# drift velocity and super conduction

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
I recently came across some literature and i have a question.

According to this article i read, there is no electrical voltage difference (hence no electrical field) anywhere in a given material when it is superconducting. When the ends of the superconducting material is connected together, the electrical current keeps flowing with out loss. Hence i can assume there is no electrical field applied and it is assumed there is no resistance.

From easy use of Ohms law, U = I * R. Thus it is claimed there is no electrical field.

But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs.

But the strange thing is, is that the drift speed is calculated while using an electrical field.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/electric/ohmmic.html

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/fermi.html#c1

(i guess i am wrong because i have not consumed enough coffee yet and i am not an expert)

What is wrongly stated in this article or what have I written/ assumed wrong ?

Or is their something else going on ?

#### TuxDave

##### Lifer
But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs.

Link to said article? Other than that, you are correct that given a super conductor, the drift velocity equation doesn't really work since mobility is infinite and electric field is zero. I am curious to see the reason why "But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs." I would expect the drift velocity in a super conductor to be orders of magnitude larger than the drift velocity of a copper wire.

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
Link to said article? Other than that, you are correct that given a super conductor, the drift velocity equation doesn't really work since mobility is infinite and electric field is zero. I am curious to see the reason why "But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs." I would expect the drift velocity in a super conductor to be orders of magnitude larger than the drift velocity of a copper wire.

Afcourse, because i read the article again and i think i misread it the first time. But any way it is interesting and what you are writing i would think so too. The person who wrote the articles is professor Johan F Prins. I just come across the articles of this person a few days ago when looking around on the web about a name i read : Carver Mead. Both have a view on physics that i feel more comfortable with. What i have read so far what these gentlemen claim seems so obvious i finally feel i no longer need to search myself where physics went wrong. But that is afcourse my opinion.

Here you go.

http://www.cathodixx.com/books.html

Direct link to the article :

http://www.cathodixx.com/pdfs/B1-Modern&#37;20physics is rotting.pdf

He is a scientist but not a main stream scientist while doing active research.
He seems in my opinion to notice things other scientists have noticed as well who where ridiculed. He was noted in the postings of this article from physorg.

http://www.physorg.com/news188756870.html

Last edited:

#### silverpig

##### Lifer
There is an electric field inside a superconductor, but only to its skin depth. The electrons that conduct do so around the outside edges of the superconductor, so maybe you use that.

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
There is an electric field inside a superconductor, but only to its skin depth. The electrons that conduct do so around the outside edges of the superconductor, so maybe you use that.

?

I read about superconductors and everything else related to physics because i have am interested. I am to a certain degree a programmer who to a certain degree can design and build, an electronic engineer who to a certain degree can design and build and i can do to a limited degree design and build mechanical devices. But i am not Mr Prins nor do i research with superconductors. I am really honest when i say i had not heard from this man up till a week ago. But when i read the comments of this person, i got interested because in my research of how physics and other scientific disciplines and plain human nature came to be i have always seen the same behaviour. This quote i had seen and read before but up till a few days ago i found out it belongs to Arthur Schopenhauer :

All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.

I find this to be a historical fact in many scientific disciplines. When i sometimes seem aggravated it is because people are more busy worrying and protecting their personal status then to admit a mistake and continue
as an collective. While this is true for a small group, other are just flock and follow blindly while defending what they do not understand. This is also human nature and can be found many times in history of man. But i am wondering of again. No i do not do research in superconductors but i would grasp the chance if i had the opportunity. Would be a wonderful situation to gain more knowledge.

Satori.

EDIT : Forgot to mention that this rivalry even happen between different disciplines. While the best fruits of science labour have been created through co operation of different disciplines. Creating fresh points of view. Debating and critic are good as long as it is constructive.

Last edited:

#### TuxDave

##### Lifer
There is an electric field inside a superconductor, but only to its skin depth. The electrons that conduct do so around the outside edges of the superconductor, so maybe you use that.

What about DC drift velocity? Isn't the skin depth = the whole conductor at 0Hz?

Oh and Will, it's pretty hard to go through that article to sift out how he claims "But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs." when every other paragraph is the auther scolding scientists for not listening to his ideas...

Last edited:

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
What about DC drift velocity? Isn't the skin depth = the whole conductor at 0Hz?

Oh and Will, it's pretty hard to go through that article to sift out how he claims "But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs." when every other paragraph is the auther scolding scientists for not listening to his ideas...

Yes, he seems to have developed a grudge. That is unfortunate because this causes in general blocking of the creative mind. I hope he just accepts that life is life and that he will get his chance if what he claims is true. The part about drift velocity is on page 11.

I wanted to ask , do you have any idea that his claims about superconductive are correct or at least promising ? I do not want to get my hopes up and later on have to become disappointed. I am still learning about it as an amateur.

And skin effect, yes i always have found this strange and interesting. With DC current i would to assume that there is no skin effect too. There is one thing that makes me think he has some point about outer layers and super conducting or conducting. When discussing experiences in the RF field of electronics with colleagues in the past , i was always surprised that at at high frequencies not only the conductor matters, but also the insulator of the cable is very important. Teflon coating would weaken the signal far less then pvc if i remember correctly for example. I am sure it has something to do with electrons and the wave behaviour but i do not know how. Do you or Silverpig have any idea how and care to explain it to me ?

Last edited:

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer

This is beautiful...

#### bwanaaa

##### Senior member
so what's the answer? how fast do electrons drift in a superconductor?

How can current be measured in a superconductor? The minute you attach a device to a superconductor to measure current, you are measuring current in your device, not the superconductor.

The definition of superconductivity is the loss of all electrical resistance.

Does anyone know what's really going on? So instead of drifting from atom to atom, are the electrons just surfing?-never really interacting with the orbitals of the atoms.

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
so what's the answer? how fast do electrons drift in a superconductor?

How can current be measured in a superconductor? The minute you attach a device to a superconductor to measure current, you are measuring current in your device, not the superconductor.

The definition of superconductivity is the loss of all electrical resistance.

Does anyone know what's really going on? So instead of drifting from atom to atom, are the electrons just surfing?-never really interacting with the orbitals of the atoms.

It seems this man has an answer. I do not know if it is true, because i am still reading and trying to understand it myself. And to be honest i have to rely on the answer of people who study super conduction or have a better understanding of physics then i do, but still have an open mind. However, i think if someone has actual knowledge of what is going on he is not to share that information if he can predict behaviour with his knowledge. He would be a sitting on a gold mine

Maybe you can find an answer on this website. It is filled with pdf where the man try to explain what he has seen with his research :

http://www.cathodixx.com/books2.html

#### schenley101

##### Member
The way current flows through superconductors is different than a normal conductor. Instead of electrons independently flowing through a lattice of atoms, pairs of electrons are formed with a gap between them. When in this state the electrons can flow with no dc resistance. There is a certain amount of energy need to close the band gap, and when it is closed, it is not a superconductor more. This is why most superconductors operate only at very low temperatures. They also do not need any voltage to maintain current which satisfies ohms law 0=i*0. You can also read into superfluids and quantum mechanics stuff to find out why most of these things happen.

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
The way current flows through superconductors is different than a normal conductor. Instead of electrons independently flowing through a lattice of atoms, pairs of electrons are formed with a gap between them. When in this state the electrons can flow with no dc resistance. There is a certain amount of energy need to close the band gap, and when it is closed, it is not a superconductor more. This is why most superconductors operate only at very low temperatures. They also do not need any voltage to maintain current which satisfies ohms law 0=i*0. You can also read into superfluids and quantum mechanics stuff to find out why most of these things happen.

If i read correctly, you are talking about cooper pairs. Mr Prins states that cooper pairs are an incorrect explanation and he uses the Josephson junction as an example why it is wrong. I do not know who to believe. At least he has the explanation with his arguments.

Although it does not have much weight, i personally never felled satisfied with cooper pairs either since i heard about it a few years ago. Because at any position, i always wondered if the amount of free electrons in a material are not always going to be a power of 2. And what happens to the free lonely electrons then in that material ? Is the whole super conductor suddenly an ordered phenomenon ? From what i have read it seems to be. But it seems the arrangement of the (usually different)atoms in the lattice and the vibrational energy are more important.
Forming a standing wave with the right wavelength that the electrons are in some sort of resonating state. Pushed by the former and pulled by the latter.
I have not read all the documentation of Mr Prins but i always thought it has to be something like this :

Assume this as a thought experiment :
The black is the vibration of the atoms. And the red and blue are the electrons . They are harmonically pushed around. That is if it is possible that a harmonic standing wave can push another wave around. As a field i think it can, but i am not sure. I have to read more about this. I just borrowed a book about high frequency electromagnetic antenna designs to learn more about electromagnetic fields and to refresh fading knowledge.

This i have from reading about various research results in superconductors :
Here are some of the articles :

Changing of the lattice or molecular structure :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081113140422.htm

Superconduction can be created through pressure. But the right pressure is needed.
http://carnegiescience.edu/news/superconductors_get_boost_pressure

Superconductivity at 10GPa to 20 Gpa. The super conduction then disappears at pressures higher then 35GPa. And super conduction reappears at pressures over 50GPa.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100125172954.htm

A superconductor that does not loose the super conductive state while it is being exposed to an external magnetic field of 45 Tesla.

Last edited:

#### johanfprins

##### Junior Member
Quote from William Gaatjies: But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs.
NO! Not the SAME but also constant: The constant drift velocity within a resistor is caused by multiple acceleration-scattering of the charge-carriers. Ohm's law is THUS ONLY valid when the scattering rate is high enough so that the current flow can be APPROXIMATED by a constant drift velocity: i.e. when the resistivity is LARGER than a critical minimum. In a superconductor there is NO SCATTERING AT ALL, therefore Ohm's law does NOT apply in this case.
As you so correctly stated: But the strange thing is, is that the drift speed is calculated while using an electrical field.
Since it is experimentally deduced that then charge-carriers are not driven within a superconductor by an electric-field, the charge-carriers should thus NOT have a constant drift speed as they have within a resistor: BUT they do have a constant drift speed within a superconductor. How this is possible without multiple acceleration-scattering of the charge-carriers has NEVER been explained in the main-stream literature, even though this is exactly the paradox that needs explaining in order to model superconduction. I have been the first person who could explain this.

Last edited:

#### johanfprins

##### Junior Member
TuxDave: I would expect the drift velocity in a super conductor to be orders of magnitude larger than the drift velocity of a copper wire.

Correct it is far higher than in a resistor; and I can prove mathematically that it must be so. It is not the magnitude that is the same but the paradoxical fact that the charge-carriers are still moving with a constant drift speed even though they are not being accelerated and scattered all the time. This what one needs to explain to model superconduction. Not one of the mainstream models can explain how an applied electric field is cancelled and how it is possible to still have a constant drift speed even though there is no electric-field present.

#### johanfprins

##### Junior Member
TuxDave:What about DC drift velocity? Isn't the skin depth = the whole conductor at 0Hz?
Whether a current is driven by an electric-field THROUGH a material or driven by an electric-field on the surface of a material, in both cases there must be acceleration involved: And when acceleration is involved you are doing work that changes potential energy into kinetic energy. The second law of thermodynamics then mandates that energy must be dissipated: This means that the current is cannot be a superconducting current.
TuxDave: Oh and Will, it's pretty hard to go through that article to sift out how he claims "But according to the article, the drift velocity of the electrons is the same as in a normal conductor where resistance occurs." when every other paragraph is the auther scolding scientists for not listening to his ideas...
Those were extracts from my book while writing it. It was written after I have tried for 7 years to follow the normal acceptable routes and having been blocked by the mainstream physicists. They did this to protect the BCS model even though in order to do so they had to "suddenly" fail to grasp the relevance of elementary physics: For example when Ohm's law applies and when not, when Coulomb's law applies and when not, when Ampere's law applies and when not; etc. I needed to show my disgust in order to drive me forward in completing the book. After completion it has been sanitized and has now been published.
William Gaatjies: Yes, he seems to have developed a grudge. Yes I have: Just like Nelson Mandela developed a grudge during the 1950's and 1960's when the Apartheid government blocked him from bringing his message. It is then so easy to label a person as being mentally unstable and a terrorist. The fact is that modern physics is being censored in a worse manner than in the time of Galileo.

#### johanfprins

##### Junior Member
Bwanaaa: so what's the answer? how fast do electrons drift in a superconductor?
Thousands of times faster than in a normal resistor. The actual speed obviously depends on the material.
How can current be measured in a superconductor? The minute you attach a device to a superconductor to measure current, you are measuring current in your device, not the superconductor.
That is a problem. The only method I have found is to send a pulse through the superconductor and measuring the time-of-flight (TOF). BY using different lengths you will find that the speed is constant.
The definition of superconductivity is the loss of all electrical resistance.
It is exactly here that the "experts" have gone wrong. To define superconduction as zero resistivity, you must first define what zero resistivity is; or else your definition is circular. This has never been done since it is believed that it follows from Ohm's law without realizing that Ohm's law is ONLY valid when the charge-carriers scatter.
Does anyone know what's really going on?
Yes I do and have known for 7 years now what is going on; but have been consistently blocked to publish in physics journals. I have even been prevented at a discussion meeting of the Royal Society of London from explaining what is really going on.
So instead of drifting from atom to atom, are the electrons just surfing?-never really interacting with the orbitals of the atoms.
If a material has "free" charge-carriers which can be accelerated, such a materuial can never be a superconductor since it is impossible to cancel an applied electric field within a conductor. A superconductor must thus be an insulator which consists of an array of localized "orbitals" which are anchored so that they can be polarized when an electric-field is applied. We know that such an array can transport a current by means of hopping conduction. In this case the energy to break free and move on is supplied by temperature fluctuations. In the case of superconduction the energy is supplied by quantum fluctuations: i.e. superconduction can be modeled in terms of Heisenberg's relationship between energy and time. All known superconductors can be modeled in terms of this self-same mechanism. In fact, the mechanism responsible for superconduction is so simple that it can be taught already at high school level.

#### johanfprins

##### Junior Member
Schenley101: The way current flows through superconductors is different than a normal conductor. Instead of electrons independently flowing through a lattice of atoms, pairs of electrons are formed with a gap between them.
Wrong: I can easily prove from calculating the flux quantum correctly and by calculating the electromagnetic radiation emitted from a Josephson junction with a voltage over it, that the charge-carriers are all singly-charged.
When in this state the electrons can flow with no dc resistance. There is a certain amount of energy need to close the band gap, and when it is closed, it is not a superconductor more. The BCS model mandates that at the critical temperature there is no band-gap, but the heat capacity of the electrons shows a discontinuous jump at the critical temperature which is only possible when at this temperature the Fermi-level moves into an existing band-gap. How do you explain this irrefutable experimental fact?
This is why most superconductors operate only at very low temperatures. They also do not need any voltage to maintain current which satisfies ohms law 0=i*0. Why do Cooper pairs not accelerate?

You can also read into superfluids and quantum mechanics stuff to find out why most of these things happen. If you decant a superfluid it falls down onto the table: i.e. its constituents are accelerated. So why does this not happen when you apply an electric field to Cooper pairs. If superconduction and superfluidity are the same, then either the Cooper pairs must also be accelerated OR the superfluid should levitate when you decant it.

#### TecHNooB

##### Diamond Member
The links to the article didn't work for me, but it would seem like the actual author has posted a response :O

#### ModestGamer

##### Banned
Oddly space also behaves like a super conductor and it also has a near zero standing tempature.

correlation ?

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
The links to the article didn't work for me, but it would seem like the actual author has posted a response :O

Great is it not. :thumbsup:

Now we can actually ask questions to a qualified person who has been in the field for many years. And who takes the time to give a proper response.

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
I lost my entire post unfortunately. Some idiot baboon software writer from the Opera browser team thought it would be handy to place the reload shortkey =CTRL+R next to the open new tab short key = CTRL+T.
I wanted to open another tab but pressed the R and the T at the same time.
I am going to take that reload short key out immediately. :thumbsdown:

Now that i have vented my anger.

Well mr Prins, I just read this article from april this year and it seems you are not alone in not finding cooper pairs.

From other research it seems that the lattice configuration of the atoms is the path to super conduction. Pressure can cause super conduction as can low temperature. And from other research it is modeled(or measured , i am not sure) that the atoms really do change to another lattice configuration just before the super conduction phase starts. Your research is mentioned in the post section of the article as well.
Perhaps all the electrons move around as a single coherent wave. I do not know.

The work provides a new understanding of how high-temperature superconductors work&#8212;with potential applications toward the design of new superconductors that work at or near room temperature, allowing them to be used in everything from electronics to smart grids that deliver energy with dramatically higher efficiency.

This is not the first time the field of superconductivity has gone through a revelation. In the 1980s&#8212;75 years after the discovery of superconductivity&#8212;scientists stumbled upon a completely new type of superconducting material. Previously, all superconductors carried current without resistance only at very low temperatures, the warmest of them operating at about -425 degrees Fahrenheit. But this new class of superconducting materials mysteriously worked up to 200 degrees warmer; still not room temperature, but far warmer than researchers previously believed possible.

"High-temperature superconductivity is one of the most important unsolved modern physics problems today," said SIMES Director and paper co-author Zhi-Xun Shen.

When a conventional superconductor reaches a critical temperature, called Tc, electrons begin to overcome their preference to mutually repel one another, and instead begin to bunch in pairs that like to cooperate with other pairs. When these linked electron duos liaise to form "coherent motion," with all pairs moving in synch much as couples dance to the same music at a ball, they flow through a material effortlessly. Scientists first understood this by detecting a gap in the electron's energy spectrum that reflects the benefit of the electrons' pairing.

A decade ago, scientists discovered an analogous "pseudogap" in high-temperature superconductors, at temperatures above the superconducting threshold Tc, that was originally thought to also be related to electron pairing. In this gap, scientists theorized, the pairs are formed but they lie dormant; the couples are ready but music has yet to begin.

Yet experiments led by SIMES researchers Makoto Hashimoto and Rui-Hua He suggest that the electron-pairing model does not describe what happens in the newer high-temperature superconductors.

"In 2006, our group published a paper suggesting that there are two types of distinct energy gaps," He said. "This more recent work provides a conclusive argument that there are two different mechanisms involved here."

The researchers trained the X-ray beam of SLAC's Stanford Synchrotron Radiation Lightsource on a high-temperature superconductor to reveal the material's electronic structure and explore the nature of the pseudogap. They were on a hunt for evidence of the electron pairing seen in conventional superconductors, in the form of what's called "electron-hole symmetry"; if it were present in the pseudogap, then the road to designing even higher temperature superconductors would be to make the pairs dance together instead of resting dormant.

But that's not what the researchers found; under the bright X-ray beam, the high-temperature superconductor showed a clear lack of the telltale symmetry&#8212;and thus of electron pairing. This suggests that the electron pairs were not lying dormant; they were simply not there.

The researchers posit that the electrons do not pair in this temperature range and instead travel in a wave; what they observed at SSRL were crests and troughs of electron density. The electrons' tendency to travel in a density wave may compete with their efforts to pair, suggesting that scientists will need a different approach in order to create a room-temperature superconductor.

"This is a very difficult problem, but an important one to solve," said Hashimoto. "We don't yet know the details of the density wave, but by extending our studies to different materials we are now seeking to understand it."

Once researchers better understand how electrons travel in high-temperature superconductors, they can then begin trying to design materials that superconduct at even higher temperatures. So far, high-temperature superconductors have been found only through serendipity. A robust understanding of how electrons travel at high temperatures may allow researchers to design new superconductors from the ground up, pinpointing the most useful temperature range for each application.

"If we can figure out the elusive recipe for making a superconductor," said SIMES Co-deputy Director and paper co-author Tom Devereaux, "we can begin designing them for important applications in human health, communication, and energy transportation as well as accelerator technology."

http://www.physorg.com/news189798601.html

Here is another link for other people interested.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0268-1242/18/3/319

EDIT:

I never knew this quote from Max Planck( But there is a lot i do not know) , but i have to add it.
I took it from the post section :

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

The German version :
"Eine neue wissenschaftliche Wahrheit pflegt sich nicht in der Weise durchzusetzen, da&#223; ihre Gegner &#252;berzeugt werden und sich als belehrt erkl&#228;ren, sondern vielmehr dadurch, da&#223; ihre Gegner allm&#228;hlich aussterben und da&#223; die heranwachsende Generation von vornherein mit der Wahrheit vertraut gemacht ist."

Last edited:

#### William Gaatjes

##### Lifer
From the text :
The researchers posit that the electrons do not pair in this temperature range and instead travel in a wave; what they observed at SSRL were crests and troughs of electron density.

That sounds very similar as the plane waves model found with photons.

It reminds me of the explanation part about photons traveling as waves at time : 04.15

Plane waves :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_wave

It would make sense that electrons can travel seemingly united as a single wave through the right medium. A super conductor can be that medium. but maybe i am wrong though...
I just had to think of this :
The entire universe seem to be comprised of circular movement. Position turns into time when there is a boundary limit for the maximum speed any point on that given circular movement can travel. When that maximum speed is a constant, i would think that would automatically create a sinusoidal shape. Because time seems to be locked as well because of that maximum speed. Thus the time seems constant only when that maximum speed is a constant.

Last edited:

#### Net

##### Golden Member
there is no electrical field in an ideal (non-real world) conductor/superconductor. Non-ideal you have to account for the skin.

as for solving that equation...

fermi energy: http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/fermi2.html#c1

here is an example:

Fermi speed of Al:

Vf = sqrt(2* Ef/m) = sqrt(2 * 11.7eV * 1.60 * 10^-19 J/eV / (9.11 * 10^-31kg)) = 2.03 * 10^6m/s

values:

fermi energy table http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tables/fermi.html

solid state and semiconductor physics covers this

p.s. if you want to learn how to calculate fermi energy, see exercise #1 http://www.physics.udel.edu/~msafrono/425/Lecture&#37;205.pdf that's a random page i pulled from google b/c it quicker then me explaining it in a post.

Last edited:

#### johanfprins

##### Junior Member
Oddly space also behaves like a super conductor and it also has a near zero standing tempature.

correlation ?

Well why do you not patent this and make pots full of money? Can you generate a current through space flowing from one contact to another without applying a voltage over the two contacts or first accelerating the charge-carriers by applying a voltage. Please tell me how? It seems to me that you know oh so much!