Is there any theory about this?

Michaelium wrote:

Is there any theory about this?

WA Little and excitonic supercons, postulated to be operative at 1000 K.

October 6, 2003

Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message :

Michaelium wrote:

Is there any theory about this?

Yes, there is : http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/cond-mat/0211456

WA Little and excitonic supercons, postulated to be operative at 1000 K.

[drivel snipped]

Excitons (e/h pairs) are not bosons.

Why do you continue to post such drivel Schwartz?

There are SERIOUS BCS/BEC density problems in your organic high Tc scheme.

Excitons (e/h pairs) are not bosons.

Why do you continue to post such drivel Schwartz?

There are SERIOUS BCS/BEC density problems in your organic high Tc scheme.

If you bother to read Little you will see that excitonic supercons are
postulated to operate via the usual BCS condensation of opposite
momentum electron pairs. Low temp BCS supercons use quantized lattice
vibrations (phonons) to effect condensation. Little supercons use
quantized electronic excitations (excitons) to effect condensation.

Transition temp varies inversely as coupling mass. Shaking a lattice
is a massive undertaking and so such mediated Cooper pairing only
occurs hard by absolute zero. Shaking an electron cloud is not a
massive undertaking, and so scales in kind to a Tc~1000K (actually
quite higher by the raw numbers, but Little hedged his bets).

There are no physics problems at all, ignorant git.

Any Nobel prize predictions for tomorrow?


Define a lattice transporting charge carriers (with spin considerations)

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Any Nobel prize predictions for tomorrow?

Define a lattice transporting charge carriers (with spin considerations)
such that conservation of energy and momentum is maintained and build to
Tc = 1000 spec.

However if cost is the issue, sodium is your metal. Just expand it.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

However if cost is the issue, sodium is your metal. Just expand it.

Isn't that what Ogg did in 1946 with his solutions of sodium in ammonia?

R.A. Ogg, Jr., Phys. Rev. 69, 243 (1946)

He thought for sure he had it but met with his demise when his fixation
was countered by reality.

If you do the math for extended lattice (energy and momentum conserved
or total elasticity),

kTc = hbar^2 K^2 / 2 mt

where K = pi / B

With spin considerations mt = 110 x electron mass (which does not
conform to a known particle)

Totally elastic Planar Lattice dimension B = 1.82 Angstrom at Tc = 1190 K

The problem is that any practical material composed of atoms does not
have planar surfaces at 1.82 Angstrom. Atomic / molecular orbitals Fermi
surfaces usually have curvature.

Possibly through some type of fortuitous circumstance, such could be the
case although the probability of such circumstances become less with
higher Tc and smaller B.

October 8, 2003

Richard Saam <rdsaam@att.net> wrote in message :

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

However if cost is the issue, sodium is your metal. Just expand it.

Isn't that what Ogg did in 1946 with his solutions of sodium in ammonia?

R.A. Ogg, Jr., Phys. Rev. 69, 243 (1946)

He thought for sure he had it but met with his demise when his fixation
was countered by reality.

Sure, the reality of 1946 science and technology. Exactly how much
effort was invested in refuting Ogg's hypothesis, and precisely how
much work has since been performed on metal ammonia solid state
solutions since then? How far has science and technology progressed
since then?

If you do the math for extended lattice (energy and momentum conserved
or total elasticity),

kTc = hbar^2 K^2 / 2 mt

where K = pi / B

With spin considerations mt = 110 x electron mass (which does not
conform to a known particle)

Your formalism and terminology is unfamiliar. Regardless renormalized
electron effective masses m* of many hundreds of m<sub>e are well
known.

Totally elastic Planar Lattice dimension B = 1.82 Angstrom at Tc = 1190 K

The problem is that any practical material composed of atoms does not
have planar surfaces at 1.82 Angstrom. Atomic / molecular orbitals Fermi
surfaces usually have curvature.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Many materials have half
lattice spacings in that range.

The problem is quantum phase separations near a quantum critical
point. Obviously some sort of excitation is required to prevent that
from happening.

Possibly through some type of fortuitous circumstance, such could be the
case although the probability of such circumstances become less with
higher Tc and smaller B.

You completely lost me. Cuprates are fortuitous circumstances. Beyond
that, I agree with Uncle Al, intelligent design is necessary. That
requires a theory and spectroscopic evidence, which we now have.

You need to do a lot more homework, if you want to get into the race.

http://elifritz.members.atlantic.net/acs.htm

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:


Let's not be too harsh here. Anybody who solves the problem has the
correct answer whether it is Officially possible or not. One posits
that the solution, if there is one, will look damned strange compared
with common wisdom. Don't discard all wild schemes. Only discard
proposals that are flat out silly - that blantantly contradict
existing observation or strong conservation laws. Anything authored
by Archie-Poo or Jack Sarfatti directly goes into a lined garbage can,
etc.

Air-stable electrides in small pore zeolites have been accomplished.
Certainly we can fill a rigid inorganic lattice fat with conduction
electrons to full metallic conductivity. The thing was still a
classical conductor, but they didn't cool it or compress it to see how
conductivity changed.

http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st4
http://www.phy.cmich.edu/people/petkov/last.pdf

Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message :





Air-stable electrides in small pore zeolites have been accomplished.
Certainly we can fill a rigid inorganic lattice fat with conduction
electrons to full metallic conductivity. The thing was still a
classical conductor, but they didn't cool it or compress it to see how
conductivity changed.



I just ran across that result a few weeks ago, and ding, I thought of
Uncle Al, but then, I thought, Uncle Al is an organic chemist, he
wouldn't care about it.

Artificial barriers imposed by others and easily crossed by enlightened

http://focus.aps.org/story/v10/st4
http://www.phy.cmich.edu/people/petkov/last.pdf



Obviously ordered arrays would be better.


As an historical note referencing the

October 5, 2003

Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message :

Excitons (e/h pairs) are not bosons.

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

October 5, 2003

Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message :

Excitons (e/h pairs) are not bosons.

Ok, maybe I'm getting too much sun and staying up too late at night. When I am
wrong, I am spectacularly wrong. Excitons are bosons. I think I meant to say,
excitons are not charged.

As such, they may be mediators of superconductivity, but they cannot represent
charge carriers in superconducting systems. Electron hole asymmetry is required.

I've been out of the game too long. That's what happens when you start cleaning
toilets for a living.

Touche' Al.

In the future, everybody will agree with Uncle Al.