I have developed a theoretical concept for a room-temperature superconductor (RTSC). I theoretically derived two promising RTSC candidates: FeLi₂B₂H₃ and FeLiB₂H₃. However, I lack the funding to synthesize and test these materials. Are there alternative ways to validate their superconducting properties?"

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Radhakrishnan J

Moderator Note

Per our rules, we don’t pursue discussion based on AI development of the concept. The only thing that we can discuss here is whether there are theoretical tools to evaluate superconductivity.

Just now, Radhakrishnan J said:

I have developed a theoretical concept for a room-temperature superconductor (RTSC). With the assistance of AI I derived two promising RTSC candidates: FeLi₂B₂H₃ and FeLiB₂H₃. However, I lack the funding to synthesize and test these materials. Are there alternative ways to validate their superconducting properties?"

I edited the post.

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Dhillon1724X

Thank you for reaching out.

Yes, the RTSC material idea—FeLi₂B₂H₃—is completely my own. It arises from a new theoretical framework I developed, called ICQER–ToE (Informational Constraints Quantum Event Realism), which reconceptualizes physics from first principles—not starting from particles or fields, but from event-logic constraints.

So yes, AI tools were used to help generate code and diagrams, but the theory, the material formula, and the simulations were all directed by me, including the logic, validation idea, and publication structure.

How can you determine if its stable?

18 minutes ago, Radhakrishnan J said:

Thank you for reaching out.

Yes, the RTSC material idea—FeLi₂B₂H₃—is completely my own. It arises from a new theoretical framework I developed, called ICQER–ToE (Informational Constraints Quantum Event Realism), which reconceptualizes physics from first principles—not starting from particles or fields, but from event-logic constraints.

So yes, AI tools were used to help generate code and diagrams, but the theory, the material formula, and the simulations were all directed by me, including the logic, validation idea, and publication structure.

To test the feasibility in DFT or simulate its phonon/electronic properties, could you share the crystal structure? Ideally a CIF or POSCAR file, or even rough lattice parameters and atomic positions. Without the structure, we can't simulate stability, band structure, or phonons — which are needed to evaluate superconductivity claims.

1 hour ago, Radhakrishnan J said:

Are there alternative ways to validate their superconducting properties?"

it's definitely intriguing. I understand that synthesizing and testing new superconducting materials can be expensive and out of reach without funding, but there are scientific ways we can still explore and validate your concept.

If you can provide the crystal structure (even a rough sketch, ideally with space group, atomic positions, and elemental composition), we can use first-principles simulations (like DFT + phonon and electron-phonon coupling analysis) to:

• Check the stability of the structure (thermodynamic + vibrational)

• Calculate the electronic structure and band properties

• Predict the electron–phonon coupling strength

• Estimate the superconducting critical temperature (Tc) using models like McMillan or full Eliashberg theory

These simulations are widely accepted in theoretical physics and material science communities. Some even use machine-learning predictors trained on thousands of known superconductors to estimate Tc directly from structure.

So — if you’re open to it — feel free to send me:

1. The structure file (CIF, POSCAR, or any readable format)

2. The exact chemical formula

3. Any assumptions or expectations you have for the superconducting behavior

I’ll be happy to help simulate or evaluate it using open-source tools. That way, you might be able to publish preliminary theoretical results or gain support for funding from institutions or journals.

Looking forward to hearing more!

I can't do it, . Because it is theoretically derived material.

Would you be open to helping derive it based on symmetry and known Fe-based analogs?

15 minutes ago, Radhakrishnan J said:

I can't do it, . Because it is theoretically derived material.

Would you be open to helping derive it based on symmetry and known Fe-based analogs?

Got it — thanks for clarifying. Since FeLi₂B₂H₃ is a theoretically derived material, the best way forward would be to ground it in known Fe-based superconducting frameworks and use symmetry principles to justify its potential.

@exchemist

Its more related to you field.

THE CHEMISTRY

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Dhillon1724X

I have to forward this to@exchemist?

3 minutes ago, Radhakrishnan J said:

I have to forward this to@exchemist?

No.

4 minutes ago, Radhakrishnan J said:

I have to forward this to@exchemist?

no,he will see it here when he comes online.
He is nice guy,To be precise everyone here is a nice guy.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Dhillon1724X

1 minute ago, joigus said:

No.

Thanks!👍

I'd be very surprised that only very light elements and iron (which has never been involved in superconduction of any type that I know of) were the only ingredients of no less than superconductivity at room temperature. That's a very tall order.

Your extraordinary claim truly deservers extraordinary evidence.

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

Thanks!👍

No problem. I tried to react quickly.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by joigus
minor correction+bried addition

1 hour ago, Dhillon1724X said:

How can you determine if its stable?

To test the feasibility in DFT or simulate its phonon/electronic properties, could you share the crystal structure? Ideally a CIF or POSCAR file, or even rough lattice parameters and atomic positions. Without the structure, we can't simulate stability, band structure, or phonons — which are needed to evaluate superconductivity claims.

it's definitely intriguing. I understand that synthesizing and testing new superconducting materials can be expensive and out of reach without funding, but there are scientific ways we can still explore and validate your concept.

If you can provide the crystal structure (even a rough sketch, ideally with space group, atomic positions, and elemental composition), we can use first-principles simulations (like DFT + phonon and electron-phonon coupling analysis) to:

• Check the stability of the structure (thermodynamic + vibrational)

• Calculate the electronic structure and band properties

• Predict the electron–phonon coupling strength

• Estimate the superconducting critical temperature (Tc) using models like McMillan or full Eliashberg theory

These simulations are widely accepted in theoretical physics and material science communities. Some even use machine-learning predictors trained on thousands of known superconductors to estimate Tc directly from structure.

So — if you’re open to it — feel free to send me:

1. The structure file (CIF, POSCAR, or any readable format)

2. The exact chemical formula

3. Any assumptions or expectations you have for the superconducting behavior

I’ll be happy to help simulate or evaluate it using open-source tools. That way, you might be able to publish preliminary theoretical results or gain support for funding from institutions or journals.

Looking forward to hearing more!

What the hell are you playing at? You are, by your admission a school student who is not yet 15 years old. This text you have posted is clearly not your own. You have no business pretending to be something you are not.

-1.

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

What the hell are you playing at? You are, by your admission a school student who is not yet 15 years old. This text you have posted is clearly not your own. You have no business pretending to be something you are not.

-1.

I gathered info about what we need in this type of things,i dont know in full details.
I used various sources like google.

If you are judging by age then that QCF isnt mine too.

Its just surface level thing.

Its your choice to downvote,but i didnt claim to know everything.

If i need these things and i have interest then i can learn these too.

3 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

I gathered info about what we need in this type of things,i dont know in full details.
I used various sources like google.

If you are judging by age then that QCF isnt mine too.

Its just surface level thing.

You did not write that text.

And who is "we"?

1 minute ago, exchemist said:

And who is "we"?

i used we to reffer both me and Radhakrishnan J

3 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You did not write that text.

I used that worst thing called AI to overcome any problem in communication.

But i learn then write and post.

I atleast know what crystal structure,phonons,DFT is at very basic levels.

@exchemist
I tagged you as i thought you might be able to handle things better then me.

35 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You are, by your admission a school student who is not yet 15 years old

Should i stop and say ¨Ah!I cant learn this as i am not old enough.My brain is limited¨

Just now, Radhakrishnan J said:

I have developed a theoretical concept for a room-temperature superconductor (RTSC). I theoretically derived two promising RTSC candidates: FeLi₂B₂H₃ and FeLiB₂H₃. However, I lack the funding to synthesize and test these materials. Are there alternative ways to validate their superconducting properties?"

Do you have a prediction for the cirtical temperatures of either of your candidates ?

Did you test you method of prediction on any known (relatively) high temperature superconductor compound, say HgCa₂Ba₂Cu₃O₈ (mott temp 133K) ?

44 minutes ago, Dhillon1724X said:

i used we to reffer both me and Radhakrishnan J

I used that worst thing called AI to overcome any problem in communication.

But i learn then write and post.

I atleast know what crystal structure,phonons,DFT is at very basic levels.

@exchemist
I tagged you as i thought you might be able to handle things better then me.

Should i stop and say ¨Ah!I cant learn this as i am not old enough.My brain is limited¨

You are using AI to bullshit @Radhakrishnan J , a new member, into thinking he is taking to an expert, when he is actually talking to a schoolboy.

That is deceit.

6 minutes ago, exchemist said:

You are using AI to bullshit @Radhakrishnan J , a new member, into thinking he is taking to an expert, when he is actually talking to a schoolboy.

That is deceit.

“At what point did I claim to be an expert? Please quote me if I did.
If the fact that someone younger can speak in technical terms bothers you, maybe the issue isn't deceit — it’s your ego.

Pointing out my age doesn’t disprove what I said. If you think the technical content is wrong, let’s discuss that. Otherwise, assuming bad faith because I’m a student is just gatekeeping

@Sohan Lalwani I am getting downvotes too.But due to very unique reason😂

Moderator Note

As always, the focus needs to be on attacking ideas, not people.

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Moderator Note

As always, the focus needs to be on attacking ideas, not people.

Thanks for the reminder. I never intended to mislead anyone — I simply wrote a thing grounded in the standard methods used to test superconductivity claims, like DFT and phonon analysis. I’m still a student and learning, but I’m serious about science.
If anything I said was technically incorrect, I welcome correction. But dismissing valid ideas based on who says them instead of what’s being said defeats the purpose of scientific discussion.

@Radhakrishnan J Can you answer the questions and explain a bit more.
You cant share a link or file of your work here.

Edited August 2Aug 2 by Dhillon1724X

4 hours ago, Radhakrishnan J said:

I edited the post.

But you already admitted to using AI to develop the idea, and I stated what could be discussed. We’re not discussing material that’s been outsourced to an AI