New Record For Highest Temperature Superconductor (-70C !) - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The dream of superconductors – materials that transmit electricity with no resistance – at room temperature is inching closer toward reality. Traditionally,superconductors need to be cooled to almost absolute zero (–273.15°C, −459.67°F) for their zero-resistance effects to be felt. However, scientists are slowly pushing this limit to higher temperatures, and this newest method works at the highest temperature yet: [B]–70°C (–94°F)[/B]. This is still extremely chilly for humans, but for superconductors the temperature is positively balmy. This superconducting material, developed by researchers from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, is made out of something that might leave a bad taste in your mouth: hydrogen sulfide, commonly associated with the smell of rotten eggs. It was crushed in a diamond anvil with up to [URL="http://www.nature.com/news/superconductivity-record-sparks-wave-of-follow-up-physics-1.18191"]1.6 million[/URL] times atmospheric pressure to turn it into a superconducting material. And the research might mean the start of "spring" for the progress of superconductors. In fact, the temperature at which the material displays superconductive properties is nearly twenty degrees warmer than the lowest recorded natural temperature on Earth: –89.2°C (–129°F) in Antarctica. The nearest high temperature for a functioning superconductor was –110°C (–166°F), but the new material smashes this record. You can see these "cool" results published in [URL="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14964.html"]Nature[/URL]. [/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.iflscience.com/physics/warmest-superconductor"]Source[/URL] [URL="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14964.html"]Nature Article[/URL] Even closer, keep in mind the material (Hydrogen Sulfide) was pressurized to 90GPa (13053396 PSI) to attain metallic cooling while at high temperature and then cooled to its -70C Critical Superconductor Temp. It's not like 'intrinsic' superconductors that are simply cooled like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bismuth_strontium_calcium_copper_oxide"]BSCCO[/URL] Tc = 110K (-163C).

Crazy stuff but making metalic hydrogen compounds is even less understood than superconductivity, but hey they're working things out

[QUOTE=Sableye;48498876]What I found funny was that the article goes out of its way to say other high temp super conductors are usually at enormous pressure as if this one is different, then it goes on to say its at slightly less enormous pressure but still enormous pressure[/QUOTE] Something Something Pressure Something Something Superconductors

Surely you can easily cool something to -70C with something like peltier elements?

[QUOTE=Str4fe;48501892]Surely you can easily cool something to -70C with something like peltier elements?[/QUOTE] You can probably cool something to that temperature with just dry ice. Which is pretty cheap.

Can someone put into laymans terms how much more efficient superconductors are than standard power delivery means? Like say we got to a point with superconductors there they became the norm. What would that mean

[QUOTE=Perfumly;48501972]Can someone put into laymans terms how much more efficient superconductors are than standard power delivery means? Like say we got to a point with superconductors there they became the norm. What would that mean[/QUOTE] copper is a far cheaper option of power delivery than super conductors will ever be, so they probably wont be used as a means of power delivery ever

[QUOTE=Perfumly;48501972]Can someone put into laymans terms how much more efficient superconductors are than standard power delivery means? Like say we got to a point with superconductors there they became the norm. What would that mean[/QUOTE] As a layman, they'll be infinitely faster than any copper we know to date. As for when they'll be the normal it'll be a matter of when they either figure out how to get the entire world to -70C or when they end up getting it to work at higher temperatures.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;48501972]Can someone put into laymans terms how much more efficient superconductors are than standard power delivery means? Like say we got to a point with superconductors there they became the norm. What would that mean[/QUOTE] Well it would revolutionize electronics in general. Superconductors have no resistance when cooled to a certain point. Reducing resistance in circuitry means it wouldn't give off as much heat, meaning you could both make chips that are much more powerful and much more energy efficient.

[QUOTE=Perfumly;48501972]Can someone put into laymans terms how much more efficient superconductors are than standard power delivery means? Like say we got to a point with superconductors there they became the norm. What would that mean[/QUOTE] To put into perspective in terms of say the US power grid. [URL="http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3"]We waste 6%[/URL] of our total transmitted energy on line losses annually. In 2013 our total consumed power was [URL="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/section_elecgeneration.cfm"]3836 billion[/URL] kilowatts to put into perspective, that's roughly 230 billion kilowatts lost annually. Beyond power distribution, if room temperature superconductors existed it would mean less power hungry electronics all around. Less heat sinks needed to dissipate waste heat, smaller batteries to accommodate lower powered devices, etc. Superconductors mean exactly that, their resistance goes to zero at their critical temperature (Tc). Sci-Fi uses of superconductors mean we could create large magnetic fields potentially useful for shielding crews against cosmic radiation on a Mars mission. Ninja'd

[QUOTE=AJ10017;48502003]copper is a far cheaper option of power delivery than super conductors will ever be, so they probably wont be used as a means of power delivery ever[/QUOTE] How much cheaper?

[QUOTE=AJ10017;48502003]copper is a far cheaper option of power delivery than super conductors will ever be, so they probably wont be used as a means of power delivery ever[/QUOTE] Don't be so hasty, why do you say that superconductors are more costly? Cost of materials? Cost to cool them? Cost to manufacture? Current now that's true on all fronts, but there's alot of superconductor materials that use relatively common elements (non-rare-earth elements). Cooling would be inconsequential at a theoretical room-temperature superconductor. As of now most superconductors can be cooled with comparatively cheaper liquid nitrogen versus the early days of cooling with liquid helium (Back in the early 80s). TL;DR Give it time

[QUOTE=V12US;48501935]You can probably cool something to that temperature with just dry ice. Which is pretty cheap.[/QUOTE] Or ln2, which can be gotten for home use for as low as 50 cents a gallon. ln2 overclockers do it all the time.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;48502200]Well it would revolutionize electronics in general. Superconductors have no resistance when cooled to a certain point. Reducing resistance in circuitry means it wouldn't give off as much heat, meaning you could both make chips that are much more powerful and much more energy efficient.[/QUOTE] Also coils man, when you make big ass coil out of superconductor, you basically make very strong battery.

Good as long as it leads to cpu and gpu coolers without the use of fans or water.

[QUOTE=gdfsgdfg;48504725]Good as long as it leads to cpu and gpu coolers without the use of fans or water.[/QUOTE] Superconductors can't be used in any lithography, processors are down to a very few atoms wide these days, superconductors are built on a large molecular interaction

[QUOTE=Fourier;48504655]Also coils man, when you make big ass coil out of superconductor, you basically make very strong battery.[/QUOTE] Superconductors may soon be responsible for super-fast transportation. Maglev anyone?

"billion kilowatts" hmmm if only there was some sort of prefix we could put on the front of a unit to make the numbers smaller

Reading this, it looks like it only works at ridiculous pressures. This feels sort of like a dead end. :(

[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;48505906]"billion kilowatts" hmmm if only there was some sort of prefix we could put on the front of a unit to make the numbers smaller[/QUOTE] 3836 billion kilowatts is 3836 gigawatts and 3.8 terawatts

Jesus, I knew superconductors had to be cold but -90c is a [i]high[/i] temperature for them?

??? Fairly certain it's 3836 terawatts or 3.84 petawatts? Giga is 10^9, billion is (at least, short scale) 10^9 I was just pointing out the redundancy of using an SI prefix and then still multiplying by a large power of 10, when that's exactly what the prefix is meant to avoid. It's not as though people can actually visualise 3836 billion kilowatts any more easily than 3836 terawatts. A better way to visualise it is taking 13 5-ton semi trucks and lifting them from sea level straight up to the top of Everest, in one second, and then repeating that every second. Ridiculous. [editline] blah [/editline] Oops. Yes, superconductors. Another application which is much more practical than energy distribution is energy storage. In the same way that a capacitor holds charge in a configuration that stores energy in an electric field, a ring of superconductor can sustain a circulating current indefinitely, and store enormous amounts of energy in a magnetic field. This allows you to store large amounts of energy in a very compact way (although still not close to chemical cells I believe) and deliver it[B] incredibly[/B] quickly.

[QUOTE=cccritical;48506752]Jesus, I knew superconductors had to be cold but -90c is a [i]high[/i] temperature for them?[/QUOTE] Think of it in terms of the Kelvin scale. Conventional superconductors need to be cooled to 30K. High-temperature superconductors need to be cooled to 100K. This needs to be cooled to just 200K. It's a massive difference.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;48503930]Don't be so hasty, why do you say that superconductors are more costly? Cost of materials? Cost to cool them? Cost to manufacture? Current now that's true on all fronts, but there's alot of superconductor materials that use relatively common elements (non-rare-earth elements). Cooling would be inconsequential at a theoretical room-temperature superconductor. As of now most superconductors can be cooled with comparatively cheaper liquid nitrogen versus the early days of cooling with liquid helium (Back in the early 80s). TL;DR Give it time[/QUOTE] But would a power conveyance that needs cooling even be a viable alternative to our current system? You can say that a room temperature superconductor wouldn't even need it, but weather conditions would beg to differ. We'd basically need to dig a deep tunnel just to keep the power line cool and maybe that wouldn't even be enough. I just don't see it being economically feasible. But maybe we need an expert. :johnnymo1:

[QUOTE=GunFox;48505921]Reading this, it looks like it only works at ridiculous pressures. This feels sort of like a dead end. :([/QUOTE] Iirc, it only needs the ludicrous pressures to make the materials, not to sustain it.

[QUOTE=Del91;48508425]Iirc, it only needs the ludicrous pressures to make the materials, not to sustain it.[/QUOTE] Nah, the superconducting phase is only observed at those high pressures. It's still a huge step forward.

[QUOTE=r0b0tsquid;48505906]"billion kilowatts" hmmm if only there was some sort of prefix we could put on the front of a unit to make the numbers smaller[/QUOTE] billion

[QUOTE=Adeptus;48509252]billion[/QUOTE] trillion watts

I thought graphene was supposedly a room temperature superconductor? Or did they disprove that?

[QUOTE=Ardosos;48514733]I thought graphene was supposedly a room temperature superconductor? Or did they disprove that?[/QUOTE] Graphene isn't a room temp superconductor, it just has a [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphene#Electronic"]very low resistance[/URL] (when manufactured quality), 10^-6 ohms per cm, by comparision copper is 1.7 x 10^-8 ohms per cm.