Search for Ultra High Superconductivity (1200K)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the research of a specific scientist who claims to explore the possibility of ultra high superconductivity at temperatures around 1200K. Participants express their opinions on the legitimacy of his work, the nature of his claims, and the broader implications for superconductivity research.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the credibility of the researcher, suggesting that if he is a "crackpot," it would be important to highlight that due to his numerous publications in reputable journals.
  • Others argue that the researcher is not a crank, as he is investigating a possibility rather than claiming a definitive effect, which is seen as a reasonable approach given the uncertainties in superconductivity research.
  • One participant categorizes the researcher as "misguided" rather than a crackpot, noting that while his claims about superconductivity at 1200K are extraordinary, they lack experimental verification and are more speculative in nature.
  • Another participant introduces the idea of circumstantial evidence related to neutron stars, suggesting that their centers may exhibit properties relevant to the discussion of superconductivity, although this point remains tangential to the main focus on the researcher’s claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the legitimacy of the researcher’s claims. While some defend his work as speculative yet valid, others express skepticism about the extraordinary nature of his assertions regarding superconductivity at 1200K.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the uncertainty surrounding the mechanisms of superconductivity and the challenges in verifying extraordinary claims within the scientific community. There are also references to the need for caution in interpreting speculative research.

MTd2
Gold Member
Messages
2,019
Reaction score
25
It's from this guy:

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/gzhao2/

It seems he published a lot of articles in respectable magazines. I'd like to know what are the opinons of you people.

He hosts a list of preprints for his articles, and you can freely look at them and analyze

http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/gzhao2/publications2.html

If he is a crackpot, it's nice to denounce him, since he publised way too much in important magazines.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I wouldn't say he is a crank - he says he is researching the possibiity of an effect not that there is one.
Based on nobody having much idea what causes ht super conductivity at any temperature and nobody knowing al the properties of things like carbon nano-tubes it's probably worth a try.

But, as alxm says - you want to be REALLY sure of your results before you announce it!
 
Last edited:
Well, he's not a crackpot at all in my definition of the term. (I define it as the category of people who've done no real work at all, whereas those who've got crazy ideas but still have done real work I categorize as 'misguided' at worst)

Seems like he's doing mostly legitimate work in solid-state stuff. Although that's not my field so I can't criticize it in detail, most of it looks quite sane enough. Obviously superconductivity at 1200K is a pretty fantastic claim, but I don't seem to see any papers claiming to have done it. More like, things which he thinks might indicate the possibility of it. (Regardless, I don't think the mainstream will ever believe in superconductivity at 1200K until it's been experimentally verified!)

I guess I'd summarize my impressions as that it's a researcher who's a bit on the speculative side, but well within the limits of acceptable behavior. (although I'd be more prudent) At least as far as his peer-reviewed stuff goes. After all, you're not supposed to believe in other people's speculations anyway. Just the results, ma'm.
 
There are some circumstantial evidence that the centre of neutron stars are condensed fermion systems, or at least have non-classical inertia. It turns out that we can measure the rotation rate of neutron stars well enough to see quantised vortices leaving it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
582
Replies
4
Views
533
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K