight but noticeable jump in resistivity at 254 K. Okay... why is the jump so small? High-temperature superconductors generally have /some/ measurable resistivity just below their transition temperature, but this appears to be much greater than that.

    The Magnetization Test graph is totally unclear. The y-axis shows only relative values and no data is showed *below* the supposed transition temperature. I'm not entirely clear on what he's claiming to measure here. The Meissner Effect? The disruption of superconductivity in a strong field?

    So, even if these measurements are correct, it's not clear at all to me that they demonstrate superconductivity.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 12, 2009 @07:45PM (#29726297)

    Perhaps you mean independent verification like http://www.superconductors.org/SDARTICL.pdf of one of his earlier materials, http://www.superconductors.org/ULTRA358.htm

    The scientific method demands you share results with others. It does not require you operate on the beaten path.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @09:26AM (#29730969)

    It's ironic the ones against nuclear energy are environmentalists (because "it's polluting and can create atomic bombs, somehow") and politicians (because "it's too expensive, and my successor will be the one cheered for building it"). Or maybe it's sad, seeing how deluded, greedy, those people are.

  • by WinPimp2K ( 301497 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @11:04AM (#29732129)

    Well, when Ike visited houston a while back, it took over two weeks to restore power, and that involved bringing in additional power line crews from 2000km away. The problem was not just downed power lines, a lot of transformers had to be replaced as well. And while linemen from Ohio were in Houston, Ohio wound up having some serious electirical problems as well (more fallout from Ike I believe) - which of course were harder to fix because so many of the personnel and materials that would normally be restoring the power in Ohio were down in Texas.

    So, a determined an intelligently planned series of attacks on the power grid in geographically separated areas could take a lot longer to recover from - especially when the long lead spares for areas in Target B had already been shipped corsscountry to Target A. Power companies keep enough spares to handle a certaiun level of damage, beyond that, they assumption is they will be able to acquire any additional from other regions till replacements can be manufactured.

    But, doing that kind of damage would probably require more than 20 nutjobs armed with boxcutters - or even 20 highly trained professional saboteurs. - Unless Tom Clancy was doing the planning :)

  • by dasunt ( 249686 ) on Tuesday October 13, 2009 @11:22AM (#29732357)

    I too have a vision. It involves electricity becoming mondo-expensive and people switching to energy saving devices en-masse. Governments around the world turning to nuclear, and where convenient, hydro and air power, not because they have low carbon emissions (that's only a plus), but because they are actually cheaper! People finally turning away from 1800's oil and coal based technologies and moving, triumphantly towards 1950's engineering solutions!!

    Energy being more expensive might not be a good thing for the environment.

    Consider California. If energy is cheap, desalinization is more attractive. If energy is expensive, diverting major rivers from original watersheds is more attractive.

    Often, raping the environment doesn't take a lot of energy. Environmentally friendly practices tend to take more energy.

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Working...