APS April Meeting 2011
Volume 56, Number 4
Saturday–Tuesday, April 30–May 3 2011;
Anaheim, California
Session J2: Centennial of Superconductivity
1:30 PM–3:18 PM,
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Room: Grand BCD
Sponsoring
Unit:
FHP
Chair: Martin Blume, Brookhaven National Laboratory and APS
Abstract ID: BAPS.2011.APR.J2.2
Abstract: J2.00002 : Superconductivity at 100 - what materials will serve us in the next century?
2:06 PM–2:42 PM
Preview Abstract
Abstract
Author:
David Larbalestier
(National High Magnetic Field Laboratory and Department of Physics, Florida State University)
Superconductivity continues to fascinate both at the fundamental
mechanism level and for its potential for applications. In fact
Onnes came to Chicago in 1913, just two years after discovering
superconductivity, with a detailed plan to make a 10 T
superconducting magnet! At the centenary it may be worth
reflecting on what of Onnes' vision has worked and what, so far
anyway, has not worked. In the achievement column we can put
large numbers of superconducting magnets made of Nb-Ti and
Nb$_3$Sn, cooled largely by liquid helium and generating fields
above 23 T. Such magnets underpin the large MRI industry
(1.5-3T), high field NMR (10-23T), and large accelerators like
the LHC (up to 8.5T). Both Nb-Ti and Nb$_3$Sn are well developed
conductor materials, now working close to their intrinsic limits
and thus not normally discussed at the MRS, where much greater
interest is shown in the cuprate high temperature
superconductors. The basis of interest is for electric utility
applications in temperature and field domains far from the liquid
helium range accessible with Nb-base materials. Extraordinary
efforts to master these complex materials have been made and
great technical successes achieved. And yet, access to the
expected markets has proven much harder than expected, to the
point that new discoveries like MgB2, potentially much cheaper
but with much less cryogenic advantage, and pnictides with higher
Tc than MgB$_2$ but lesser $T_c$ than the cuprates, even though
with much lower anisotropy, sometimes make their claims against
cuprates like YBCO. And now too, new programs to discover much
higher $T_c$, perhaps even at room temperature, are underway.
Clearly many want new conductor materials with much higher $T_c$
and $H_{c2}$ than the isotropic Nb-base materials. Yet dealing
with the anisotropy and the poor grain boundary transport of
pnictides and cuprates poses tough manufacturing challenges,
problems unlikely to be any less significant with new materials.
How to develop appropriate strategies for dealing with these
complexities will be a major them of my talk.
To cite this abstract, use the following reference: http://meetings.aps.org/link/BAPS.2011.APR.J2.2