Timeline for Are room temperature superconductors theoretically possible, and through what mechanism?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 25, 2016 at 14:55 | history | edited | Dr Xorile | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 475 characters in body
|
| Nov 25, 2016 at 11:29 | comment | added | FraSchelle | @DrXorile I think your answer should explicitly mention the role of pressure in getting high-temperature superconductivity, in order to avoid endless discussions in comments. The Wikipedia article you refer to is great ! | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 6:40 | comment | added | TheEnvironmentalist | @Roman True, but I'm optimistic. Plus there's a good chance there are variables beyond temperature and pressure that can be manipulated to achieve practical superconductors | |
| Nov 25, 2016 at 6:17 | comment | added | Roman | @TheEnvironmentalist Sure, but they needed a diamond anvil to create 1.5 million atmospheres. This is a vast amount of force we are talking here | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 18:47 | comment | added | TheEnvironmentalist | @Roman Not necessarily. A soda can at room temperature is perpetually pressurized at roughly 2.5 atmospheres, and mass production has made them so commonplace you can buy them in supermarkets. It's not unreasonable to think we could develop some material, maybe based on nano-materials, that could handle 2.5 million atmospheres, and then room temperature superconductors in a can become feasible. Holding something at pressure is technologically a lot easier than holding something at temperature. | |
| Nov 24, 2016 at 7:10 | comment | added | Roman | @jpaugh yeah, but that prediction doesn't really mean much given that superconductivity is so misunderstood (and the prediction is made by just one team). Also, it sort of becomes wee impractical at this point, don't you think? | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 14:52 | comment | added | jpaugh | @DrXorile I'm suprised that you left this bit out: From one of the sources of that article, "[Fan] Zhang and Yugui Yao predict that substituting 7.5% of the sulfur atoms in hydrogen sulfide with phosphorus and upping the pressure to 2.5 million atmospheres (250 GPa) could raise the superconducting transition temperature all the way to 280 K, which is above water's freezing point." | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 14:46 | comment | added | jpaugh | @Roman Why? If you find a way to contain it, the explosion would create a nice heater... which is presumably what you were wanting in the first place. ;-) | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 14:26 | comment | added | Roman | Oh, you need 1.5 million times atmospheric pressure to create H3S. So your experiment would also explode. This doesn't sound like all that much fun anymore | |
| Nov 23, 2016 at 14:21 | comment | added | Roman |
Also, The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K), which was at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica, on July 21, 1983..... So when the weather is truly terrible, then at least you could float a magnet. At least you could until the magnet... and you get blown away
|
|
| Nov 23, 2016 at 14:19 | comment | added | Roman |
From your link: The highest temperature known superconducting material is hydrogen sulfide, whose critical temperature reaches 203 K (−70 °C)
|
|
| Nov 23, 2016 at 3:10 | history | answered | Dr Xorile | CC BY-SA 3.0 |