Talk:List of superconductors
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
External links
editI just removed a pair of external links to http://www.superconductors.org/ citing Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, but was reverted with an argument of utility to this article: [1]. To expand on my point, the site is not particularly well written or coded, and does not seem to provide a unique resource beyond the article itself. I am fully in favor of providing material accessible to non-specialists, but such a summary should not make unwarranted novel claims. Specifically, I can find no independent mention of the claimed observation of a Tc=254 K material, as highlighted here. Searching: ADS [2], [3]; arXiv [4],[5]; GoogleScholar [6], [7]. Have I missed anything? - 2/0 (cont.) 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I removed refs to www.superconductors.org here; please delete them anywhere, if encountered. The site does appear as a nice historical collection, but its high-temperature news are simply WP:OR and are completely unconfirmed in scientific literature (say, Web of Science). Looking through this issue, I found serious mistakes in high-Tc superconductivity in other articles, which I'll clean up in a moment. Your note was of great help. Thanks a lot! Materialscientist (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming my analysis - it is always good to have a sanity check when making sweeping changes. I pulled all but one of the links using Special:Linksearch (will get to that one in a bit if it is still there). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- I shall leave this in high-temperature superconductors (while fixing other mistakes there) so that newcomers know. Materialscientist (talk) 05:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for confirming my analysis - it is always good to have a sanity check when making sweeping changes. I pulled all but one of the links using Special:Linksearch (will get to that one in a bit if it is still there). - 2/0 (cont.) 05:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
https://www.nature.com/articles/363056a0 should be added to citations for HBCCO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:4200:D150:2019:D5B6:2C10:6D8 (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a mistake in the entry. To my knowledge MgB2 is NOT a BCS superconductor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.102.80 (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
- See this. I'm not sure this is well established, thus your counter references are welcome. Materialscientist (talk) 10:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
High Tc Superconductors
editI think there should be a list here, or on a separate page, for high-temperature superconductors. Anyone know where to find such information? MTessier (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Can we add the atomic masses?
editCould we do this, sorry I barely know wiki practises etc. I feel if we could add the weights it would help us speculate on this information better. Perhaps there is a way we can allow us to see the tables we like with a new wiki system or something, because I appreciate other people might know the masses etc, I might have different ideas from the next guy over what is useful DarkShroom (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Inclusion criteria
editThe inclusion criteria, as currently stated allows for common superconductors of simple structure
. I think it's necessary to define common and simple if this criteria is to be used. Alternatively, the inclusion criteria could be expanded to include all known (published) superconductors. Either way, I think the lede paragraph needs to be clarified to describe what this list does and doesn't include. Unfortunatly, I don't feel that I know enough about the subject to properly articulate this. Hadron137 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Merge tables and expand
editI think it is time to expand this page to include all significant superconductor materials. Also, I think that all the tables should be merged in one sortable table, maybe specifying the type of superconductor for each one (element/simple compound/cuprate/iron-based etc.). --Ita140188 (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. That would resolve the ambiguity associated with the terms common and simple in the currently worded lede section. Hadron137 (talk) 04:11, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
First and second critical magnetic field
editWould it be possible to also include the first critical field for type 2 superconductors? 132.229.111.42 (talk) 10:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC) For example, Niobium has approximately 200mT of H_C1, which is useful to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.229.111.42 (talk) 10:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
LK-99 (Draft:LK-99, Pb9Cu1(PO4)6O)[arxiv 1] is a proposed room temperature semiconductor:
- ^ Lee, Sukbae; Kim, Ji-Hoon; Kwon, Young-Wan (2023-07-23). "The First Room-Temperature Ambient-Pressure Superconductor". arXiv:2307.12008.
| Substance | Class | TC (K) | HC (T) | Type | BCS | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LK-99 | Cuprate | >400 | >0.3[verification needed] | [arxiv 1] |
Materialscientist: what do you make of the paper? —Sladen (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC) Sladen (talk) 21:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref group=arxiv> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=arxiv}} template (see the help page).