Talk:Room-temperature superconductor

Blossoming

I can't really see this page blossoming into anything more substantial anytime soon... - Furrykef 04:34, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree: This article may be short, but it's about as comprehensive as it needs to be. I'm removing the stub tag. O. Prytz 21:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Claims for 200 K +

The data on the website superconductors.org are highly spurious and supposed superconducting transitions are willfully misinterpreted. The 'transitions' are almost indistinguishable from the background noise. The fact that the experimenter has never had his work published in a peer-review journal is testament to the fact that these materials are NOT superconducting at the temperature at which he claims. If they were, he would be a very wealthy and/or famous man! References to this work should be regarded as suspect, until these materials have been independenly verified as superconductors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.222.42.51 (talk) 15:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Supercondutor.org posts claims, not findings, so there is no dishonesty. It's very clear, at least for me As for peer reviewing, there wasn't simply time to verify them, since the author of the site is told about claims directly from the source. It's akin to collecting pre prints in arxiv.org and telling everyone. So, what he does, is an invitation to peer review. If he were really bold, he would post evidence of superconductivity between 600k(!) and 1200K(!!) of one of his inteviews http://www.superconductors.org/roomnano.htm. Such evidences were actualy peer reviewed and at Physcial Review B http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Physical_Review_B , http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/gzhao2/Daniel de França (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

if someone with the proper expertise could be directed to this page...

i am aware of at least one company which has a working prototype of a Room-Temperature Superconductor, however, strangely enough, they have not been able to get much funding. This does not mean such a thing does not exist and will not soon. Most people just don't care about this sort of thing. It doesn't really help much when everyone in the field says "It's not possible and won't be anytime soon." I suppose wikipedia doesn't have a decent article on this because most of those guys are out there desperately trying to find venture capital funds and doing research, and don't have time to waste writing Wikipedia articles. I know, i asked one of them.

Oh, and no, i can't tell you who or how, because the technology has not yet been patented (to avoid the patent expiring before they get a chance to do anything with it). but still...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.243.14 (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research; Wikipedia articles need to be based on things that have been published elsewhere, preferably in a reliable publication. In addition, people with trade secrets probably should not write them into Wikipedia articles, as that will compromise their secret status. Finally, the claim that people just don't care is somewhat contradicted by the High-temperature superconductivity article, which notes over 100,000 published papers on the subject. --Sabik (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep us updated if you know anything more about those supposedly room-temperature superconductors or how it went. Did the patents go through? —Kri (talk) 17:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

150K

From www.superconductors.org:

InSnBa4Tm4Cu6O18+ (As a 1234/1212 intergrowth.)............~150K

Not sure if that is a serious claim or not, but may supersede the 138K for (Hg0.8Tl0.2)Ba2Ca2Cu3O8.33.

Regards!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.138.90 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

153K

Founded in a material physics for engineers (William Jr Callister) : the HgBa2Ca2Cu2O8 has a 153K critical temperature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.88.62 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Silane as superconductor

Yes, the title of the referenced EEtimes article says "Silicon compound superconducts at room temperature", but the Science article seems to indicate that the measured temperatures where Silane becomes superconducting are between 5 and 20 K for pressures between 50 and 200 GPa. Upon close reading of the EEtimes article, maybe it isn't even claimed that a room-temperature superconductor has been constructed, just that silane still is a candidate for one. Should the section on silane be removed? The original Science article states:

Electrical resistance measurements (Fig. 2A) showed that the sample resistance at room temperature dropped sharply, indicating the transformation to a metal (19). On cooling, a typical metallic behavior of the resistance was observed and eventually becoming superconducting (SC) at Tc ≈ 7 K (Fig. 2B). M. I. Eremets, I. A. Trojan, S. A. Medvedev, J. S. Tse, Y. Yao (2008). "Superconductivity in Hydrogen Dominant Materials: Silane". Science. 319 (5869): 1506–1509. Bibcode:2008Sci...319.1506E. doi:10.1126/science.1153282. PMID 18339933. S2CID 19968896.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

To me, that seems to indicate that it is not a room-temperature superconductor, but a room-temperature metal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RickardHolmberg (talk • contribs) 07:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I read the article; at 96GPa it has a Tc of 17.5K and 17K at 110GPa, and these are both sides of an upwards trend, indicating that the superconducting transition temperature may be higher in the intermediate region, however the authors give NO indication that this temperature could even approach record temperatures of 130+ K let alone room temperature. Its a remarkable experiment, but is not room temperature by more than an order of magnitude. [Signed Andrew Princep, casual reader and physics grad student, Curtin University of Technology, Australia]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.193.222.90 (talk) 09:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Old joke

A team of scientists at the University Of Alaska recently discovered a room-temperature superconductor. 86.21.227.237 (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for comedy blah blah blah... I laughed. --86.182.182.138 (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Advanced Materials

Both graphite and water are diamagnets. This may have been misinterpreted to mean superconductivity. There also has been zero conductivity tests performed in the article or published since - only enough to prove diamagnetism, which also exist in superconductors.

Taken from wikipedia article on diamagnetism: ...pyrolytic graphite, which is an unusually strong diamagnetic material...

Unobtanium

Should the room temperature superconductor in the film Avatar get mentioned? I think it should, because the way it was portrayed in the film was certainly unique (the Hallelujah mountains, which float. either the superconductor is in the mountains, and is floating in a magnetic field, or there is magnetic material in the mountains floating above the superconductor) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt The Tuba Guy (talk • contribs) 02:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of unobtainium in avatar being a superconductor that's just speculation. 114.76.213.189 (talk) 12:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

In the avatar scripment by James Cameron, he states that Unobtanium is a room temperature superconductor.--Matt The Tuba Guy (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In the Special Edition it actually is.... But wait!!!! Why are we talking about a science FICTION movie in a Wikipedia non-fiction science article discussion?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.86.97 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Those "mountains" couldn't exist. They would have eroded away.173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC).

Possibly the latter option, Pandora or Polyphemus may well have a *very* intense magnetic field so any magnetic material would float. Think this was covered in "Journey to the Center of the Earth" (2008) back in the day as well. This also explains how a near Earth sized moon has a day/night cycle as the gas giant might tidally lock but the moon(s) would not. 88.81.156.140 (talk) 06:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Implications

It would be nice to see a section in this article discussing what finding a room-temperature superconductor would enable us to do. Right now, the article says the "potential benefits for society and science if such a material did exist are profound", but does not elaborate. —Pie4all88 ^{T C} 13:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Is an encyclopedia the place for imaginative speculation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.76.155 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Various ideas from high efficiency turbines to super-radiation shielding. The big snag with conventional HTSCs is that Jc goes down as Tc goes up, so a hypothetical room temperature material with Tc in the 274K range may have low critical current. So less cooling is needed but still a problem. One idea I did see is using HTSC coils cooled directly with liquid oxygen (LOx) maintaining the critical saturation within the cuprate and the magnetic field exiting the containment through conduits composed of a "soft" material like SmCo so even if the main field cuts out there is enough residual energy for a few minutes of operation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.38 (talk) 14:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

However, depending on the type an inter-metallic compound may have very useful properties. Conventional low temperature superconductors are quite ductile at ambient temperature however cuprates and borates are not requiring them to be wound using a host like silver (Ag) so the strain is mostly taken up. If the material discovered at IISC or another like it turns out to be something that can be mass produced, it would trigger another Industrial Revolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.35.82.111 (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

new room temperature superconductor - graphite and water

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/429203/room-temperature-superconductivity-found-in/ 72.128.212.251 (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Removing self-published findings

I have removed self-published findings, as this clearly contraindicates long-standing wikipedia policy against original research. One of the citations is not even a publication by Prins, but rather a notice by someone else that he has commented upon. 14:58, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Remove 2015 report?

I found the 2015 report on High-temperature_superconductivity, so it apparently is confirmed. Remove it here? Or link? 81.14.170.194 (talk) 14:57, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Partly incomprehensible sentence

The sentence starting with "Further support for anomalous spin states is found in" seems partly incomprehensible.

--Mortense (talk) 13:07, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

ThH10

Hi, seems that actinide hydrides are generating interesting results. The latest one seems to be ThH10 under GPa pressure, that superconducts at 161K https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-11/miop-tss110719.php

the problem here is pressure. I suspect that hydrides though interesting will not work at any sensible pressure ie tens or hundreds of kPa without the Tc dropping like a stone. Pressure seems to stabilize the hydrogen in a quasi-metallic state so making it work at room temperature OR ambient pressure but not both at the same time.

There still may be hope of a metal-actinide-hydride but again its unlikely. On the flip side experiment and theory seem to agree, in that the properties of a simulated material agree within 10% to experimental results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.35.83.107 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting to note here, that advances in GPU design mean previously impossible calculations can be done with simple arrays of cheaper cards (notably the 2070) thanks to them flooding the market as the mining community switches to ASICs. Also worth noting that even earlier cards like the 10xx have the required hardware but aren't quite as efficient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.195.1 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Problems/Original Research in the last 2 Paragraphs of "Reports"

Reference 21 discusses how how 3/2 electron spins could lead to new mechanisms for superconductivity, but other than that oblique reference, nothing in the final 2 paragraphs of the "Reports" section is supported by any references. I suspect it may be original research or a copy and paste from a source not referenced. Appropriate citations should be provided or the paragraphs deleted.

"Further support for anomalous 3/2 spin states is found in[21][clarification needed] though YPtBi is a relatively low temperature material it does suggest proof of concept. It has also recently been discovered that many superconductors including the cuprates and iron pnictides have two or more competing mechanisms fighting for dominance ie Charge density wave[citation needed] and excitonic states so, as with organic light emitting diodes and other quantum systems adding the right spin catalyst may by itself increase Tc: a possible candidate would be iridium or gold IrAu placed in some of the adjacent molecules or as a thin surface layer so the correct mechanism then propagates throughout the entire lattice similar to a phase transition. As yet this is speculative however some efforts have been made notably adding Pb to BSCCO which is well known to help promote high Tc phases by chemistry alone though relativistic effects similar to those found in lead-acid batteries might be responsible suggesting that a similar mechanism in Hg or Tl based cuprates may be possible using a related metal ie tin (Sn).

Any such catalyst would need to be nonreactive chemically but have properties that affect one mechanism but not the others, and also not interfere with subsequent annealing and oxygenation steps nor change the lattice resonances excessively. A possible workaround for the issues discussed would be to use strong electrostatic fields to hold the molecules in place during one of the steps until the lattice is formed.

Bgovern (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I added the discussion. Perhaps I should just write a paper then it would be peer reviewed research at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.190.161.223 (talk) 07:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC) Still working on the paper. I did notice something intriguing, and circulated a copy of my findings to some folks in the US who patented a similar device though this is still under review as to replication and whether it is practical on a larger scale. Seems that complex Bi containing high entropy metal alloys also show signs of resistance drop near 4C (277K) and it is not clear why. Keeping the machine isolated and offline just in case I need to prove priority at a later date, though this may be excessive it needs to be said that sometimes an invention needs to be proved before it can be patented. I have also made progress on many lines of research but the difficulties include funding and testing candidate materials with old equipment.

Cleanup of the lede

Feels like in the last few years, the latest and greatest item has just been prepended to the lede, without moving older items out to the "reports" section. I'm having a bash at that now. DewiMorgan (talk) 23:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Patent search

Hi, it looks like this material is genuine but need to come up with a coherent theory that explains the anomalous re-entrant behavior and lack of a clear Meissner effect in the test sample. Now hooking it up to an XRD rig of my own design based on firmware modified IO dental sensors though it will also work using the GM tube array method. Hopefully this will once and for all prove priority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.81.137.12 (talk) 08:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, WP:original research is not accepted as a source for Wikipedia articles. Even if your research is published in a refereed scientific journal, WP:primary sources like research papers are not enough to support Wikipedia content. WP:Secondary sources like survey papers or books are required. --Chetvorno^TALK 09:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, noticed this. Perhaps I can send it to arXiv ?

I've had preprint papers kicked out as references from articles I created for various reasons, including that they were published on the medical counterpart medRxiv [1]. - Bri.public (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

A new claim

Per today's WSJ, " a group of researchers at the University of Rochester report that they have created a new superconductor that can operate at room temperature and a much lower pressure than previously discovered superconducting materials. . . . For the new study, which was published Wednesday in the journal Nature, the researchers tweaked their superconductor recipe--adding nitrogen and a rare-earth metal known as lutetium to the hydrogen instead of sulfur and carbon--and once again heated and squeezed it in the diamond anvil cell.

They named the resulting material "reddmatter," after observing how the material's hue changed from blue to pink to red as it got compressed. The Rochester lab found that "reddmatter" could exist at 69 degrees Fahrenheit and 145,000 pounds per square inch, or psi, of pressure--about 1/360th of the pressure in Earth's core. That is about a 10-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature and a drop to about 1/1000th of pressure compared with its predecessor from 2020.

"These results are a breakthrough for the scientific community that was enabled by [Dr. Dias's] keen chemical intuition," said Stanley Tozer, a research scientist at the National High Magnetic Field Laboratory at Florida State University in Tallahassee, who wasn't involved in the research.

Dr. Dias said he's confident that achievement is coming: "It is just a matter of time." https://www.wsj.com/articles/superconductor-breakthrough-energy-reddmatter-90dfa165

The Nature article: Nature | Vol 615 | 9 March 2023 "Evidence of near-ambient superconductivity in a N-doped lutetium hydride" Nathan Dasenbrock-Gammon et. al https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05742-0.epdf , full text online.

Pete Tillman (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Its intriguing. Interesting note here, the colour change would suggest a fundamental state of matter.

Lt compounds were once considered for NiMH batteries and in fact I once theorized that metallic hydrogen may form transiently within MH electrodes under full charge, but never had the chance to test it. 78.111.195.1 (talk) 08:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

According to The New York Times, a previous paper submitted by the same group was found to have significant problems, and the latest claim is not yet independently verified. AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The Nature article was peer-reviewed prior to publication there. Which of course is no guarantee that it's correct! I hope they are right, or at least on the right track. Time will tell. As you (and others) say, lots of false-positives in the past! Pete Tillman (talk) 00:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Definition of "room temperature" apparently being changed

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Room_temperature 66.175.171.109 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

400k+

Hey y'all, I'm not experienced enough in this area to feel comfortable paraphrasing anything myself, but I wanted to post some links to a recent (2023-07-22) research paper that claims to have developed a "room-temperature superconductor (Tc ≥ 400 K, 127°C) working at ambient pressure with a modified lead-apatite (LK-99) structure."

The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor (PDF)

There is another related paper:

Superconductor Pb10-xCux(PO4)6O showing levitation at room temperature and atmospheric pressure and mechanism (PDF)

Discussed here and here.

CallMeSarge (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

More collected resources, from the Hacker News post:

1. Magnetic Property Test of LK-99 Film (video)
   • From this comment
2. Patent Application (2023-03-02)
   • From this comment
3. Journal of the Korean Crystal Growth and Crystal Technology: Consideration for the development of room-temperature ambient-pressure superconductor (LK-99) (2023-04-30)
   • From this comment

CallMeSarge (talk) 21:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@CallMeSarge I am not an expert on physics but I am an expert on arts and... that video is not reliable. Anyone can make a movie scene that features this "experiment" without need of any new material. Why the scientists didnt made it in an environment and video setting which can not be fabricated is beyond me, perhaps the physics discipline in Korean unicersities teach "while testing a supposed superconductor, tie a thin chain to it and do not let it show the levitation. instead move fast on a thin film and make it look like wind is doing the job." to their students? Cactus Ronin (talk) 09:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Is it not a bit premature to include lk99 in the article, considering that it has as of yet not been peer-reviewed/verifiably replicated? 81.227.86.244 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fair.

I was considering mentioning the announcement without attesting to its veracity, but I'd also totally understand waiting for confirmations / disproofs. CallMeSarge (talk) 23:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

In the newly added part, is the Quantum Energy Research Center officially affiliated with Korea University? From what I could find from their site, they look like a private company, though they list their second lab as on the campus. The wiki article makes it sound like they are part of the university Pabnau (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The authors seem to be respectable in the field, at least, judging from publication history. Still, 400K/1 atm is the kind of discovery that basically guarantees a Nobel Prize in Physics, so we should 100% wait for the journal publication before including it. Juxlos (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

The procedure to reproduce LK-99 does seem to be rather... simple? It shouldn't be long until LK-99 can be added here if it is indeed a room temperature ambient pressure superconductor, but I wouldn't add it immediately. --DeputationRE (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Someone needs to attempt a replication from the released paper. I'd try but lack some of the more exotic chemicals and parts needed. Have a frequency generator and dual channel scope at least.

Wonder if microwave oven or induction methods would work here? 78.111.195.1 (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, the section was re-added by someone, and they included a citation. I guess it was published in a Korean journal at the end of March. No citations in 3 months which is suspicious in itself. The journal looks suspiciously like a junk journal. Pay-to-publish journal with a relatively low impact factor (though I’m not sure what normal impact factors are for material science), and they accepted the paper after only 18 days of peer review…for such a significant claim that seems wayyyy too fast. I don’t think this paper adds credibility, if anything it raises more red flags if the claim has been around for months without verification, but maybe that’s why they found other researchers to work with?

(paper: http://journal.kci.go.kr/jkcgct/archive/articleView?artiId=ART002955269) Pabnau (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Oh, there’s apparently reporting in some secondary sources. I don’t know that IFL Science is reliable, but this magazine looks ok https://www.newscientist.com/article/2384782-room-temperature-superconductor-breakthrough-met-with-scepticism/ but paywalled. Writer has a PhD in material science Pabnau (talk) 20:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Ok, signed up to get access. Looks like we were right to be skeptical. Lots of skepticism from experts. I posted a short bit to the claim citing this source and mentioning the skepticism, but I think the paragraph probably needs a more significant rewrite or something

”

Susannah Speller and Chris Grovenor at the University of Oxford say that when a material becomes superconductive, there should be clear signatures of that in a number of measurements.

For two of those in particular, namely the response to a magnetic field and a quantity called heat capacity, Speller says neither is demonstrated in the data. “So it is too early to say that we have been presented with compelling evidence for superconductivity in these samples,” she says.

Other experts that New Scientist consulted were similarly sceptical about the results and the data produced. Some raised concern that some of the results could be explained by errors in experimental procedure combined with imperfections in the LK-99 sample.

” Pabnau (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

an attempted reproduction (link to arxiv paper, PDF) has failed, though they admitted it had higher levels of imperfections than the first paper and they stated they are currently making more samples to continue testing Will Hendrix (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

There’s another arxiv paper (https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.16892.pdf) published from the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab- Sugegsts evidence towards initial findings from LL-99 but difficulty in synthesis: “the calculations presented here suggest that Cu substitution on the appropriate (Pb(1)) site displays many key characteristics for high-TC superconductivity, namely a flat isolated d-manifold, and potential presence of fluctuating magnetism, charge and photons. However, substitution on the other Pb(2) does not appear to have such sought-after properties, despite being the lower-energy substitution site. This result hints to the synthesis challenge in obtaining Cu substituted on the appropriate site for obtaining a bulk superconducting sample”. 78.86.34.159 (talk) 10:38, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

The experts I’ve seen comment (eg: the Condensed Matter Theory Center’s at University of Maryland’s Twitter account) seem to be saying that, while this is step forward in better understanding the material, it isn’t good evidence for super conductivity. There are many materials with this kind of behavior, and paper’s author has to make major questionable assumptions to get their simulation results Pabnau (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Just noticed, someone purporting to be the paper’s author on Twitter has also said: “My paper did *not* prove nor give evidence of superconductivity in Cu-apatite.” Pabnau (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

for others who want to follow new papers live as well, here's an arxiv search for all papers mentioning LK99 or LK-99 sorted with the newest first. as of right now, there are 9 papers; the first two from the original team, the attempted reproduction, and then six papers running some numbers to try to better understand the molecule. Will Hendrix (talk) 09:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

scratch that, found other replication attempts with arxiv papers via LK-99#Replication_attempts which don't mention LK99 or LK-99, idk what other terms you could add without just including all superconductivity papers Will Hendrix (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it’s looking like the levitation effect has been replicated, but shown to be due to the ferromagnetism of the material, while simultaneously showing very high resistance. It sounds like it’s probably over for the hopes of superconductivity in this material. At this point, mostly just waiting for confirmation by a reliable secondary source (ie not IFL Science)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2308.03110 Pabnau (talk) 14:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

I've added in citations to the Washington Post and Popular Mechanics about the new information. Popular mechanics is mainly there just to support the details about ferromagnetism since the Washington Post story doesn't provide many details. I couldn't find any good secondary sources talking about the resistivity drop coming from a phase shift, so I left that out, but there could be good things in the Science article (https://www.science.org/content/article/short-spectacular-life-viral-room-temperature-superconductivity-claim) which I'm pay-walled out of. There's also some interesting questions about whether LK-99 may be an unusually strong diamagnet, but I guess that's not super relevant to the superconductor question as the ferromagnetism.

Also, maybe this paragraph should go into the new "Retracted or unreliable studies" section? I'm not sure what the criteria we want to use for that is Pabnau (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Perforated graphene

A perforated graphene wetted with aliphatic hydrocarbon is claimed to be a superconductor up to 150°C. based on . I don't think it is well enough confirmed to work, but noting it here. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

New potential "Type III" superconductor

Hi, there are rumblings on some science pages of a new superconductor that exhibits properties similar to earlier discussions. Essentially the material rather than pairing up electrons arranges for electrons and holes to pair as a double Cooper pair quasi-particle of sorts at a much higher temperature than normal (301K) due to spin-antispin coupling when the material is of monoisotopic composition. It appears that it works because one of the quenching mechanisms for Cooper pairs in cuprates is excess lattice vibration (Type II) tearing apart the electron pairs and the cited mechanism is less temperature sensitive than theory alone would predict as well as being less vulnerable to ferrous and other contamination. It may also link in with organic polymers and research with OLEDs tentatively suggests that random bursts of HTSC may cause non radiative recombination that stops otherwise promising compounds from working properly. OLEDs also use a variety of mechanisms to prevent NRR and the structure can be incredibly complex as a result. Variations on this theme include materials with a window re-entrant effect and these may have been the catalyst for the most recent discoveries. 91.190.161.160 (talk) 07:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)