Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science Hardware

Did A US Navy Scientist Just Invent A Room-Temperature Superconductor? (phys.org) 212

Posted by EditorDavid from the saving-electricity dept.
"A scientist working for the U.S. Navy has filed for a patent on a room-temperature superconductor, representing a potential paradigm shift in energy transmission and computer systems," reports Phys.org: Salvatore Cezar Pais is listed as the inventor on the Navy's patent application made public by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Thursday. The application claims that a room-temperature superconductor can be built using a wire with an insulator core and an aluminum PZT (lead zirconate titanate) coating deposited by vacuum evaporation with a thickness of the London penetration depth and polarized after deposition.

An electromagnetic coil is circumferentially positioned around the coating such that when the coil is activated with a pulsed current, a non-linear vibration is induced, enabling room temperature superconductivity. "This concept enables the transmission of electrical power without any losses and exhibits optimal thermal management (no heat dissipation)," according to the patent document, "which leads to the design and development of novel energy generation and harvesting devices with enormous benefits to civilization."
Long-time Slashdot reader resistant writes: NextBigFuture says the same individual appears to have made other startling claims that arguably stretch the boundaries of belief, such as a "high-frequency gravitational wave generator" that could supposedly drive a spaceship without conventional propellants as well as an "inertial mass reduction device." Prudence would appear to dictate examining these and other claims by Mr. Salvatore Cezar Pais with great caution.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Did A US Navy Scientist Just Invent A Room-Temperature Superconductor? More

Did A US Navy Scientist Just Invent A Room-Temperature Superconductor?

Comments Filter:

  • Considering his other claims... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by willaien ( 2494962 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @09:48PM (#58171144)

    "high-frequency gravitational wave generator"

    So, basically, no. Sounds like a crank.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      How is that a "crank" thing? Take a large mass, spin it around. There you go.

      Sounds like *YOU* are the crank. You think you know, but you don't.

      And you don't even stop to think that you might be wrong.

      https://www.sciencemag.org/new... [sciencemag.org]

      Are you a doctor? You fit the profile.

      You will now dig in your heels and resist.

      • Re:Considering his other claims... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by iggymanz ( 596061 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @10:27PM (#58171224)

        spinning large mass around would make gravitomagnetic waves, but for making gravity waves take two large masses and spin them around each other. Detectable or useful? No. But this article's crank claims to make useful amounts which is nonsense.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Pax681 ( 1002592 )

          spinning large mass around would make gravitomagnetic waves, but for making gravity waves take two large masses and spin them around each other. Detectable or useful? No. But this article's crank claims to make useful amounts which is nonsense.

          so hitching up two fat fucks to a pulley system and spinning them around would work then? :P

    • It's worth noting that man (even most) previous inventors of groundbreaking technologies had several seemingly-absurd ideas prior to the true invention of historical significance which ended up being tied to their name. Thus I'll take both sides of belief with equally substantial boulders of salt.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by jwhyche ( 6192 )

      An there you go. I read that and I can't take any of the article seriously any more.

      • A few years ago, I saw something distinctly artificial in the sky that didn't fit the narrative; now I question reality.

        Just kidding; I realize there are serious holes in the narrative... and those holes are a lot more interesting abd revealing than the sand most of my fellow skeptics want to bury their heads in.

        Nonetheless, if this guy's "research" was actually legitimate, we wouldn't be reading about it.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by jwhyche ( 6192 )

          I don't know. I've seen more than a few crack pot ideals that have been passed off as legitimate science in the past few years. Maybe I'm being to skeptical. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt for now. I would love to see this be true. We are due for a ground breaking, breakthrough. After the big disappointment that turned out to be the em-drive.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by jythie ( 914043 )
            He also appears to be an emdrive proponent, or at least a variation of it.

            Unfortunately, it is starting to look like we might be done with breakthroughs. We got a big wave of them when physics went from being mostly wrong to mostly right, but over the last half century we have generally been finding that our knowledge, while still incomplete, is so interlocking and well supported that there is less and less room for something really groundbreaking.

            • Plenty of groundbreaking things have happened, just not so much in physics. Which is why despite having a degree in it, I work in an area where far more exciting things are going on these days (machine learning).

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by jythie ( 914043 )
                True, a lot of cool stuff has happened with machine learning, but I am not sure I would call it 'ground breaking' or really having any breakthroughs. The bulk of machine learning are changes in economics, making demand higher and costs lower. The techniques themselves are incremental refinements on things developed 50 years ago and are quite relatable to anyone working in AI back then 'if we just had more processing power'.

                Don't get me wrong, it is awesome stuff (I work in agent based modeling, so ML is

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AvitarX ( 172628 )

      That seems way more plausible than what I assume "inertial mass reduction device" is.

    • "So, basically, no. Sounds like a crank."

      Betteridge's law of headlines agrees.

    • "high-frequency gravitational wave generator"
      So, basically, no. Sounds like a crank.

      Wait, a crank-powered high-frequency gravitational wave generator?
      That's even more unlikely.

  • Nope (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dohzer ( 867770 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @09:58PM (#58171170)

    Nope. They invented it years ago and kept it a secret.

  • You can patent just about anything you want, and you do not need a working model to patent something. There is a good argument for making things easy to patent. The problem is that it does lead to patent trolls. Also patents are only supposed to last a limited amount of time, but of course patent holders always try to make them as long as possible. Maybe something like a software or medical patent shouldn't last as long as an aerospace patent. Anyway my problem isn't that someone patent something that is u

    • It does cost a lot of money to patent something, so it's not something one does on a whim. It may be something a scammer feels will pay off in lending a seeming endorsement to the scam, though.

      • "It does cost a lot of money to patent something, so it's not something one does on a whim."

        Except when:
        1. You already have a "corporate patenting engine". This heavily reduce the per-patent cost, and even may incentivise patenting "whatever you come with".
        2. Money doesn't come from your own pocket, i.e.: comes from public funds.

  • The patent office does not check if anything works (Score:4, Informative)

    by Gherald ( 682277 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @10:11PM (#58171196) Journal

    ..they just take your money and vereify that you are the first to register and thus would own an invention or process

    Until and unless there is a working demo shown or full whitepaper published, roll your eyes people.

    • Re:The patent office does not check if anything wo (Score:4, Informative)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @10:44PM (#58171260) Journal
      Ever had a patent? I've got 24 issued (and more pending), and in several cases I was denied for lack of proof of results - meaning I had to provide additional details in the disclosure including measurements to prove it actually worked. At least as rigorous as a scientific journal.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        that's not entirely true and it depends on what kind of patent you are filing. Look at the IBM's patent portfolio, there are tens of thousands of bogus obvious stuff patented in their portfolio. The key is to hire experienced patent lawyers to file the patent. They will make sure it will get granted. I used to work at IBM and they have 2 armies of expert patent firms doing this for them. I've read many IBM patents that were totally bogus. For mechanical inventions, I would agree with you. For software paten
        • Obvious stuff patented? Why that would be real - as opposed to "does not check if anything works" which the GP claimed... You may think they are obvious or not - but they at least work.

          • "as opposed to "does not check if anything works" which the GP claimed... You may think they are obvious or not - but they at least work."

            Given that there have been patents granted to perpetual motion devices, the speculation that not all patent applications are properly grounded seems quite plausible.

      • It's up to the patent examiner to decide of proof that the invention works is needed before granting the patent. If this application goes to a competent examiner, he'll be required to prove it works. If it goes to a flaky examiner, well, I guess the USPTO will collect some filing fees, and this guy will get to mount his patent in a shiny frame which he can show off to prospective investors he's looking to con money out of.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Troed ( 102527 )

        I have ten issued and not a single one of them was challenged.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by jythie ( 914043 )
        I would put it at 'crap shoot'. Journals and patents have the same basic problem of 'depends on who you get', with wildly inconsistent standards, and in both cases they become trivial to handle when you hire on people who's domain is dealing with patents/publications. Same with research grants.

  • Repeatable by other scientists or it didn't happen (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Rick Schumann ( 4662797 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @10:13PM (#58171198) Journal
    If this guy wants to be taken seriously then he needs to publish a paper that describes the science and the methods thoroughly enough that other scientists can design (an) experiment(s) to confirm the validity. 'Patents' mean nothing. 'Demonstrations' don't mean shit either. Repeatable and explainable by others independently is the only thing that counts.

    • Is the patent enough to do so? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by SuperKendall ( 25149 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @10:28PM (#58171226)

      I agree, so the question is - does the patent give enough information for others to reproduce the result he claims?

      Also you would think, if he does have this working is the Navy planning to make use of this in some way? Seems like a word from them on adoption (they don't have to be specific) would go a long way to back his claims.

      • does the patent give enough information for others to reproduce the result he claims?

        That one is clear enough - no.

        • It's my recollection that we have discussed unreproducible patents several times here on slashdot, but I'm on a tablet and can't be arsed to search for them on this little screen. Am I hallucinating, or are there many patents granted which are light on necessary details? It's my understanding that it is illegal to actually reproduce a patent without license, even for your own use and benefit and not for the purpose of selling it for profit, which would surely present a chilling effect on testing whether pat

          • Yes, the so-called "intellectual property" system is completely broken. News at 11.

    • Re:Repeatable by other scientists or it didn't hap (Score:5, Interesting)

      by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Saturday February 23, 2019 @10:46PM (#58171270) Journal
      Description of his invention, and how to make one [techlinkcenter.org]. A valid patent application must include enough information that someone "skilled in the art" (in this case, physics and materials science) can successfully replicate the invention. If it's not disclosed to that level you can challenge it and have it invalidated.

      • That's not how this works. A patent is a legal document, it has nothing to do with establishing scientific credibility. There is no requirement to prove that a device functions in order to be patented. The required steps to "reduce to practice" (make reliably reproducible) some invention are typically not patent-able. The requirement is simply that that someone like me, a PhD Physicist with a background in materials, could build the device listed in the patent.

        A peer reviewed paper is what would be required

        • Not entirely true. The patent office wont entertain perpetual motion devices without a working model that has been operating for a year.

          " The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states: With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device"

          • Not entirely true. The patent office wont entertain perpetual motion devices without a working model that has been operating for a year.

            " The USPTO Manual of Patent Examining Practice states: With the exception of cases involving perpetual motion, a model is not ordinarily required by the Office to demonstrate the operability of a device"

            So the trick is not to use the words "perpetual motion" in the description or abstract. Instead, the patent will (for example) describe a technique for extracting "energy

          • There are lots of rules about operability at the patent office with different metrics for success based on field. Most of this is not statutory, but through case law, which makes it insanely complex.

            Critically, the legal responsibility for demonstrating lack of operability officially falls to people challenging a patent instead of the patent office.

            This is something I've had to deal with in my patents: if someone describes how to do something in a way that does not work, they still own the rights to the fun

            • Patents are weird. We romanticize them too much. The reality is you are carving out a chunk of mental real estate in the hopes of being able to license to 7 billion+ minds for 20 years. When i looked into getting some patents for my ideas, it became clear the object of the exercise was to essentially build find an unoccupied piece of mental real estate and shoehorn your property lines into it. Like most areas of law, its passionless and cold.

        • That's not how this works. A patent is a legal document, it has nothing to do with establishing scientific credibility. There is no requirement to prove that a device functions in order to be patented. The required steps to "reduce to practice" (make reliably reproducible) some invention are typically not patent-able. The requirement is simply that that someone like me, a PhD Physicist with a background in materials, could build the device listed in the patent.

          This is absolutely correct. There have been ma

        • You're not wrong. Corporations will patent things all the time just so no one else can beat them to it.
    • And even if the system is well-characterized and repeatable, most researchers will still simply call it impossible and work on other things.

      • Re:Repeatable by other scientists or it didn't hap (Score:4, Informative)

        by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday February 24, 2019 @02:21AM (#58171684) Journal

        most researchers will still simply call it impossible and work on other things.

        I don't think many researchers call room-temperature superconductors impossible, and many scientists are actually working on it.

    • Yeah, but he would be a complete idiot if he had done that before patenting it ...

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Far as I can tell (Score:3)

    by localman ( 111171 ) on Sunday February 24, 2019 @02:34AM (#58171690) Homepage

    Patents are for fairly obvious, minimally useful inventions and/or junk. Real interesting discoveries are published as scientific papers for peer review. Money and control, the purpose of patents, are not what motivate the best minds. It's a passion for the science, the process of discovery, and possibly of fame for changing the world that seem to drive it. And you don't need patents for that.

    As a consequence, I would say there's a 99% chance this guy has nothing.

    • Can't you not patent once it's otherwise publicly published? If so, that represents a strong motivation to patent first, and prove later.

  • Even if it does work, probably not very useful (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Apart from the fact that this is likely total BS: let's imagine it does actually work the way it is described here in the summary: You need to pulse an electromagnetic field around the wire to induce this effect. The coil is not going to be superconducting (how could it be, it's needed to induce the effect), but is going to be made of regular wires, so they will dissipate heat for the time this is in operation. And while superconductors don't have any resistance, they do have a maximum current they can carr

  • London penetration depth?

    I'm sure everyone here knows what that means......

    Of all the things that deserve a link, here ya go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

  • Finally. (Score:4, Funny)

    by dddux ( 3656447 ) on Sunday February 24, 2019 @11:44AM (#58172672)
    Audiophiles can finally have their perfect speaker cables.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close