Interference No. 101,981
Qadri filed a reply (paper no. 242). In their reply, Qadri
states that this information is insufficient because Beyers
witness Parkin has stated (BeR 533-49) on cross-examination that
the purity of the samples also depends on the samples’
homogeneity – which was tested by field cooled and zero-field
cooled magnetization tests (BeR 533-7). The latter data, Qadri
argues, is necessary for a complete cross-examination of Parkin’s
expert testimony.
The issue of whether % superconductivity of a sample can be
determined by x-ray diffraction appears to have been an important
issue to the parties. Qadri states (QB 11-12):
Party Beyers relies, in its case-in-chief and on
rebuttal, on DC magnetization tests to show phase purity;
Party Batlogg and Party Qadri do not.
The AC magnetic susceptibility test does not provide a
quantitative indication of the amount of superconducting
phase. BAR 560, lines 20-23
See also Beyers brief (BeB 25-26):
Experimental proof of the need for slow cooling is given by
the testimony of Dr. Stuart Parkin (Beyers p. 503-516). Dr.
Parkin performed dc magnetic shielding measurements on
samples to measure their superconducting phase purity. He
examined five samples, all prepared essentially the same,
except for the differences in cooling time. His
experimental results are shown in Table I of Beyers p.
506.... The first three samples were prepared according to
the Batlogg patent application instructions. They did not
meet the count. . . . The last two samples, which were
cooled slowly by deliberately and affirmatively controlling
76
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007