Don't hold your breath

I dedicate a fair chunk of my book on the way that quantum physics is transforming our world, The Quantum Age, to superconductors. These remarkable substances with no electrical resistance and impressive magnetic properties are already supporting a range applications from MRI scanners to maglev trains, but what is always described as the 'holy grail' of superconductivity is a room temperature superconductor.

The earliest examples had to be cooled within a couple of degrees of absolute zero (-273.15 °C), and even now they need either liquid helium or liquid nitrogen, depending on the type, to keep them cool enough. This is okay for specialist applications, but means they can't break out into everyday everywhere use. But if a superconductor could work easily at room temperature it would transform electronics and electrical products everywhere.

Hence the excitement whenever a new temperature high is announced. This happened recently when the simple compound hydrogen sulfide showed superconducting properties at just 203 K (-70 °C) - okay, not exactly room temperature, but nearly 20 degrees better than the best previous attempt. Immediately, as always with a new announcement, we got claims that room temperature superconductors are on the horizon.

It's possible, but there is a big caveat. Most 'high temperature' superconductors are fancy ceramics featuring the likes of thallium, strontium, copper, oxygen and bismuth. Hydrogen sulfide is suspiciously simple - and there's a reason. Because this was no ordinary H₂S. It was compressed using pressures of around 150 gigapascals - that's around 1.5 million times atmospheric pressure. Not surprisingly, achieving this for appliances in the home is probably even less likely than superconductors requiring liquid nitrogen.

I don't want to be negative, though. All such discoveries are highly useful in the slow process of possibly reaching superconducting nirvana. But I wouldn't necessarily expect it any time soon. You can read more on the H₂S superconductor here in Physics World.

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...

Search This Blog