Peer Reviewed Paper Shows Room Temperature and Room Pressure Superconductor Evidence in Linear Parallel Wrinkled Graphite

Advanced Quantum Technologies is a peer reviewed journal that has published a paper – Global Room-Temperature Superconductivity in Graphite. The researchers are from Brazil, Italy and Switzerland.

They use the scotch-taped cleaved pyrolytic graphite carrying the wrinkles that resulted from this cleaving to which they also refer as to line defects. They detected experimental evidence for the global zero-resistance state. The experimental data clearly demonstrated that the array of nearly parallel linear defects that form due to the cleaving of the highly oriented pyrolytic graphite hosts one-dimensional superconductivity.

One-Dimensional room temperature and room pressure superconductivity is what part of the theory and claims proposed for LK99 and sulfurized LK99 and PCPOSOS.

Room temperature superconductivity under normal conditions has been a major challenge of physics and material science since its discovery. Here the global room-temperature superconductivity observed in cleaved highly oriented pyrolytic graphite carrying dense arrays of nearly parallel surface line defects is reported. The multiterminal measurements performed at the ambient pressure in the temperature interval 4.5 K ≤ T ≤ 300 K and at magnetic fields 0 ≤ B ≤ 9 T applied perpendicular to the basal graphitic planes reveal that the superconducting critical current Ic(T, B) is governed by the normal state resistance RN(T, B) so that Ic(T, B) is proportional to 1/RN(T, B). Magnetization M(T, B) measurements of superconducting screening and hysteresis loops together with the critical current oscillations with temperature that are characteristic for superconductor-ferromagnet-superconductor Josephson chains, provide strong support for the occurrence of superconductivity at T over 300 K. A theory of global superconductivity emerging in the array of linear structural defects is developed which well describes the experimental findings and demonstrate that global superconductivity arises as a global phase coherence of superconducting granules in linear defects promoted by the stabilizing effect of underlying Bernal graphite via tunneling coupling to the three dimensional (3D) material.

The mercury-based cuprate HgBa2Ca2Cu3O9 shows the highest Tc = 135 K under the ambient pressure for the accepted uncontroversial best.

Graphite is yet another promising material taking part in a race for the RTSC (room temperature superconductor). Decades ago, Antonowicz measured the Josephson-type oscillations and Shapiro-like steps in current-voltage, I–V, characteristics at T = 300 K in Al-AC-Al sandwiches, where the AC stands for the amorphous carbon. Various experimental groups have also reported localized superconductivity in graphite at temperatures as high as 300 K. Because the AC consists of curved graphene and/or fullerene-like fragments, one can justly assume that similar structural defects in graphite may be responsible for the occurrence of high-temperature localized superconducting regions. However, so far, all the efforts to achieve a global superconductivity at elevated temperatures in graphite failed.

In the present work, researchers report the first unambiguous experimental evidence for the global zero-resistance state, RTSC, in the scotch-tape cleaved highly oriented pyrolytic graphite (HOPG) that possesses dense arrays of nearly parallel line defects (LD), the wrinkles.

They measured the I–V characteristics at T = 300 K (aka room temperature and room pressure). The data demonstrate the zero-resistance state below the magnetic-field-dependent critical current Ic(B), which is decreasing with the field. The obtained I–V curves demonstrate the characteristic features of low-dimensional superconductors. First, the excess voltage peaks seen just above the Ic(B) and before the Ohmic regime sets in at I > IN, see Figure 1c, are similar to those measured in 1D or 2D superconducting constrictions, and are attributed to the charge imbalance and/or presence of phase slip (PS) centers at superconductor (S) –normal metal (N) interfaces. The onset of the Ohmic behavior in I–V characteristics corresponds to the suppression of the non-equilibrium superconducting regime or the transition to the normal state.

Conclusion
They have reported the first-ever observation of the global room-temperature superconductivity at ambient pressure. Notably, while a single graphite layer, graphene, is hailed as a miracle material of the new century, the bulk pyrolytic graphite opens the way to even more spectacular advances in technology. The experimental data clearly demonstrated that the array of nearly parallel linear defects that form due to the cleaving of the highly oriented pyrolytic graphite hosts one-dimensional superconductivity. The measurements at the ambient pressure at temperatures up to 300 K and applied magnetic field perpendicular to the basal graphitic planes up to 9 T, reveal that the superconducting critical current Ic(T, B) is proportional to 1/RN(T, B), indicating the Josephson-junction like nature of the emerging superconductivity. This latter conclusion is supported by the oscillations of the critical current with temperature that are characteristic of superconductor-ferromagnet-superconductor Josephson junctions. Global superconductivity arises due to global phase coherence in the superconducting granules array promoted by the stabilizing effect of underlying Bernal graphite having the resistance RN. The theory of global superconductivity emerging on the array of linear structural defects well describes the experimental findings.

The ideas and concepts explored in our work are not confined to graphite. The theoretical model is quite general and guides where to look for more room-temperature superconducting materials. The basic principle they have uncovered is that linear defects in stacked materials host strong strain gradient fluctuations, which induce the local pairing of electrons into condensate droplets that form JJA-like structures in the planes. The global superconductivity is then established by the effect of the tunneling links connecting the superconducting droplets. If the droplets are sufficiently small, one foresees a fairly high critical superconducting temperature.

Impact Factory of 4.4 is in the top 10% of journals.

8 thoughts on “Peer Reviewed Paper Shows Room Temperature and Room Pressure Superconductor Evidence in Linear Parallel Wrinkled Graphite”

  1. “The ideas and concepts explored in our work are not confined to graphite. The theoretical model is quite general and guides where to look for more room-temperature superconducting materials.”

    So, we are not only entering the age of AI and robotics, but also — possibly — the age of superconductivity.

    I’m 75 years old. My time of technical sophistication it’s over. I am past my technical “sell by date”. But I can nevertheless “smell” the coming age of miracles.

    The above article provoked a question that I would like you folks whose technical sophistication is more current than mine to perhaps provide something in the way of an answer.

    In long ago 1981, in thermodynamics class, the professor mentioned that Claude Shannon — “Claude E. Shannon: Founder of Information Theory. In a landmark paper written at Bell Labs in 1948, Shannon defined in mathematical terms what information is at the start of the information age …” — had calculated the “quantum” of energy required — perhaps in terms of the quantum of entropy generated by the process — to generate a single “bit” of information.

    The RSC article provoked the thought that room temperature superconductivity applied to computer chips would substantially lower the energy consumption of those chips, lower the heat produced and by extension the cooling required, enabling by implication higher output from any given chip design. And this would seem to directly apply to all the connecting elements in a chip.

    However, Shannon’s calculation of a minimum amount of energy used/entropy generated by the processing of information leaves me wondering about the remaining balance of energy — the minimum amount of energy — required for the actual processing, in contrast to the mere transmission of signals to the various locations on and off the chip. (Somewhere in the jumbled fog of my memory I seem to recall some odd notion that you can escape the entropy trap(?) by some trick of “reversibility”. Something about performing the processing to get the answer you want, and then reversing the process (? ) … to “zero out” the entropy factor. (?) )

    Any thoughts on the matter?

    Respectfully, Jeff Davis

  2. I’m always hopeful. But I can remember the graphene hype from 20 years ago. Weren’t we supposed to have space cables by now? Single span bridges, miles long.

    • I had said back then and written here that space elevators and space cables would not happen. We could not make it into thousands of tons or millions of tons of continuous material.

      We have to get full up mature advanced molecular nanotechnology for the diamondoid future. Everything has to change material wise. Billions of tons of atomically precise material from super nanofactories.

      Far less material and far less capable material and less advanced technologies can give us a 400 ton reusable payload on SpaceX Super Heavy Starship with ten non-orbital flights per day for Starships, one orbital flight every two days with the same vehicle and booster flights every hour.

      Beyond that air breathing Starship. No liquid oxygen to boost payload fraction from 4% to 30%.

      • [ anyone ever modeled&simulated requirements for an air breathing Superheavy booster’s rocket engines (suitability, air quality?) with filtering for to prevent nitrogen intake? ]

  3. I wish them all the best with this. I’m content to let researchers get excited now while investors get excited down the road when they feel confident in it and I’ll wait and get excited when technologies using the discovery start rolling out. If and when that happens I hope I’m still alive. 👍

  4. What is the current flux limit on the superconductivity? By current flux I mean the current density across a given area of cross section of the material.

Comments are closed.