Superconductivity without cooling?

The actual publication, <a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v516/n7529/full/nature13875.html#ref9" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nature.com&#x2F;nature&#x2F;journal&#x2F;v516&#x2F;n7529&#x2F;full&#x2F;nature1...</a>, is not quite so bold as to say they&#x27;ve demonstrated room temperature superconductivity, rather:<p>&quot;Among these, the enhancement in the dx2-y2 character of the in-plane electronic structure is likely to favour superconductivity.&quot;<p>They cite two of their past publications, &quot;Optically enhanced coherent transport in YBa2Cu3O6.5 by ultrafast redistribution of interlayer coupling,&quot; and &quot;Optically induced coherent transport far above Tc in underdoped YBCuO.&quot; If they had actually unequivocally shown pulsed YBCO to be superconducting at room temperature the title would be more like, &quot;ROOM TEMPERATURE SUPERCONDUCTIVITY YES!!!!!&quot;<p>The real demonstration of superconductivity is measuring a Meissner effect (exclusion of magnetic field) in the material (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meissner_effect" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Meissner_effect</a>). I haven&#x27;t read the articles in detail, but it sounds to me like they have seen some properties that are similar to those found in the superconducting state, but they have not measured a definitive signature of superconductivity.

This is a great example of scientific reporting: it deals with the findings of the research itself rather than some &quot;human&quot; narrative, and it names and cites the actual materials and publications involved while using common language where possible.<p>Also, a very cool finding. Interesting that only a few picometers of atomic shift yields superconductivity at room temperature.

Room temperature superconductivity (0 Celsius) = perpetual motion machine to me. They are both stored in the same region of my brain. This would CHANGE EVERYTHING<p>Finding a room temperature superconductor &quot;would have enormous technological importance and, for example, help to solve the world’s energy problems, provide for faster computers, allow for novel memory-storage devices, and enable ultra-sensitive sensors, among many other possibilities.&quot; from <a href="http://researcher.watson.ibm.com/researcher/view_group.php?id=3702" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;researcher.watson.ibm.com&#x2F;researcher&#x2F;view_group.php?i...</a>

Nuts, this fell off the front page before I could write this, so probably nobody will ever see it.<p>&gt; The precise mechanism remained unclear, however – until the physicists were able to solve the mystery with an experiment at the LCLS in the US, the world’s most powerful X-ray laser.<p>Neither Stanford nor SLAC gets a mention here. I wonder if the article author deliberated over whether to include their names and then decided not to, or if it was just an oversight. Either option is not great for SLAC.<p>The national labs don&#x27;t get nearly the love they ought to. One almost never hears about them unless it&#x27;s Los Alamos or Livermore.

Maybe we&#x27;ll have an MRI in every home someday.