So what is your question then? Welcome to the PF, BTW.
Are you talking about http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Ultraconductor.html"? Why is the word trademarked in many places? There is not one single entry in IEEExplore for any research about "ultraconductors". Is this nothing more than some multi-level marketing hooplah?
I'll take a million of 'em, whatever it is. I'll also take a perpetual motion machine and http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/ultraconductor-gravity-shielding.html" [Broken]. You can reach me at 5555555. I work for the air force and I have bottomless pockets.
I kid, but I have my doubts about it unless someone is publishing results on "ultraconductors" in a journal.
I didn't think you could do better than 'Super' conductors with 0Ω.
I see two questionable technologies being pushed in the literature or on the web: "ultraconductors" and "ultraconductus". Both appear to be some carbon (nanotube/graphene) or conductive polymer material with a possible matrix of a metal that may be may be in its normal (resistive) state or superconducting state. The technologies appear to then claim the best of all worlds by bait-and-switch: high strength (nanotubes), high conductivity (superconducting), low cost (?!!!!) replacements for power lines and other applications. There are claims of being 100-100,000X higher conductivity than metals while maintaining high strength.
In my view these claims are delusion and fiction; a lawyer might say the claims are specious and bordering on malfeasance. I wouldn't invest in either, if that was the original author's question.
Why? Carbon nanotubes of length are grown by slow chemical vapor deposition processes, and only certain symmetries of carbon nanotubes have metallic conductivity. Growth of long length (> 1 cm), metallic nanotubes is in its infancy. Filling in the gaps between tubes with a metal, will produce uneven and likely unscalable results. Due to the cost and scaling issues, it is a pipe dream to say these would be useful for anything other than chip-scale electronics or heat pipes (i.e. it will never be used in motors, wires, magnetic storage).
There are two legitimate new conductors on the market: strengthened metals for high voltage power transmission and high temperature superconducting wire and tape.
a) Composite metal wires for higher strength, high conductivity replacements for traditional high tension power lines (e.g. wire with stainless steel cores clad with aluminum conductors)
b) There are legitimage superconductors based on metals, which typically operate below 30 Kelvin, a number of compounds from 30-50K, and "high temperature superconductors" or HTS which operate at 77K to 130K (liquid nitrogen-compatible, which is low cost compared to liquid helium and other technologies). These have no resistance up to a finite current density (perhaps 1-4 MA/cm2 at 77k). Since these materials may be drawn or coated on metal wire, tube, or tape substrates, current may be shared with the metal substrate if the maximum superconducting current density, magnetic field, or temperature is exceeded. Kilometer lengths of the HTS materials are now available, and may enable reducing size or mass of motors/magnets by 3-10X due to the higher engineering current these devices may carry compared to copper or other normal metal windings; the cost is decreasing, but higher on a per-amp basis than copper, without including cryogenic costs. This is currently limiting applications to high-value motor and 5 MW + windpower applications.
In my view the ultraconductor and ultraconductus claims are sound and fury signifying nothing realistic or sensible.
Nice post, and welcome to the PF, integrity :)
As for Ultraconductors, if there's anything fishy with a trademark on the name, I'd be very wary about believing anything they say.