High voltage: Hinkley power stations near Bristol. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Path of least resistance: the quest for room-temperature superconductors

Michael Brooks’s Science Column. 

We don’t talk enough about superconductors. These materials carry electricity without losing energy and could change the world – if only we could rediscover the kind of progress we used to make in this field.

We have known about superconductors since 1911, when the first one was discovered. In normal conductors – an aluminium wire at room temperature, for instance – electrons move through the material, jostled by all the other particles. Cool that aluminium down to -272° Celsius, though, and it becomes a superconductor. The electrons encounter no resistance, zipping along the wire as if they were the only particles in town.

That is significant: the copper cables used to transmit electricity from power stations to your home lose 10 per cent of energy through electrical resistance. If those cables were made of a superconductor, no energy would be lost. We would not need to generate so much power, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.

Even better would be the ability to store energy. Renewable sources such as wind, wave and solar power generate energy at times and rates beyond our control. That power could be stored indefinitely in superconducting circuits. Because these don’t dissipate any of the energy, a superconducting power store is a battery whose charge lasts as long as you need it to.

There are also transport applications. Superconductors repel magnets and engineers have exploited this by putting superconductors on trains and electromagnets on the track. The repulsion levitates the train above the track, hugely reducing friction and clearing the way for ultra-fast transport.

So far, though, magnetic levitation trains have taken off in only a couple of places around the world. That is because superconductors are still not super enough. The main problem is that more energy is spent to cool materials until they become superconducting than is saved through reduced transmission loss, better energy storage capacity or greater transport efficiency.

This is a tale of dashed hopes. From 1911 to the 1980s, superconductors were available at temperatures below -240° Celsius only. We thought we had beaten this barrier in 1986 when we discovered a copper compound that was superconducting at -183° Celsius. Suddenly, things were looking up: we could turn materials superconducting by cooling them with liquid nitrogen, a relatively cheap and easy means of refrigeration.

However, it still wasn’t cheap and easy enough to make superconducting technology mainstream. So we cooked up more of these “high-temperature superconductors”. By 1993, we had got to about -140° Celsius. Things were looking very good indeed. And then, almost nothing. We are still less than halfway to room-temperature superconductors.

That’s because, despite decades of research, we’re still trying to figure out how they work. Progress is painfully slow. In October, French and US researchers finally confirmed a prediction, made in 1964, about one microscopic characteristic of what is going on inside superconductors.

This latest breakthrough might lead to superconductors that can withstand higher magnetic fields and thus give hospitals better MRI scanners – but it won’t push that critical transition point up towards room temperature. We can only hope that will be achieved by the researchers investigating other features of superconduction. No one thinks such a breakthrough is imminent. In an age when we have come to understand some of the deepest secrets of the universe, the secrets of the superconductor are keeping our feet firmly on the ground. 

Michael Brooks holds a PhD in quantum physics. He writes a weekly science column for the New Statesman, and his most recent book is At the Edge of Uncertainty: 11 Discoveries Taking Science by Surprise.

This article first appeared in the 13 November 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Nigel Farage: The Arsonist

exseada/DeviantArt
Show Hide image

Why Twitter is dying, in ten tweets

It's ironic that the most heated discussions of the platform's weaknesses are playing out on the platform itself. 

Twitter has been dying since 2009, and commentators have pre-emptively declared it deceased pretty much every year since. To declare that it's on the downturn has become a bit of a cliché. But that doesn't mean that it isn't also, well, true.

Grumbling among users and commentators has grown to a roar over the past few days, thanks in part to a Buzzfeed report (refuted by Jack Dorsey, Twitter's CEO) claiming the service will move away from a chronological timeline and towards an algorithmic one. Users coined the hashtag #RIPTwitter in response, and, tellingly, many of their complaints spanned beyond the apparently erroneous report. 

They join a clutch of other murmurings, bits of data and suggestions that things are not as they should be in the Twitter aviary. 

Below is one response to the threat of the new timeline, aptly showing that for lots of users, the new feed would have been the straw that broke the tweeters' backs:

Twitter first announced it was considering a new 10,000 character limit in January, but it's yet to be introduced. Reactions so far indicate that no one thinks this is a good idea, as the 140 character limit is so central to Twitter's unique appeal. Other, smaller tweaks – like an edit button – would probably sit much more easily within Twitter's current stable of features, and actually improve user experience: 

While Dorsey completely denied that the change would take place, he then followed up with an ominous suggestion that something would be changing:

"It'll be more real-time than a feed playing out in real time!" probably isn't going to placate users who think the existing feed works just fine. It may be hard to make youself heard on the current timeline, but any kind of wizardry that's going to decide what's "timely" or "live" for you is surely going to discriminate against already alienated users.

I've written before about the common complaint that Twitter is lonely for those with smaller networks. Take this man, who predicts that he'll be even more invisible in Twitter's maelstrom if an algorithm deems him irrelevant: 

What's particularly troubling about Twitter's recent actions is the growing sense that it doesn't "get" its users. This was all but confirmed by a recent string of tweets from Brandon Carpenter, a Twitter employee who tweeted this in response to speculation about new features:

...and then was surprised and shocked when he received abuse from other accounts:

This is particularly ironic because Twitter's approach (or non-approach) to troll accounts and online abusers has made it a target for protest and satire (though last year it did begin to tackle the problem). @TrustySupport, a spoof account, earned hundreds of retweets by mocking Twitter's response to abuse:

Meanwhile, users like Milo Yiannopolous, who regularly incites his followers to abuse and troll individuals (often women and trans people, and most famously as part of G*merg*te), has thrived on Twitter's model and currently enjoys the attentions of almost 160,000 followers. He has boasted about the fact that Twitter could monetise his account to pull itself out of its current financial trough:

The proof of any social media empire's decline, though, is in its number and activity of users. Earlier this month, Business Insider reported that, based on a sample of tweets, tweets per user had fallen by almost 50 per cent since last August. Here's the reporter's tweet about it:

Interestingly, numbers of new users remained roughly the same – which implies not that Twitter can't get new customers, but that it can't keep its current ones engaged and tweeting. 

Most tellingly of all, Twitter has stopped reporting these kinds of numbers publicly, which is why Jim Edwards had to rely on data taken from an API. Another publication followed up Edwards' story with reports that users aren't on the platform enough to generate ad revenue:

The missing piece of the puzzle, and perhaps the one thing keeping Twitter alive, is that its replacement hasn't (yet) surfaced. Commentators obsessed with its declining fortunes still take to Twitter to discuss them, or to share their articles claiming the platform is already dead. It's ironic that the most heated discussions of the platform's weaknesses are playing out on the platform itself. 

For all its faults, and for all they might multiply, Twitter's one advantage is that there's currently no other totally open platform where people can throw their thoughts around in plain, public view. Its greatest threat yet will come not from a new, dodgy feature, but from a new platform – one that can actually compete with it.

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.