David, I agree. If the resistance fluctuates under constant potential, transient superconductivity, or ballistic conduction may be occuring. If the resistance follows the same deterministic non-monotonic path each time the voltage is swept, then maybe something like Esaki-diode (differential) negative resistance is happening.
-- LP David L Babcock wrote: > For any here puzzled- > Pointing out the obvious: > If, while temperature is rising, some increasing portion of a resistive > conductor becomes superconductive, the overall resistance of the entire > conductor will decrease. If this decrease exceeds an increase which > temperature rise is causing at the same time, you get non-monotonic > resistivity vs temp. > > Ol' Bab > > On 9/12/2012 1:36 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> Jeff, >> >> The reports cited in the presentation are of hi-temp superconductivity >> (I >> believe), rather than just non-monotonic resistivity vs. temp phenomena. >> >> It may be worth looking at the recently reported hi-temp >> superconductivity >> seen in fractal materials - e.g., >> >> "High-temperature superconductivity: The benefit of fractal dirt" >> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7308/full/466825a.html >> >> "Fractals make better superconductors" >> http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=39593 >> >> "Fractals promise higher-temperature Superconductors" >> http://www.stealthskater.com/Documents/Fractals_04.pdf >> >> "X-rays control disorder in superconductor" >> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/aug/31/x-rays-control-disorder-in-superconductor >> >> "Fractals boost superconductivity" >> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/aug/13/fractals-boost-superconductivity >> >> -- Lou Pagnucco >> >> >> >> Jeff Berkowitz wrote: >>> To answer my own question: yes, here >>> http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CelaniFcunimnallo.pdf on page 3, in item >>> (3) >>> of the numbered list. >>> >>> Of course, it could be some unrelated effect; but decreasing electrical >>> resistance with increasing temperature is very odd, and it certainly is >>> an >>> interesting coincidence. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Lasers not necessary? Hasn't Celani been reporting a negative >>>> temperature >>>> coefficient of resistance that appears about the time his processed >>>> wires >>>> begin producing heat? I might have this wrong ... >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:59 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> "Low Energy Neutron Reaactions (LENRs)" >>>>> >>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/lewisglarsen >>>>> -- or at -- >>>>> >>>>> http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/14256059?hostedIn=slideshare&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slideshare.net%2Flewisglarsen# >>>>> >>>>> - proposes that high temp superconductivity may develop in surface >>>>> plasmons when very high (10^11 V/m) E-field gradients develop at the >>>>> interface between collectively oscillating electrons and collectively >>>>> oscillating protons. >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps this is testable using laser pulses, as described in - >>>>> >>>>> "Surface plasmon enhanced electron acceleration with few-cycle laser >>>>> pulses" >>>>> http://www.szfki.hu/~dombi/DombiLPB27_291.pdf >>>>> >>>>> - since they can create field gradients of at least 3.7 X 10^11 V/m >>>>> (p.293) >>>>> >>>>> -- Lou Pagnucco >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> >> > > >
