Except for the fact that both materials contain lead, there is no resemblance.
Lead is one of the best superconductors among pure metals, whose superconductivity has been already discovered 110 years ago, in 1913.
Nevertheless, there is absolutely no relationship between the superconductivity of pure lead and the alleged superconductivity of lead zirconate titanate and the alleged superconductivity of lead phosphate doped with copper.
They have very different crystal structures and behaviors of the free electrons (i.e. electronic band structures).
Only if in the PZT samples used by the Navy there would have been some impurities, without the knowledge of the researchers, causing contraction of the crystal when substituting the big lead atoms, then there would have been a similar mechanism to what is claimed now.
If this mechanism is proven to really work, then it could also work in other crystals with big ions, like lead or baryum, perhaps even in PZT.
Lead is one of the best superconductors among pure metals, whose superconductivity has been already discovered 110 years ago, in 1913.
Nevertheless, there is absolutely no relationship between the superconductivity of pure lead and the alleged superconductivity of lead zirconate titanate and the alleged superconductivity of lead phosphate doped with copper.
They have very different crystal structures and behaviors of the free electrons (i.e. electronic band structures).
Only if in the PZT samples used by the Navy there would have been some impurities, without the knowledge of the researchers, causing contraction of the crystal when substituting the big lead atoms, then there would have been a similar mechanism to what is claimed now.
If this mechanism is proven to really work, then it could also work in other crystals with big ions, like lead or baryum, perhaps even in PZT.