Archimedes Plutonium's Superconductor Experiment Challenge ; new textbook: "How Superconductivity really works; nanosecond Capacitor discharge current"
plutonium....@gmail.com
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
> plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Last time I did these experiments I used only a Wimshurst, but now am
> > using both.
Using a Van de Graaff more often
> > I have metal coil lathe shavings of iron and magnetized several and
> > tied a dental-floss string to one
> > which was magnetized over 12 hours ago. Tested its "slight magnetism"
> > with an unmagnetized shaving.
> > The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
> > 1/10 gram could not weigh it.
> > So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
> > of the iron shaving.
> > The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
> > approx 0.7 cm.
> > Operated both the Wimshurst and VandeGraaf and then placed a compass-
> > needle at the north-pole of
> > the electrode (largest electrode on VandeGraaf) and again noticed the
> > deflection of the needle 90 degrees.
> > Operated both machines again to fill capacitors. Now while in
> > operation, hung the iron-shaving attached
> > to the dental-floss at the north-pole of the large electrode on the
> > VandeGraaf and as expected it
> > acted as a ideal-diamagnet or the Meissner Effect. However, the iron
> > shaving at the equator of the
> > VandeGraaf was attracted as well as my hair on my arms was attracted.
> > As for the Wimshurst, at the pole of either of the electrodes the
> > Meissner
> > effect occurred.
> > And finally on the northpole of the capacitors of the Wimshurst
> > displayed a Meissner Effect
> > on the iron-shaving.
> > So here again, in August a repeating of my experimentation in March of
> > 2008, that I again achieve
> > a Meissner Effect from Capacitor-Current of both VandeGraaff and
> > Wimshurst generators.
> > I challenge anyone to duplicate the results.
> > P.S. this is not Lenz's law as one mistaken responder opined, for he
> > could have said that
> > all Meissner tests are Lenz's law under such a mistake.
> Did some measuring tonight for the actual deflection of a Meissner
> Effect. These measurements
> were done on the north-pole of the electrodes on both generators.
> Uncharged Wimshurst: one electrode northpole repelled (sic) the iron coil
> whilst the other attracted. I am still
> trying to explain this attraction as perhaps an induced attraction.
> Will try it again tomorrow night.
Uncharged Van De Graaff:
The large electrode of VandeGraaf repells the iron coil. Whilst the
smaller
electrode attracted.
So I have conformity in both VandeGraaff and Wimshurst uncharged.
> Charged Wimshurst: Both electrodes repelled the iron coil shaving and
> the size of the deflection was
> equal to the distance of the electrode gap and was 2 cm approx.
> Charged VandeGraaff: Both electrodes repelled the iron coil shaving
> and the large electrode deflection
> was 7 cm, the size of the gap between the two electrodes. The small
> electrode deflected the coil also
> but its deflection was approx 3 cm (and a trouble here is to separate
> out the influence of the large
> electrode from the measure.)
> So here I suspect is evidence of a Meissner Effect upon Wimshurst and
> Van de Graaff generators,
> both would be room temperature superconductors.
> And this whole experiment plays into the idea that cold temperature
> superconductors are merely
> the transforming of materials to act as Capacitors. So mercury at 4
> Kelvin or the perovskite superconductors
> at 35 K or 90 K were merely acting as the capacitors of a Wimshurst
> Generator as electricity flow
> from an outside source is the flow of electricity between my
> electrodes of my generators.
> So as chemists and physicists find new materials that are
> superconductors, what they merely are doing
> is finding materials that are Capacitors.
> So, according to my theory, even the Sun and stars have superconductor
> currents running in their
> plasmas, since all that is needed is a capacitor. And every time we
> view a lightning bolt here on
> Earth, we witness a superconductor current where the clouds and ground
> were capacitors.
> So the phenomenon of "Ball Lightning" was probably the worlds first
> view of the Meissner Effect, provided
> all or part of my above is correct.
What this Experiment is designed to do is show what Superconductivity
is really all about,
and it is all about Capacitors. When a Capacitor charges up and then
discharges, the current
it produces is a superconductor current. The reason mercury at 4
Kelvin is superconductive is
because at that temperature mercury atoms become arranged to be a
capacitor.
So when you have electric current of DC flowing into a capacitor such
as mercury at 4 Kelvin
the mercury atoms build up a current and in nanoseconds discharge that
current. So superconductivity
is simply a Capacitor Current.
Before in physics, we had only two types of currents-- AC and DC.
Nowadays, with this experiment
we obviously have more than two types of currents in the world. We
have a Capacitor Current.
Lightning bolt strikes are a Capacitor Current. I call capacitor
currents as CC.
How does Capacitor Currents explain (i) zero resistance and (ii)
Meissner Effect? Easy answers to
both. The zero resistance is simply the fact of Conservation of
Energy. That energy in is equal to
energy out. The Meissner Effect is also easy to explain as ideal-
diamagnetism of a exclusion of
magnetic field. As in the above uncharged VandeGraaff and uncharged
Wimshurst repell the magnetic
coil.
My old Freshman Physics textbook by Halliday and Resnick, 3rd edition
1988 defines electric current
and where AC and DC are within the bounds of that definition. However,
that definition of current in
physics is outdated. The new definition of current in physics needs to
be expanded so that it includes
this third type of current called Capacitor Current, or CC. So physics
has DC, and AC, and CC
The experiment I am performing for these past year has all been posted
to the Internet sci newsgroups
and can easily be performed by others to confirm the truth of the
particulars.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Paul O
> <snip>
> this third type of current called Capacitor Current, or CC. So physics
> has DC, and AC, and CC
>
> The experiment I am performing for these past year has all been posted
> to the Internet sci newsgroups
> and can easily be performed by others to confirm the truth of the
> particulars.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>
>
--
Paul D Oosterhout
I work for SAIC (but I don't speak for SAIC)
Eeyore
plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Welcome back to this group (sci.energy).
I look forward to some fantastic new entertainment.
Graham
Damon Hill
news:48A50D0B...@hotmail.com:
Does he have some sort of confusion about Cooper pairs, or is
he just tilting windmills again?
--Damon. who is confused about a lot of things, two
plutonium....@gmail.com
Damon Hill wrote:
>
> Does he have some sort of confusion about Cooper pairs, or is
> he just tilting windmills again?
>
> --Damon. who is confused about a lot of things, two
What is the separation distance in millimeters for the electrodes of
your Wimshurst and
VandeGraaff generators as the current flows through?
Eeyore
Damon Hill wrote:
> Eeyore wrote
> > plutonium....@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> >> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >
> > Welcome back to this group (sci.energy).
> >
> > I look forward to some fantastic new entertainment.
>
> Does he have some sort of confusion about Cooper pairs, or is
> he just tilting windmills again?
To be confused he would have to have some idea what he's going on about
in the first place hence probably windmills.
Graham
plutonium....@gmail.com
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I repeated the experiment again tonight using more refined setup of
glass containers
to hold the electrodes in place and elevate for the VandeGraaff. Also
had a better
measurement on the magnetic repulsion.
I confirm what I wrote in 5 August
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag, sci.chem
From: plutonium.archime...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 01:26:22 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Tues, Aug 5 2008 3:26 am
Subject: #130 resuming experiments with both VandeGraaf and Wimshurst;
attained a Meissner Effect ; new textbook: "How Superconductivity
really works; nanosecond Capacitor discharge current"
The above thread is #130 through #150 of this book.
I use both a Wimshurst and a Van de Graaff generators. I like both of
them.
I have metal coil lathe shavings of iron and magnetized several and
tied a dental-floss string to one
which was magnetized over a month. Tested its "slight magnetism"
with an unmagnetized shaving.
The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
1/10 gram could not weigh it.
So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
of the iron shaving.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm.
Operated both the Wimshurst and VandeGraaf and then placed a compass-
needle at the north-pole of
the electrode (largest electrode on VandeGraaf) and again noticed the
deflection of the needle 90 degrees.
Operated both machines again to fill capacitors. Now while in
operation, hung the iron-shaving attached
to the dental-floss at the north-pole of the large electrode on the
VandeGraaf and as expected it
acted as a ideal-diamagnet or the Meissner Effect. However, the iron
shaving at the equator of the
VandeGraaf was attracted as well as my hair on my arms was attracted.
As for the Wimshurst, at the pole of either of the electrodes the
Meissner effect occurred.
And finally on the northpole of the capacitors of the Wimshurst
displayed a Meissner Effect
on the iron-shaving.
So here again, in late August a repeating of my experimentation in
March of
2008, that I again achieve
a Meissner Effect from Capacitor-Current of both VandeGraaff and
Wimshurst generators.
I challenge anyone to duplicate the results.
P.S. this is not Lenz's law as one mistaken responder opined, for he
could have said that
all Meissner tests are Lenz's law under such a mistake.
Archimedes Plutonium
Raphanus
> The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
> 1/10 gram could not weigh it.
> So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
> of the iron shaving.
> The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
> approx 0.7 cm.
>
So the volume is about 3.5 * pi * (.7)^2 (cm3)= ~5.4 cm3
which would be about 39 grams?
Probably a msitake to respond.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Have you ever seen a lathe iron shaving? Apparently not. It is a coil.
Not a solid but a
hollow coil of iron. It weighs less than 1/10 of a gram.
To conduct the Meissner Effect on a Wimshurst or VandeGraaff requires
a magnet of tiny
weight and that is why I got lathe iron shavings for less than 1/10
gram.
Yes, it was a mistake of you to respond because it shows that your
mind is not in science.
If it were in science, you would conduct the experiment. Instead your
mind is in psychological
chips on your shoulder looking for things to attack me. A scientist
does the experiment, not
looking for loopholes to attack.
Not worth archiving
plutonium....@gmail.com
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
What this Experiment is designed to do is show what Superconductivity
is really all about, and it is all about Capacitors. When a Capacitor
charges
up and then discharges, the current it produces is a superconductor
current.
The reason mercury at 4 Kelvin is superconductive is because at that
temperature mercury atoms become arranged to be a capacitor.
So when you have electric current of DC flowing into a capacitor such
as mercury at 4 Kelvin the mercury atoms build up a current and in
nanoseconds discharge that current. So superconductivity
is simply a Capacitor Current.
Before in physics, we had only two types of currents-- AC and DC.
Nowadays, with this experiment we obviously have more than two
types of currents in the world. We have a Capacitor Current.
Lightning bolt strikes are a Capacitor Current. I call capacitor
currents as CC.
How does Capacitor Currents explain (i) zero resistance and (ii)
Meissner Effect? Easy answers to both. The zero resistance is
simply the fact of Conservation of Energy. That energy in is equal to
energy out. The Meissner Effect is also easy to explain as
ideal-diamagnetism of a exclusion of magnetic field. As in the
experiment
them, perhaps the Wimshurst more than the VandeGraaff. I would
like a VandeGraaff where both electrodes were of equal size.
I have metal coil lathe shavings of iron and magnetized several and
tied a dental-floss string to one
which was magnetized over a period of a month. Tested its "slight
magnetism"
with an unmagnetized shaving.
The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
1/10 gram could not weigh it.
So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
of the iron shaving.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm. These shavings are hollow coils, and look much like a
stretched piece of a "spring".
The most important feature of these shavings as magnetic is the
density
of the shaving so that they occupy much volume of space but at a small
mass of less than 1/10 gram. This is important because all ordinary
magnets
are too dense for this experiment since the capacitor currents are so
small.
So that a High Schooler or College physics students performing these
experiments must use magnetized iron lathe shavings and not ordinary
magnets.
When you see the Meissner Effect on superconductors, you generally see
a small ordinary magnet because the current can support that magnet,
but using a generator of capacitor current, I have to use the lightest
density
magnet.
(i) OPERATED both the Wimshurst and VandeGraaf and then placed a
compass-
needle at the north-pole of
the electrode (largest electrode on VandeGraaf) and again noticed the
deflection of the needle 90 degrees. So I wanted to get this Oersted
experiment out of the way. To show that the capacitor current has the
same Oersted affect as the DC current.
(ii) OPERATED both machines again to fill capacitors. Now while in
operation, hung the iron-shaving attached
to the dental-floss at the north-pole of the large electrode on the
VandeGraaf and as expected it
acted as a ideal-diamagnet or the Meissner Effect.
As for the Wimshurst, at the pole of either of the electrodes the
Meissner effect occurred.
(iii) And finally on the northpole of the capacitors, not the
electrodes, but the
Raphanus
So the relevance of the dimensions you gave is....?
Current is just the motion of electrons. The two types that one
normally encounters is AC ( out of the wall socket) and DC (out of the
car battery) but the variation of current with respect to time can
have any shape - hence there are INFINITE TYPES of current. If one
does a Fourier analysis of the current you will find that ALL currents
are a combination of DC and a frequency spectrum of AC. If one
charges up a capacitor, the initial flow of electrons is high and then
the current magnitude decays exponentially with time and one will find
that the frequency spectrum has an infinity of components. You detect
something other than this? What is CC?
To be a part of the community - and, hence to convince that community
of one's wisdom - one must speak the language of the community.
Einstein, Newton, Cartan, Feynman, Gell-mann, Bohr, Schrodinger,
Heisenberg, all changed the world, but they did so by speaking the
language of the community. To speak a differentt language and then to
condemn others for not being able to understand you is a mark of
lunacy.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Raphanus wrote:
>
> So the relevance of the dimensions you gave is....?
>
The relevance of the lathe iron shaving dimensions is the density. The
Capacitor Current
is weak in a small Wimshurst and small VandeGraaff and so a typical
small magnet
will be too dense to show a Meissner Effect. So I had to resort to
making my own
smallest density magnet. A lathed iron shaving that is in the form of
a coil or extended
spring shape serves the purpose. It is less than 1/10 gram and
occupies a large area
so the density is tiny.
> Current is just the motion of electrons. The two types that one
> normally encounters is AC ( out of the wall socket) and DC (out of the
> car battery) but the variation of current with respect to time can
> have any shape - hence there are INFINITE TYPES of current. If one
> does a Fourier analysis of the current you will find that ALL currents
> are a combination of DC and a frequency spectrum of AC. If one
> charges up a capacitor, the initial flow of electrons is high and then
> the current magnitude decays exponentially with time and one will find
> that the frequency spectrum has an infinity of components. You detect
> something other than this? What is CC?
>
I wish it were as simple as current as the motion of electrons. But it
is not
that simple. Flow of electrons is only one aspect of current. There is
another
aspect that is just as important if not more important and that is
what can
be called "messenger photons". In AC, it is not the motion of
electrons
that tells the electron at the opposite end of the wire to begin to
move. In
AC we picture the electrons as going forward then backwards, forward
then backwards. So motion or flow of electrons is only part of the
story
of a current.
And in the Halliday & Resnick definition of electric current, they
acknowledge
that electron motion is only part of the definition.
So the "Messenger Photons" in AC are different from that of DC and
different from
that of CC.
So the definition as given by Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of
Physics, 3rd
edition, 1988, on page 641
dq = i dt (definition of current)
is wholefully lacking the parameter of "messenger photons"
Archimedes Plutonium
Jerry
> Raphanus wrote:
You are clumsily groping towards the idea of "displacement current".
In your obvious ignorance, you are over 140 years behind the times.
Your experiments attempting to demonstrate a presumed Meissner
effect induced at the poles of a Van de Graff generator were
woefully conducted. How do the electrons distribute themselves
over the surface of your generator? From your descriptions, the
bowl of the generator is obviously far from perfectly spherical,
but would rather be something on the order of a prolate spheroid?
Mapping out the probable electron distribution on the surface of
the bowl, making reasonable guesses as to the extent of leakage
current from your description of compass behavior, and from those
facts the resultant electric and magnetic fields, it is fairly
obvious what is going on with your iron shaving at the end of a
piece of dental floss experiment, and it isn't Meissner effect.
Jerry
Jerry
> Your experiments attempting to demonstrate a presumed Meissner
> effect induced at the poles of a Van de Graff generator were
> woefully conducted. How do the electrons distribute themselves
> over the surface of your generator? From your descriptions, the
> bowl of the generator is obviously far from perfectly spherical,
> but would rather be something on the order of a prolate spheroid?
WHOOPS...
I meant OBLATE spheroid.
Raphanus
A "messenger photon"...a parameter? You're speaking your own language
again. Electrons move in a wire because of electrical forces. There
are more electrons "behind" them than in "front" of them so they move
"forward". Electrons will distribute themselves so that the force on
them is zero. If the force changes - they move.
If you want to convince me, speak my language. Don't expect me to
learn your language just because you say you're smart and have
something to say. There are too many people out there saying that.
The really smart ones learn the language of the community - the others
are ignored.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Raphanus wrote:
>
> A "messenger photon"...a parameter? You're speaking your own language
> again. Electrons move in a wire because of electrical forces. There
> are more electrons "behind" them than in "front" of them so they move
> "forward". Electrons will distribute themselves so that the force on
> them is zero. If the force changes - they move.
In Halliday & Resnick's own language-- dq = i dt (definition of
current)
"Here dq is the amount of (positive) charge that passes in time dt
through a
hypothetical surface that cuts across the conductor"
"For the conduction electrons, it is this drift speed that determines
the current."
Perhaps I should call it a "carrier photon" rather than "messenger
photon"
Do you see the conflict and contradiction of the definition of current
and the
drift speed?
According to your understanding of a current that the electrons at the
opposite
end cannot move until the drift speed reaches them. Whereas everyone
knows
that the electrons at the opposite end move at the speed of light.
So, do you see and understand that the definition of current misses
the
idea that electrons are in motion not only from drift speed but also
from
photon carrier.
So this equation of dq = i dt is lacking the terms for the fact that
electrons are in motion
not only from their own motion but from photon carriers.
>
> If you want to convince me, speak my language. Don't expect me to
I need you to do the experiment, and then engage me in discussion.
This thread is not
about talk and language; this thread is about the lifeblood of
physics-- experiment. So if you
cannot be bothered with doing the actual experiment, I cannot be
bothered with your lack of
understanding. If you cannot repeat
the above experiment, well, then you are not a physicist.
Archimedes Plutonium
Raphanus
I've read very carefully the description of your experiment and there
is not enough detail for me to reproduce it. There is too much
vagueness and unclarified rationale. For example, why is it necessary
to "elevate the VandeGraaf"? When you say you have glass containers
to hold the electrodes I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps posting
a photo in flickr or on Yahoo would help. What is the "north pole" of
a VandeGraaf? Might not it be better to speak of "anode" and
"cathode" (assuming that is what you mean). Use the language of the
community. When you say you detect the "Meissner" effect - please
describe the physical phenomenon, not your interpretation of it. Does
the iron shaving bounce around - or align itself in a particular
direction - or perhaps is repelled (or attracted)? What voltage does
the VandeGraaf produce? What is the rated capacitance - say, in
millifarads - of your capacitors?
plutonium....@gmail.com
Raphanus wrote:
>
> I've read very carefully the description of your experiment and there
> is not enough detail for me to reproduce it. There is too much
> vagueness and unclarified rationale. For example, why is it necessary
> to "elevate the VandeGraaf"? When you say you have glass containers
> to hold the electrodes I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps posting
> a photo in flickr or on Yahoo would help. What is the "north pole" of
> a VandeGraaf? Might not it be better to speak of "anode" and
> "cathode" (assuming that is what you mean). Use the language of the
> community. When you say you detect the "Meissner" effect - please
> describe the physical phenomenon, not your interpretation of it. Does
> the iron shaving bounce around - or align itself in a particular
> direction - or perhaps is repelled (or attracted)? What voltage does
> the VandeGraaf produce? What is the rated capacitance - say, in
> millifarads - of your capacitors?
Your constant excuses. And you do not even have a Wimshurst or
VandeGraaf generators to do the experiment.
The bare minimum you need is a Wimshurst, a iron shaving and the
marching-order of find a Meissner Effect. High Schoolers can perform
what Lester Welch cannot do.
Anyone who does have a Wimshurst or VandeGraaf and who does
have a magnetized iron lathe shaving of less than 1/10 gram.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm. These shavings are hollow coils, and look much like a
stretched piece of a "spring". You need these because a regular magnet
is too dense for the experiment.
Lester Welch only comes up with excuses-- language, not enough this,
not enough that.
All that is needed is a Wimshurst, a VandeGraaf, the magnetized lathed
iron shaving and told to seek a "Meissner Effect"
That is all that is needed. Seek a Meissner Effect. Lester does not
even know
a proper definition of "current" in physics. He walks into a thread
that is all about
performing an experiment, but he is no scientist and is never going to
perform
the experiment. Even he were able to perform would liar about the
results, since
his aim is never to confer that I was correct about something but that
his aim
is to say I was wrong on everything I said.
Lester is a hatemonger, not a scientist. He wants to endlessly wile
away about
how he cannot perform the experiment.
If you have a Wimshurst and a magnetized iron shaving, then the
marching orders
of the experiment cannot be any more simple-- detect a Meissner
Effect.
Ditto for a VandeGraaff. If you have both machines and the magnetized
iron shaving,
then detect a Meissner Effect on both.
Don't hem and haw around like a Lester Welch who can never perform the
experiment, but
can only crab about why he cannot perform.
Archimedes Plutonium
plutonium....@gmail.com
part of Lester Welch (Raphanus)
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
> Raphanus wrote:
>
> >
> > I've read very carefully the description of your experiment and there
> > is not enough detail for me to reproduce it. There is too much
> > vagueness and unclarified rationale. For example, why is it necessary
> > to "elevate the VandeGraaf"? When you say you have glass containers
> > to hold the electrodes I have no idea what you mean. Perhaps posting
> > a photo in flickr or on Yahoo would help. What is the "north pole" of
> > a VandeGraaf? Might not it be better to speak of "anode" and
> > "cathode" (assuming that is what you mean). Use the language of the
> > community. When you say you detect the "Meissner" effect - please
> > describe the physical phenomenon, not your interpretation of it. Does
> > the iron shaving bounce around - or align itself in a particular
> > direction - or perhaps is repelled (or attracted)? What voltage does
> > the VandeGraaf produce? What is the rated capacitance - say, in
> > millifarads - of your capacitors?
>
This thread was all about performing an experiment. And to enter the
thread, I can
tolerate a few posts of yakkity yak talkity talk, but when it comes to
Lester
Welch to actually perform the experiment, as he should have done in
his first
post, it becomes obvious that Lester is never going to perform the
experiment
but only throw hate-spam.
I should have made that sentence as this, for I had a typo error of
missing "if" hypothetical.
Even if (Raphanus) were able to perform the experiment there is no
guarantee that
he would not liar about the results....
An example of liaring is where Lester picks on the lathe iron shaving
and comes up with
a greater than 30 grams weight when I explicitly said the shaving was
less than 1/10 gram.
But that is the beauty of experiments that Lester seems to be aloof
about. No matter what
language or what lies or what confusions or what misunderstandings
that Lester or I have,
the Experiment lives on and is immune to mistakes.
So Lester is completely wrong when he harps about "language".
Completely wrong when he
harps about lack of details.
This thread is all about performing an experiment.
An experiment that is detailed enough. This experiment does not need
the details that Lester asks
for, because Lester is not a scientist.
> Lester is a hatemonger, not a scientist. He wants to endlessly wile
> away about
> how he cannot perform the experiment.
>
> If you have a Wimshurst and a magnetized iron shaving, then the
> marching orders
> of the experiment cannot be any more simple-- detect a Meissner
> Effect.
>
> Ditto for a VandeGraaff. If you have both machines and the magnetized
> iron shaving,
> then detect a Meissner Effect on both.
>
> Don't hem and haw around like a Lester Welch who can never perform the
> experiment, but
> can only crab about why he cannot perform.
>
Again, this experiment requires a Wimshurst, a magnetized iron coil of
less than 1/10 gram
and the marching-orders of find a Meissner Effect on the magnet.
Anyone like Lester can
dream up thousands of excuses as to why not perform the experiment.
But that is the beauty of
physics, physics is all about the Experiment, and not about what some
men opine.
Long after Lester and AP are gone, the above experiment will be
performed thousands and millions
of times over and over again by future generations.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Anyone who does have a Wimshurst or VandeGraaf and who does
have a magnetized iron lathe shaving of less than 1/10 gram.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm. These shavings are hollow coils, and look much like a
stretched piece of a "spring". You need these because a regular magnet
is too dense for the experiment.
All that is needed is a Wimshurst, a VandeGraaf, the magnetized
stretched
spring
of tiny mass and large volume and told to seek a "Meissner Effect"
Alright, I can streamline the Experiment even further. Instead of a
lathe shaving of iron
which HighSchoolers and Freshman College students may have a difficult
time of
obtaining. Here replace the lathe shaving with a spring from a ball
point pen.
An iron-spring from a pen stretched out so that the volume is large
and the weight
is very tiny. So tiny that it is less than 1/10 gram. So you have to
CUT
the spring for the spring is too massive as is. So Cut the spring to
where
you have a sizable volume and a tiny mass. Now magnetize the stretched
cut spring.
So the marching-orders of the experiment. Get a Wimshurst and if
possible get a VandeGraaff
or both machines. And with the magnetized-iron-spring, see if you can
achieve a Meissner
Effect on either one or both machines.
plutonium....@gmail.com
cut portion
of an iron-spring that I fetched from a old ball point pen. And also I
fetched
a small paper-clip which I intend to cut and magnetize and use as the
magnet
for the Meissner Effect.
I weighed the two objects of the spring and paper-clip and they weigh
each
about 2/10 gram, together they weigh about 4/10 gram. Now here I have
the opportunity to be able to estimate 2/100 of a gram by measuring
the
distance of the spring before I cut it, knowing that the entire
distance weighs
2/10 of a gram. So if I stretch the spring so that it is uniform
throughout and
then count 100 equal intervals, I can place a cut using a wire cutter
so that
I have a tiny coil that weighs 2/100 of a gram. I can do the same
procedure
with the paper-clip. However, I do want a loop in the paperclip for it
is a
magnetized lightweight iron with maximum volume or surface area for
density. I want the smallest density by having the largest volume and
the
lightest of weights.
Normal magnets will not work since they are too dense for the
capacitor current
of a Wimshurst or VandeGraaf.
EXPERIMENT
What this Experiment is designed to do is show what Superconductivity
is really all about, and it is all about Capacitors. When a Capacitor
charges up and then discharges, the current it produces is a
superconductor
current.
The reason mercury at 4 Kelvin is superconductive is because at that
temperature mercury atoms become arranged to be a capacitor.
So when you have electric current of DC flowing into a capacitor such
as mercury at 4 Kelvin the mercury atoms build up a current and in
nanoseconds discharge that current. So superconductivity
is simply a Capacitor Current.
Lightning bolt strikes in weather conditions are superconductor
currents
and sometimes phenomenon such as "ball lightning" is seen and
reported.
Ball-lightning is probably the Meissner Effect.
Before in physics, we had only two *distinct* types of currents-- AC
and DC.
Nowadays, with this experiment we obviously have more than two
*distinct*
types of currents in the world. We have a Capacitor Current.
How does Capacitor Currents explain (i) zero resistance and (ii)
Meissner Effect? Easy answers to both. The zero resistance is
simply the fact of Conservation of Energy. That energy _in_ is equal
to
energy _out_. The Meissner Effect is also easy to explain as
ideal-diamagnetism of a exclusion of magnetic field. As in the
experiment discharged VandeGraaff and discharged Wimshurst
repell the magnetic coil.
My old Freshman Physics textbook by Halliday and Resnick, 3rd edition
1988 defines electric current and where AC and DC are not really
explained
by that definition. When you turn on a light switch the speed at which
electricity at the other end comes up is not the drift speed of
electrons
but is with the "speed of light" that the current flows at the
opposite end.
The definition of current in Halliday and Resnick (HR) thus leave out
the important
concept of "messenger photon" or "carrier photon". The carrier photon
as the
switch is opened zooms across the wire at the speed of light and tells
the
electron at the opposite end of the wire to move.
According to HR their definition involves solely that of drift-speed.
But that does
not account for currents having speed as fast as the speed of light.
And thus
HR misses out the count of electrons in a cross section area in their
definition.
Misses out those electrons ordered to move not by drift speed
electrons
but ordered to move by the photon carriers or messenger photons.
So that definition of current in physics is outdated. The new
definition of current
in physics needs to be expanded so that it includes
this third type of current called Capacitor Current, or CC. So physics
has DC, and AC, and CC
The "Messenger Photons" in AC are different from that of DC and
different from
that of CC. In CC the drift speed is almost the same as the speed of
light and
we can witness that in lightning bolt strikes. In AC, since the
current goes back
and forth, the drift speed is woefully slower than either DC and
especially CC.
So the definition as given by Halliday and Resnick, Fundamentals of
Physics, 3rd edition, 1988, on page 641
dq = i dt (definition of current)
is wholefully lacking the parameter of "messenger photons"
In Halliday & Resnick's own language-- dq = i dt (definition of
current)
"Here dq is the amount of (positive) charge that passes in time dt
through a
hypothetical surface that cuts across the conductor"
"For the conduction electrons, it is this drift speed that determines
the current."
Do you see the conflict and contradiction of the definition of current
and the drift speed and the obvious reality that the speed of a
current
is always at the speed of light, whether it is AC, DC, or CC? Always
at the speed of light because there are photons mediating the electric
field moving at the speed of light to tell the furthermost electron to
move.
So this equation of dq = i dt is lacking the terms for the fact that
electrons are in motion
not only from their own drift speed motion but from photon carriers.
The experiment I am performing for these past year has all been posted
to the Internet sci newsgroups
and can easily be performed by others to confirm the truth of the
particulars.
Previously I used magnetized iron lathe shavings in the form of a
spring.
I realize that many HighSchoolers and College Freshman may not have
a lathe nearby to get these shavings so I am now going to use cut iron
spring or cut iron paper clip in the form of a coil weighing about
2/100 of
a gram.
I use both a Wimshurst and a Van de Graaff generators. I like both of
them, perhaps the Wimshurst more than the VandeGraaff. I would
like a VandeGraaff where both electrodes were of equal size. My
electrodes
on the VandeGraaff are of unequal size and so I have to use a glass
container to even out the lateral distance between the electrodes.
I use Dental Floss for the suspension of the magnetized iron for
the Meissner Effect.
I have metal coil lathe shavings of iron and magnetized several and
tied a dental-floss string to one
which was magnetized over a period of a month. Tested its "slight
magnetism" with an unmagnetized shaving.
The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
1/10 gram could not weigh it.
So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
of the iron shaving.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm. These shavings are hollow coils, and look much like a
stretched piece of a "spring".
The most important feature of these shavings as magnetic is the
density
of the shaving so that they occupy much volume of space but at a small
mass of less than 1/10 gram. This is important because all ordinary
magnets
are too dense for this experiment since the capacitor currents are so
small.
So that a High Schooler or College physics students performing these
experiments must use magnetized iron lathe shavings and not ordinary
magnets.
When you see the Meissner Effect on superconductors, you generally see
a small ordinary magnet because the current can support that magnet,
but using a generator of capacitor current, I have to use the lightest
density magnet.
MEISSNER EFFECT-- this is ideal-diamagnetism of the exclusion of a
magnetic field. So the magnet suspended by the dental floss near the
electrodes of the generator are repelled and thus a LEVITATION of the
magnet. Now the magnet in the Wimshurst is going to be levitated not
as fiercely as the magnet in the VandeGraaf since the current in the
VandeGraaff is much stronger and so the magnet will be repelled more
strongly and bounce around alot. So here, in the VandeGraaff we will
use a more dense magnet. So make use of the discarded piece of the
iron-spring or iron-paper-clip. The heavier portion of the spring that
is
magnetized and then tied to the dental floss and it will levitate
instead
of wildly bouncing around.
(i) OPERATED both the Wimshurst and VandeGraaf and then placed a
compass-
needle at the north-pole of
the electrode (largest electrode on VandeGraaf) and again noticed the
deflection of the needle 90 degrees. So I wanted to get this Oersted
experiment out of the way. To show that the capacitor current has the
same Oersted affect as the DC current.
(ii) OPERATED both machines again to fill capacitors. Now while in
operation, hung the iron-shaving attached
to the dental-floss at the north-pole of the large electrode on the
VandeGraaf and as expected it
acted as a ideal-diamagnet or the Meissner Effect.
With the VandeGraaf the levitation of the iron-shaving bounces around
alot, so either I lift the suspension to a higher distance or I
suspend
a denser magnetized shaving.
As for the Wimshurst, at the pole of either of the electrodes the
Meissner effect occurred.
(iii) And finally on the northpole of the capacitors, not the
electrodes, but the
capacitors of the Wimshurst displayed a Meissner Effect on the iron-
shaving.
So here again, on September 1, a repeating of my experimentation in
March of 2008, that I again achieve
a Meissner Effect from Capacitor-Current of both VandeGraaff and
Wimshurst generators.
I challenge anyone to duplicate the results.
P.S. this is not Lenz's law as one mistaken responder opined, for he
could have said that all Meissner tests are Lenz's law under such a
mistake.
Archimedes Plutonium
plutonium....@gmail.com
all, throws out the old ideas of
current i
potential difference V (voltage)
resistance R
And the definition of current, of resistance
R = V/i was never really a true physical equation.
Then again, the definition of current and V and R were never true
physics definitions. The problem they all
have is that they were never part of Quantum Mechanics and so a
revision of these concepts should be
in Quantum Mechanics. A revision should involve a "field concept" of
action at a distance.
When you cobble together formulas like R = V/i or Ri = V is the
cobbling together of three concepts that
have no reality in themselves individually.
What is V? some say potential difference, some say pressure. They are
all grasping in a fog
What is R? some liken it to friction
What is i, the current? Perhaps this concept is the best one of these
three for it at least has some
commonsense in that it is a numerical count of the electrons passing
by a given point per time.
So of three basic concepts in physics of V, of R, of i, we have a
pittance of commonsense for only one
of the three concepts whereas the other two-- V and R are all shadowy
ill defined and ill pictured.
The old physics simply cobbled them together and said, well, we cannot
define V and R clearly and make
a pittance of a jab of defining current, so we thrust them all
together into a formula as such:
R = V/i
and then leave you on your own. If you do not like our definition and
want to get a real picture of what is
going on, well, you cannot play the game of old-physics.
You see, I ended up with a degree in mathematics in my education,
although I am more interested in
physics. And to a mathematician, I find R = V/i as totally
unacceptable. Being a pure mathematician, I
know it is unacceptable to construct a formula over three variables of
R, V , i when those variables are
not well-defined. In math, no variable can be ill-defined. All three
variables have to be brand new, clear
and spotless and clean. But to physicists of the past centuries, they
could get away with a formula
that has none of its three variables well defined. Where all three
have defects. And where the physicists
put them together into a formula:
R = V/i
for the reason and excuse that they cannot well define either R or V
and only a tad-definition of i
Talk about sweeping their problems under a rug or carpet. Well the
entire formula of R = V/i
is one gigantic sweep, so that old fogey physicist never have to
define R or V.
And that decrepit formula R = V/i works well enough for the electrical
engineering industry. But that
is industry and not physics which is concerned about "truth" and not
the making of commercial
money where a foggy notion of R and V is acceptable.
So what this Superconductivity Experiment Challenge does is reopen the
question of V, of R, and of i.
This much is certain, that when you pull the switch in a circuit,
whether AC or DC or CC (Capacitor current)
that the speed of the current is the speed of light. Not the drift
speed for the drift speed is far less than the
speed of light. So this speed of light in an electric current is
because of the electromagnetic field involved.
This means that the formula:
R = V/i needs a parameter of photon carrier or photon messenger
A photon is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field, even Faraday
and Maxwell knew that much. But
apparently our modern day physicists with their R = V/i never really
understood that a photon is a disturbance
in the electromagnetic field.
R = V/i does not explain how electrons start to move in the middle of
a circuit at the speed of light. Does
not explain how a light bulb comes on, not at the drift-speed but at
the speed of light.
What does explain it, is that photon messengers or photon carriers
cause electrons in the middle of the
circuit to begin to move.
So how does modern day physics update this old fossil of a formula R =
V/i ??
Engineers can still use the old formula for it is practical but it is
not the truth of electricity and magnetism.
To update would have to incorporate Photon Messenger or Photon
Carriers. When Faraday said "a photon
is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field" physicists should have
believed him.
Voltage or V is commonly thought of as a pressure and called a
"potential difference" But what is voltage really?
What is voltage well defined? To be well defined, voltage would have
to have a parameter of a "photon messenger".
Resistance is often thought of as friction or the production of heat
in a wire, or the random motion of electrons.
But what is it really? What is it well defined? Instead of defining it
by hiding it under other ill defined concepts
of V and of i as in V/i, why not just well-define it so it stands
alone and we can picture it alone. We can picture
a current as the number of electrons passing a given point per time.
So why not well define Resistance?
This is where the Superconductivity Experiment comes into the
discussion. Because in a capacitor current such as
mercury frozen at 4 Kelvin there is no Resistance, nor is there
resistance in a lightning bolt strike.
So resistance in electromagnetism can be zero where the conservation
of energy of the amount in equals the
amount out.
In the old equation R = V/i we would have 0 = 0 /i
plutonium....@gmail.com
>
> To update would have to incorporate Photon Messenger or Photon
> Carriers. When Faraday said "a photon
> is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field" physicists should have
> believed him.
>
> Voltage or V is commonly thought of as a pressure and called a
> "potential difference" But what is voltage really?
> What is voltage well defined? To be well defined, voltage would have
> to have a parameter of a "photon messenger".
>
> Resistance is often thought of as friction or the production of heat
> in a wire, or the random motion of electrons.
> But what is it really? What is it well defined? Instead of defining it
> by hiding it under other ill defined concepts
> of V and of i as in V/i, why not just well-define it so it stands
> alone and we can picture it alone. We can picture
> a current as the number of electrons passing a given point per time.
> So why not well define Resistance?
>
> This is where the Superconductivity Experiment comes into the
> discussion. Because in a capacitor current such as
> mercury frozen at 4 Kelvin there is no Resistance, nor is there
> resistance in a lightning bolt strike.
>
> So resistance in electromagnetism can be zero where the conservation
> of energy of the amount in equals the
> amount out.
>
> In the old equation R = V/i we would have 0 = 0 /i
>
Alright, I thought about how to make a well defined Resistance concept
for physics. And I think
I came up with a very excellent plan of attack. Beautiful, I think for
it is a geometrical definition
of Resistance in electricity and magnetism. For the old definitions of
V, i, R in physics I refer to
Halliday & Resnick, Fundamentals of Physics, 3rd edition, 1988,
starting at the page 640, Chapter
28.
I am going to refer to a chemistry textbook, Principles of Modern
Chemistry, Oxtoby and Nachtrieb,
1990, page 733 where it shows a structure of the perovskite YBa2Cu3O(9-
x) which superconducts
at 90 degree Kelvin.
I am going to try to discard the formula R = V/i of physics by
replacing the definition of Resistance
as a purely geometrical pattern.
I do not know what the structure of mercury at 4 Kelvin looks like
compared to the perovskite. But
will refer to mercury and the perovskite.
So in superconductivity, these materials have no Resistance and where
R is equal to 0. And
Superconductors are Capacitor Currents. That helps immensely so that I
can picture how the
electrons actually move through the material and why they have no
resistance.
So looking at the superconductor on page 733 I can picture that the
electrons move through the
lattice structure as capacitors that build up electrons and discharge
them to the next lattice.
So here I have a Geometrical Definition of Resistance for physics.
That 0 Resistance, whether
it be the perovskite or mercury at 4 Kelvin have the same geometrical
structure of a lattice
that acts as a capacitor and where the electrons build up and then
discharge. So all superconductors
have the same geometrical structure of a capacitor that builds up
electric charge and discharges in
nanoseconds with no resistance.
Now we come to the world's two finest normal electrical conductors of
silver and copper. Are they
lattice structures such as mercury at 4 Kelvin and the above
perovskite at 90 Kelvin? No, but they
are close to being that capacitor structure. The lattice of silver and
copper at room temperature
is somewhat close to what the perovskite looks like at 90 Kelvin but
silver is not a capacitor at
room temperature and the lattice structure deviates from the
perovskite and mercury superconductors.
But still, at room temperature, silver and copper come closest of all
the elements of fulfilling
the geometry of a superconductor and that is why silver and copper
have the lowest resistance.
Silver and Copper are the two elements that are most like the
capacitor structure of a superconductor.
In the old physics, Resistance was defined as R = V/i
In the future physics, Resistance is defined as deviation from the
lattice structure that is a capacitor.
So that if we placed some atoms in between the barium in that
perovskite or if we doped mercury so
that it no longer is superconductive at 4 Kelvin then we have changed
the geometry so that they
have a small Resistance. So in this manner, as the reader can
perceive, I am defining Resistance as
a deviation from a geometry to where the lattice is a capacitor at a
given Kelvin temperature.
My definition of Resistance is all geometrical.
Now in the old physics we had R = V/i. So if the R is a geometrical
concept, then the term V/i would
be a geometrical concept. The voltage divided by the current.
And we should begin to see how V/i is a geometrical concept, for it
would be the electrical current spark
that jumps the gap in the electrodes of a Wimshurst generator, only
here the electric current jumps from
one lattice cell of the perovskite to the next lattice cell of the
perovskite.
So here I have begun to give a new modern revised definition of
Resistance, Voltage, Current in
the old physics of R = V/i. I have made those three concepts
geometrical concepts.
plutonium....@gmail.com
> So here I have a Geometrical Definition of Resistance for physics.
> That 0 Resistance, whether
> it be the perovskite or mercury at 4 Kelvin have the same geometrical
> structure of a lattice
> that acts as a capacitor and where the electrons build up and then
> discharge. So all superconductors
> have the same geometrical structure of a capacitor that builds up
> electric charge and discharges in
> nanoseconds with no resistance.
>
Alright, here I have a excellent definition of Resistance. It is
purely geometrical.
It says that 0 resistance is a geometry form of the protons and
electrons in
a lattice structure. So that mercury at 4 Kelvin is the same as
YBa2Cu3O(9-x) which superconducts at 90 Kelvin. Where the electrons
pile
up in all the lattices in one nanosecond and discharge from all the
lattices
in the next nanosecond. So Resistance R is a geometry phenomenon.
Now we come to high conductors, not superconductors. There is some
Resistance in silver and copper at room temperature. Here the geometry
of the silver lattice is not the capacitor geometry as the
superconductors
but it is close to that lattice structure. So Resistance is a geometry
deviation in silver from that of mercury at 4 Kelvin.
So if Resistance, R = V/i in the old physics, then how do I make V/i a
geometrical picture also?
Well the current would be the electrons in coordination with photons
that builds up each lattice cell of the mercury or perovskite in one
nanosecond and a nanosecond later discharges all the electrons
and starts the process over again. The same as the Wimshurst
fills the capacitors and discharges where the Conservation-of-energy
makes for no resistance.
So I have a full geometry explanation of Resistance, I should surmise
a full geometry explanation of V/i. But it is not so easy since I have
to have "photon messenger or photon carrier" to coordinate the
electron flow. So I suspect the term V, the voltage, is this
photon messenger coordination of electron flow.
This would be the Quantum Mechanics infusion in revising the old
physics of R = V/i. The old physics simply never even considered
that electrons flowed in a conductor messaged by photons to start
to move. That AC is not simply drift-speed but has the speed of light
messages for the electrons to move. The old physics hid and sweep
all this physical interactions under a huge under-the-rug-sweep with
their reliance on R = V/i where none of the three parameters of R, V,
i,
had a clear coherent concept. All were vague. R was thought of as
friction, V was thought of as pressure and i was a count of electrons.
Very old, musty and outdated concepts, yet no physicist making
efforts to correct.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Come to think about it, Voltage or potential-difference in electricity
is merely the
gap between the electrodes of a Wimshurst generator. Your building up
a potential
difference. And the discharge of the capacitors is voltage in action.
Some call voltage as a pressure, electrical pressure.
The old and decaying physics sweep it all under a rug with R = V/i
The new future physics will define R, V, and i as geometrical concepts
and will include photons along with electrons.
The biggest fault of the old physics was they never recognized that
currents
act with the speed of light, not the drift speed of electrons. That
proves
that photons have to be in the V and i concepts.
I am sure when physicists of the past devised R = V/i they patterned
it after watching water flow in a hose or other container and said
Resistance proportional to water pressure/ water flow. How old is that
anyway? Is that the mentality of 19th century physicists? I am not
sure how
old Ohm goes back in the history of physics and the formula R = V/i.
But this is nearing the end of 2008, and is physics so antiquated that
it
has noone in the physics community modernizing a pathetic patch of
physics? I bet every college freshman physics text still preaches the
R = V/i and where no physicist seems to realize how outdated these
three concepts are.
So I have made R as a purely geometrical concept. It is a lattice
structure
where electrons build up and then discharge. If the lattice is a
superconductor
the resistance is 0. If the lattice is a silver or copper at room
temperature, then
the lattice is about as efficient as a superconductor but not as
efficient. If the
lattice has no geometrical similarites to a superconductor than the
resistance is
high.
Voltage is capacitance. Each lattice cell of a conductor is a
capacitor.
Current is the count of electrons moving past a area in given time.
But current
needs a photon messenger parameter.
Voltage probably needs a photon messenger parameter that tells a
latice cell to discharge.
So the future physics concept of R = V/i has to be geometrical and has
to include more
terms for photon messenger.
Electricity and Magnetism is not just about charge but also must
include photons.
plutonium....@gmail.com
>
> Voltage is capacitance. Each lattice cell of a conductor is a
> capacitor.
>
> Current is the count of electrons moving past a area in given time.
> But current
> needs a photon messenger parameter.
>
> Voltage probably needs a photon messenger parameter that tells a
> latice cell to discharge.
>
There is an interesting side note here. Recently scientists learned to
their surprize
that a lightning bolt strike needs a Cosmic Ray particle (proton) to
lead the bolt
to the ground.
That pretty much conforms to the idea that a capacitor such as in a
Wimshurst
generator probably needs a photon messenger or photon carrier to lead
the
discharge.
plutonium....@gmail.com
quickly tells me that Ohm was around 1826, about
the same time as Faraday doing induction.
Before I give the vision of how electricity works, let me talk a bit
about the Double Slit Experiment where we
know that the particles used can be either electrons or photons at the
slits. And the results are the same.
So the old Ohm definition of R = V/i should have been revised not in
2008 but should have been revised
starting 1920. Back in the 1920s someone should have started this
discussion what I am saying. Only they
would not have had the facts and data that we have concerning
superconductivity. But at least they would
have started the revision because back in 1920s they knew all about
the Double Slit and that the speed
of light is involved in the same way as for photons as for electrons.
That should have alerted the physics
community back in the 1920s that electric currents involve not only
electrons but involve photons as
messenger or carrier particles. And we can go all the way back to
Faraday in the 1830s when he
announced "a photon is a disturbance in the electromagnetic field". So
apparently no physicist between
1830 to 2008 really payed any attention to the facts that electricity
involves not just electrons but photons.
Now I do not have the time to search to see if Ohm and the many other
contributors to the concepts of
electricity and magnetism based the formula R = V/i to first that of
water flow, say water flowing in a garden
hose. They probably never saw a garden hose back in the 1830s, but
they would have been familar with
flow of water in a pipe. And whether they would have modeled R = V/i
to water flow in a pipe.
But I shall outline a crude vision in this post as to how electricity
really flows in a wire. Not with the old
R = V/i but a new formulation.
Consider a faucet as a electric power source and a attached garden
hose. At the faucet without the hose,
the flow of water is 6 liters per minute (pretty slow). When the hose
is attached, the flow at the end is 2 liters
per second. The resistance in the hose is 3, the pressure was 6, the
current was 2. So we can have
for our model 3 = 6/2 the same vision we have for electricity of R = V/
i.
Now we say in the garden hose analogy that the Resistance is the
friction inside the hose so that the friction
ruins or destroys some of the energy of the water flow at the faucet
to the water flow coming out at the end of
the hose. The energy of the water at the faucet was 6 energies and was
reduced to 2 energies at the end of the
hose. So that resistance or friction is a vision of loss of energy.
Now the thing about water flow is that it is obvious and we need no
vision to see it or interpret or understand it.
However with electrons, we can never actually see and observe the flow
so we have to rely on facts and data
to try to get a vision of what is going on.
From facts and data of experiments especially superconductors and
Wimshurst generators and capacitors
here is a stab of a vision as I see it.
Mercury or perovskite superconductor: We connect it to a power source
(faucet) and the perovskite is like
the garden hose only it is a closed loop, not open ended. The power
source has a current of so many
electrons per second. The perovskite has
so many lattice cells as capacitors. Each lattice cell holds a given
number of electrons but can hold say 2
additional electrons. As the power source (faucet) is turned on, each
cell receives at least one photon
messenger and at the
speed of light that cell is filled with the additional 2 electrons.
Then a photon messenger of each cell with
its added 2 electrons gives a message to discharge and all the faucet
electrons end up at the far end of the
closed loop. No energy was lost and all electrons at the beginning
appear at the end.
Now let me run the vision for a Normal Conductor such as silver or
copper. We have our power source, our
faucet so to speak, and each lattice cell of silver can hold 1
additional electron, unlike the perovskite which
can hold 2 additional electrons. So we turn the switch on and a photon
messenger tells each silver cell
here comes a additional electron for your cell. So in a nanosecond,
each silver lattice cell is given a additional
electron to hold. In the next nanosecond photon messengers tell each
cell to discharge their added electron
to the end of the closed loop. Now here, in the silver or copper wire,
the number of electrons at the start is
not the same as the number at the finish because silver and copper are
not as geometrically aligned as the
perovskite superconductor.
Now let me briefly discuss the actions in a semiconductor. Here the
geometry of the lattice cells have some
regularity but nowhere near the perfect regularity of a superconductor
or even that of silver and copper. The
semiconductor may have capacitor space for 1 added electron per every
4 cells or every 10 cells but not like
silver that has room for an added electron every cell. And the
alignment of the cells for the discharge is so that
it blocks electrons or photon messengers.
Now briefly a nonconductor such as plastic or wood. Here each lattice
cell is not amenable to storing any additional
electron. Nor does photon messengers have anything to communicate with
the electrons or protons of wood per
cell. So here what the power source ends up doing is converting its
energy into heat.
Now the above is a first stab of a modern or futuristic revision of R
= V/i. It has many spots for improvement, but
it is on the right course, which is the most important feature.
I have a good picture of the geometry of perovskite superconductor or
mercury at 4 Kelvin. I have a good
picture of silver or copper at room temperature. What I do not have a
good picture is V/i with its electrons,
its lattice cell capacitance and with photon messengers.
Photon messengers is the hardest concept in this venture.
plutonium....@gmail.com
> Consider a faucet as a electric power source and a attached garden
> hose. At the faucet without the hose,
> the flow of water is 6 liters per minute (pretty slow). When the hose
> is attached, the flow at the end is 2 liters
> per second. The resistance in the hose is 3, the pressure was 6, the
> current was 2. So we can have
> for our model 3 = 6/2 the same vision we have for electricity of R = V/
> i.
>
Sorry, I was typing too fast, and of course I seldom reread. If I do
reread
it is while I am archiving the post and the post was already sent.
I like to post, relaxed and having fun, not as if I am in a chore and
duty.
Above that should read 2 liters per minute and not 2 liters per
second.
I changed it on the original with a "sic" sign.
plutonium....@gmail.com
> current was 2. So we can have
> for our model 3 = 6/2 the same vision we have for electricity of R = V/
> i.
>
>
> Photon messengers is the hardest concept in this venture.
>
In a Lightning-bolt strike, what discharges the electric current from
clouds to ground is a
Cosmic Ray (proton).
So why not say that what discharges the Wimshurst generator is a
photon-messenger
or photon-carrier.
There is a term already in the physics literature called a pilot-wave.
I believe Debroglie
used it in some of his books. I forgotten exactly why he wanted it or
needed a
pilot-wave.
Recently I commented that the Ampere-Maxwell Law of its displacement-
current would
be a answer for the Double Slit Experiment as to how a electron can
break apart at the
slits and reform up again at the screen. If we think of a electron as
always joined with a
photon as a pilot-wave and this photon is the displacement current.
Then the Double
Slit Experiment is no longer puzzling for it would be that the
electron never broke apart
but was simply guided by the pilot wave. Just as a Cosmic Ray proton
is a pilot wave
guiding a Lightning-bolt to the ground.
So is the Displacement Current in Ampere-Maxwell Law a misnomer that
should have
been called properly as a photon-pilot-wave?
In my revision of iR = V , or some like R = V/i, or some like i = V/R
If V is total Capacitance and i is the discharge-capacitance
Then the V term, the Voltage would have charge capacitance plus photon-
pilot-wave plus discharge
capacitance.
The world's finest conductor of electricity is silver at room
temperature. So how does the above revision
formulate a picture of why silver is the world's finest conductor at
room temperature. Chemistry
says that silver is the metallic-bond with silver having the highest
band overlapp so that electrons
with little energy can freely move better than any other metal or
element.
My revision does not dispute those claims of chemistry but fills in so
much more of the picture.
The rest of the picture for silver is that each lattice cell of silver
can hold a number of electrons as
a capacitor. As you fill each lattice cell and then a photon-pilot-
wave discharges all of them
in a small time period and then fills them back up again and repeating
the process.
So why is silver not superconductive, only at close to 0 Kelvin? One
would think that if silver
is the highest normal conductor it should be a cinch to the the record
high temperature superconductor
for elements. Well we can begin to see an answer in that silver
already is a good capacitor lattice
framework and by cooling silver you distort the framework
plutonium....@gmail.com
ball-point-pen, taking the spring out of the
housing and stretching it so that it is uniform windings and measured
65 mm long. I then snipped it at
6.5 mm since the weight of the full spring was 2/10 gram so that now I
have a 2/100 gram spring which I
magnetized.
I did about the same with the paper clip only I had to fold one end to
form a loop.
I had to use needle-nose pliers and also wire cutter.
I spent several days magnetizing the spring and paper-clip. Magnetized
so that if I place them near unmagnetized
iron coils, they attract. So I spent almost a week, or the last time I
did the experiment in magnetizing these two
objects.
I magnetized them by simply placing them on two strong magnets for a
period of time.
I use dental floss string and I tie the string so that the magnetized
spring or paper-clip rests over the electrodes.
I repeated the experiment and found the spring and paper-clip not only
were repelled from the electrodes and
current in operation but bounced around too much that I had to get out
the old iron shaving coil of 1/10 gram
weight that it levitated better and bounced around much less.
Save the heavy part of the spring and magnetize it also and use it to
get a less bouncing around.
So here again I achieved a Meissner Effect on a Wimshurst and
VandeGraaff generators.
Use the heavier spring to see a levitation rather than the violent
bouncing around.
This experiment is easy enough for even HighSchoolers and College
Freshmen to repeat. All that is needed
is a spring suspended by dental floss, a Wimshurst generator, and a
scientific curiosity.
spudnik
wherein the the supercooled magnet hangs underneath?
the Meissner effect, I think, requires no additional constraint,
per the floss; so, you may have mis-stated the results, although
there was a recent report of "magnetic levitation,"
using standard magnets & a specific configuration (and,
there's a maglev design that does that, dynamically .-)
the electrons do not travel at lightspeed in the wire, but
the signal does. it is always good to bear-up the "electron" analogy
with waves of light, but the "photon" analogy is often confuzing,
as we know from Newton's iron-poor corpuscles.
> This experiment is easy enough for even HighSchoolers and College
> Freshmen to repeat. All that is needed
> is a spring suspended by dental floss, a Wimshurst generator, and a
> scientific curiosity.
thus:
meaning, multiplication is not defined,
tetration is just gone?
> and there is no nonstandard model of arithmetic
> in which addition is recursive
thus:
have you ever seen this dude ever do any numbertheory?... me,
being quite unpracticed, reserve judgement, most of the time, but
it seems very clear that this dude simply uses an algebraware box
to runthrough a Big O of data, then presumes a proof. me,
I eschew Wolframitism & the googolplex & other oracular boxes,
unless another links to it in the newsgroup,
which is certainly bad enough.
apparently the results were justified by another, but
where is the erudite commentary from the originator,
on what in Hell it is supposed to be about?
what do you, yourself, say that it means, if
that would be interesting?
> as any real physicist might know)
thus:
wake me "up," when September ends ...
ohno -- am I late for classes, again !?!
hey, PS, is your address in the BU box, or
does this list ideowise meet the category of BU research facilitation?
Cheeny has just p e r s o n a l l y launched a diversion
from his 3rdBritishInvasionSudan plan,
involving contretemps with Mother Russia and Baby Georgia;
where is the clock on the God-am Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
now -- a twelveth past twenty-four hundred hours?... I just saw
the current issue at the bokstore, and the feature of the issue
is bemoaning nuclear power, while the whole planet escapes
from our '50s lightwater unfailsafe paradigm, not to mention
our late-'50s program of space (at least, it was not unmanned).
so, that paper timepiece is going to be at the whim
of the two, new candidates for Imperial Vice P., or
simply 4mo'year of Trickier Dick, whether one knows it or knot:
the Harry Potter PS of American History from Rhodes Scholarship
(Oxford U. Press), insists upon an explicit doctirne of American
Imperialism
in the vain of Teddy Roosevelt. this was reprezented in the NYTimes
of yesterday, letter to editro style, bemoaning Dick's policies,
without any acknowledgemnt that it is all legal, all written
by sub rosa lawyers in exec.orders (or where ever), and
virtual VP Joe's call for US military intervention in Durfar;
Dick can now abandon that policy to the Prendergast Machine,
Cold War Trumanism etc. ad vomitorium, R&orD!
the only truly portable "machine of time" is a good watch;
every thing else is SF garbage and "spacetime" analogy.
how many rounds in your geodesic roulette, to-day, Buckywitches?
moo-ha-ha!
--ROTC, your summer vacation in the Sahara Desert ( S u d a n ) ;
presage the Draft for your middleschool class of '12 --
brought to you by Allstate (tm) and Oxford U. Press!
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080813moloch_brown.html
http://larouchepub.com/hzl/2008/3535ww_miscalc.html
http://larouchepub.com/pr/2008/080812brit_soros_stooges.html
spudnik
here is the earlier elaboration on light by Fermat:
http://www.wlym.com/~seattle/dynamis/issues/august08-fermat.pdf
> as we know from Newton's iron-poor corpuscles.
--ROTC, your summer vacation in the Sahara Desert ( S u d a n ) ;
plutonium....@gmail.com
of V,i, R of electricity and inject
temperature in the Maxwell Equations.
Here I have a chance to unify superconductivity with tokamak fusion
and to have temperature within
the mathematics of those two phenomenon.
In special-relativity we have the Lorentz transformation subterm of
v^2/c^2. We know that v can never
equal c for an object of mass. That guarantees we never have 1-1 and
thus the denominator equal to 0.
In electricity we have R = V/i or we can write it as i = V/R. So is
the resistance truly that of 0 in
superconductivity and where we have a zero denominator?
The answer out of this conundrum is that R is either very tiny but not
actually 0, or that R has a
missing term such as a "messenger-photon" or "carrier photon" or
"signal-photon".
The superconductivity experiments to date have never measured a tiny
resistance but have always
come back reporting that it is exactly 0.
I take the position that it is a nonzero resistance that is very close
to zero but never actually zero itself.
I take that position because of experiments of doping that are able to
alter the Tc by tiny amounts. If we
can do that, indicates that Tc is never really 0 itself. If doping can
alter Tc by tiny gradations, logically would
say that 0 resistance is not a quantum well, but rather, no
superconductor ever reached 0 resistance. Just
as it is impossible to reach Absolute Zero Kelvin, it is impossible to
reach 0 Resistance.
I could run a parallel argument saying that if Absolute Zero Kelvin
can be reached then 0 Resistance can be
obtained. But we know better. We know 0 Kelvin is unattainable. That
should have alerted physicists that what
they thought was 0 resistance in superconductivity was only their
wishful thinking.
Now I am going to tie together fusion and superconductivity with a
temperature term.
Archimedes Plutonium
(snipped)
>
> Now I am going to tie together fusion and superconductivity with a
> temperature term.
>
Here I am going to have to stall a bit, because of nailing down
what an Upper Bound for time and of temperature are. Also a
Lower Bound.
Temperature is easy with a Lower Bound, for we all know 0 Kelvin
is a Lower Bound. Modern day physicists,though, have never seriously
grappled with an Upper-bound for temperature. They assumed that the
definition of temperature-- average kinetic energy of particle of a
given space -- they assumed it goes to infinity. But I somewhat reckon
that temperature does not go to infinity but has a definite upper-bound.
Likewise, modern day physicists reckon that time goes to infinity and
has no upper bound. But in an Atom Totality, time has a definite upper
bound, as well has having a definite Lower-bound, similar to temperature.
Most physicists today, do not agree or do not understand the
relationship of time versus temperature. They usually become
silent when someone is seriously talking about time versus
temperature. Silent because they have reached the limit or bounds
of their own understanding of physics.
From all indications of physics experiments, it appears that time
and temperature are inverses of one another. So that if you have
time t you have temperature T as replaced with time as 1/T, and
vice versa.
I am probably the only physicist today to seriously talk about
bounds of time and temperature, not because I may be the only one
capable of making progress, but because talking about time and
temperature together is the heart of physics, for you have to have
all of physics in mind.
I hope where this discussion ends is where I put temperature terms
into the Maxwell Equations. I have a chance of doing just that because
of the superconductivity and fusion experiments.
But before I tackle the actual math. I have to get some handle on bounds.
Temperature:
Lower-Bound is 0 Kelvin
Upper-Bound, I reckon is some number of Kelvin which does not
contradict that velocity has an upper bound in the speed of light
Time:
Lower-Bound, I reckon that the Planck time is it
Upper-Bound, I reckon that the Universe is an Atom Totality which
marks out a upper-limit for "time" within each distinct atom-universe.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Peter Tyson, an editor of NOVA talks with several scientists
over the issue of a World's Highest Temperature or as the
title of the article asks "Is there an opposite to absolute zero?"
I think Peter interviewed too many in the fringes of science such
as the string theorists. But the article overall is good for it is a
panavision of thoughts. And the article even addressed the Large
Hadron Collider LHC in Cern Switzerland that is running experiments
this week. Even a report on the BBC tonight about LHC.
And the LHC is reputed to reach 10^17 Kelvin.
Peter discusses the Planck-temperature as about 10^32 Kelvin.
Planck-temperature = sqrt[ (hbar x c^5)/ (G x k^2)]
Now the Planck-length is 10^-35 meters
Planck-length = sqrt[ (hbar x G)/c^3]
The Planck-time is 10^-44 seconds.
Planck-time = sqrt[ (hbar x G)/c^5]
Planck-time is the time it takes a photon to cross the distance of a
Planck-length
Let me propose something far more practical than the Planck-
temperature which
is too much seeped into Cosmology. Cosmology in the Big Bang theory
with
its overemphasis on gravity and G. Instead, the emphasis should be on
Coulomb
force, not gravity force. We know Coulomb is 10^40 stronger than
gravity.
So the practical question is at what high temperature do we no longer
have
Coulomb attraction.
This is far more practical of a attack on the question of high-
temperature since it
involves "charge". The Planck measures are lacking of "charge".
And that is a great adventure in itself, as to the relationship of
charge with temperature.
As I stated often before, to me, charge is the geometry of space.
Temperature is another
version of time only looked at in a different angle. So temperature
and time are the same
thing, but charge is distinctly different.
Now let me make a stabb at the above. A preliminary stabb to see if I
am on a correct course.
If we take Coulomb force stopped by temperature we have 10^40 x 10^32
K = 10^72 K
and since time is the inverse of temperature, using Planck-time and
Planck length we
have 10^-35 x 10^-44 x speed of light = 10^-71 seconds. In other words
we get an inverse
relation of time to temperature.
plutonium....@gmail.com
plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Now let me make a stabb at the above. A preliminary stabb to see if I
> am on a correct course.
>
> If we take Coulomb force stopped by temperature we have 10^40 x 10^32
> K = 10^72 K
> and since time is the inverse of temperature, using Planck-time and
> Planck length we
> have 10^-35 x 10^-44 x speed of light = 10^-71 seconds. In other words
> we get an inverse
> relation of time to temperature.
>
Let me first clarify that above short calculation: If I assume an Atom
Totality, then
this atom-universe would have as parameters a diameter of 10^-35
meters
and a time of 10^-44 seconds and those two parameters would be set by
the speed of light 10^8 m/s. That is how I get 10^-71 seconds which
compares
almost equal to the temperature of 10^72 Kelvin. Now the term 10^40 is
not as
accurate as the other terms, so that if I were to get a more accurate
term for the
force strength of Coulomb over that of gravity as say 10^39 rather
than 10^40
then I would have an exponent of 71 for both temperature and time.
In other words, the crude calculation is to see if time and
temperature are inverses.
I took another peek at this website by Peter that talks of a highest
temperature, especially looking for a date.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/zero/hot.html
Absolute Hot by Peter Tyson
Is there an opposite to absolute zero?
It says in the lower right corner December 2007. I was looking for the
date because Peter
mentions LHC, Large Hadron Collider in CERN that is activated this
very week and perhaps
news tonight about its physics. I heard the BBC was fully covering the
news.
Anyway, let me give an overview of what I think is wrong with Peter's
interviewing of many
scientists that compose his website on the topic. The trouble is that
Peter interviewed
everyone who has the opinion that gravity is the main force to worry
about and that
the Cosmos is a result of a Big Bang theory. String theory resides in
those two
bad assumptions. Now if either one of those assumptions is
false, then the answer would be totally off the mark as for a highest
temperature possible.
What Peter should have done is ask someone with the two assumptions
that the Unification
of forces of physics is a Coulomb Unification, so that we get away
from this disease of the
20th century that gravity is the "central force of the world". And the
second assumption that
the Cosmos is a Atom Totality. These two assumptions places the
Maxwell Equations as the
heart of all of physics and places the Cosmos as a quantum body, not
an infinite open ended
blob that the Big Bang assumes.
So if you make the Maxwell Equations, the heart of all of physics,
with the forces as a Coulomb
Unification, then the questioning and answering of a Absolute Highest
Temperature where the
temperature is impossible to go any higher, well, we have a good
chance of answering that question
with clarity.
So at what high temperature can you no longer have the Maxwell
Equations?
We all know from Freshman physics class a demonstration that magnets
lose their ability to attract
when heat is applied. So at what temperature do you no longer have a
Maxwell Equations?
What temperature does the Coulomb force no longer exists since the
temperature heat is so high that
the Coulomb force would not be there?
The Sun and stars are not hot enough of a temperature to annul the
Coulomb force for there is still
fusion going on. But the temperature and heat of say a Supernova or
one of those huge energetic
gamma ray bursts. I think in those events the Maxwell Equations can no
longer exist.
So the Planck-temperature of 10^32 Kelvin is far to high where the
Maxwell Equations could no longer
exist. I think the temperature of a supernova is about the temperature
at which the Maxwell Equations
cease to exist.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Just out of fun, I checked back at those Planck measures as to their
most accurate
values:
Planck-length 1.6 x 10^-35 m
Planck-time 5.3 x 10^-44 s
Planck-temperature 1.4 x 10^32 K
c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s
Now if I repeated that calculation using the more accurate values
except the value for
the relative force strength of Coulomb over gravity (approx 10^40) to
see what value
the Planck measures gives to the 10^40
So I end up with:
1.6 x10^-35 x 5.3 x 10^-44 x speed of light = 254 x 10^-72 seconds or
2.5 x 10^-70
Now doing the same for temperature and force strength I have:
10^40 x 1.4 x 10^32K = 1.4 x 10^72 K
Now the question is what value for the 10^40 so that it is equal to
the inverse
of 2.5 x 10^-70 ?
And I get 0.35 x 10^38
So I am wondering if anyone has really found the best measurement of
the value of the
force strength of the Coulomb over gravity. I have often come use to
the value of 10^40
but is more likely to be 0.35 x 10^38. I know that many authors place
the value at
10^39.
In an Atom Totality, I am thinking that the Planck measures can easily
deduce the value
of what Coulomb force is over the gravity force and the above shows it
to be 0.35 x 10^38.
plutonium....@gmail.com
between Coulomb
and gravity involved experimental data that made it less accurate than
the Planck-time
or Planck-length or Planck-temperature.
Here is a good website that tells it all:
--- quoting except for a snip ---
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/couple.html#c5
Since the masses and charges of basic particles like the electron and
proton are independent of each other, the strength of the gravity
force relative to the electromagnetic force depends upon which
particles you choose for comparison. If two protons are chosen for the
comparison, then
F_gravity/F_electric = ...(snip)... = 8.1 x 10^-37
Using the electromagnetic coupling constant of 1/137 then leads to a
gravitational coupling constant
alpha_g = 5.9 x 10^-39
If the force between an electron and a proton is used, the comparison
between gravitational and electric force is
F_gravity/F_electric = 4.4 x 10^-40
--- end quoting ---
Planck-length 1.6 x 10^-35 m
Planck-time 5.3 x 10^-44 s
Planck-temperature 1.4 x 10^32 K
c = 3.0 x 10^8 m/s
Now I have something really astounding to go by. I am going to use the
Atom Totality theory,
for which the Big Bang cannot do these calculations.
I am going to show that the numbers of physics proves that Temperature
T = 1/t where t is time.
I can do this because of the Universal-Atom, in order to have a speed
of light as maximum
speed with value of 3.0 x 10^8 m/s also has these measures of the
smallest length and smallest
time of the Planck measures.
So I have for time: 1.6 x 10^-35 m x 5.3 x 10^-44 s x 3.0 x 10^8 m/s
for a value of 25.4 x 10^-71
And I have for temperature: 1.4 x 10^32 K x 4.4 x 10^40 = 61.6 x 10^71
and also I have 1.4 x 10^32 K x 5.9 x 10^39 = 8.26 x
10^71
when I subtract those two I end up with 53.34 x 10^71
Now I know that other physicists are immediately going to complain and
pounce on my units.
That the units do not agree.
My retort is going to be this: You have a Atom Totality Universe. It
has the smallest numbers of
measure as the Plancks-measures. Those smallest numbers of length and
time are connected
to the largest number of length and time incorporated within the speed
of light signal. So it is a
proportionality more than an equality.
Have I got the relationship of T = 1/t or vice versa of t = 1/T where
t is time and T is temperature?
Well I have them close enough, for I have the same exponent.
plutonium....@gmail.com
>
> --- quoting except for a snip ---
> http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/Forces/couple.html#c5
> Since the masses and charges of basic particles like the electron and
> proton are independent of each other, the strength of the gravity
> force relative to the electromagnetic force depends upon which
> particles you choose for comparison. If two protons are chosen for the
> comparison, then
> F_gravity/F_electric = ...(snip)... = 8.1 x 10^-37
>
> Using the electromagnetic coupling constant of 1/137 then leads to a
> gravitational coupling constant
> alpha_g = 5.9 x 10^-39
>
> If the force between an electron and a proton is used, the comparison
> between gravitational and electric force is
> F_gravity/F_electric = 4.4 x 10^-40
> --- end quoting ---
>
I am too busy to compute this, anyone else care to compute what the
number is
for electron to electron?
plutonium....@gmail.com
Equations. First being, that
superconductivity and tokamak fusion will guide us to a temperature
term for the Maxwell Equations.
Secondly, the Maxwell Equations become nullified once the temperature
rises above a upper bound
which is somewhere between 10^12 to 10^17 Kelvin.
Thirdly, the first Maxwell Equations to be nullified are the Faraday
and Ampere Laws, so the temperature
term would fit in the Displacement-Current of Ampere law and the
Displacement-Magnetism in the
Faraday Law.
Fourthly, there are more questions than answers. Does the Coulomb law
have a temperature term?
I think the answer is no, in that the Coulomb law is not nullified as
is the Faraday and Ampere laws.
Fifthly, to fit a temperature term into the Faraday and Ampere law
would be to have the Displacement
Current and Displacement Magnetism terms cancel out the Faraday and
Ampere terms. So we have
a natural spot to place the temperature term.
Sixthly, the temperature term would easily describe superconductivity,
in that you could have
superconduction all the way up to 10^17 Kelvin in that superconduction
is a capacitor-current.
So as long as a Capacitor is possible to exist physically, you can
have a superconduction
current. So the ability to have capacitor follows in suit with the
ability to have Faraday and
Ampere law.
Seventhly, tokamak fusion, likes hot temperatures, the hotter the
better, but the energy to control
increasing temperature is lost when the temperature reaches the point
where the Faraday and Ampere
laws are nullified. So at some temperature, inside the Tokamak, where
the Faraday and Ampere
laws are annulled, is the point in which only 2/3 breakeven is the
maximum breakeven.
Eighly, since we have the LHC in operation, is a good opportunity to
investigate the temperature at
which tokamak fusion has reached maximum breakeven. If you look at the
LHC, you realize
it is really a tokamak that allows us to "peek and look" inside. It
was fortunate that the LHC was
built before building ITER, since ITER will not let us look inside at
the events going on. So the LHC
allows us this opportunity to find this critical temperature. The
temperature in which the Faraday
and Ampere laws are annulled. It would be the temperature at which no
superconductivity can exist
since no capacitors can exist. And it is the temperature at which
tokamak fusion has reached
its maximum breakeven which is 2/3.
plutonium....@gmail.com
is
temperature wherever you have a dt for change of rate of time t.
And I would reply back that it is far more complex than all of that.
All the definitions
of physics on electricity and magnetism need a vast overhaul of its
current, resistance
and voltage. The dt in current needs overhaul, as if the current had
never been relativized
to the speed of light. The definition of current in i =V/R cannot
account for a capacitor-current
with its photon-signalling, that the message to tell other electrons
to start to move is
a signal that travels at the speed of light. So the old physics never
had that.
In weather where we have a thunderstorm and a frontal boundary of cold
air with hot
air we can have lightning bolts. So do we have change of rate of
Temperature of magnetic flux?
It is tempting to say that all I need to do to overhaul the Maxwell
Equations is to place
a 1/T where T is temperature at various places in the Equations where
there is a dt where
t is time. And the trouble is that nearly all of the definitions
leading up to the Maxwell
Equations need revision.
And when we look at physical reality-- that the Space is a positron
ocean of antimatter
in which the Maxwell Equations are embedded. That a simple change of t
for time with
1/T for temperature, will not fix. A proper and correct Maxwell
Equations will include
Space as a positron ocean of antimatter that attracts ordinary matter
and is the source
for the force of gravity.
The way I see it, the new Maxwell Equations will have four laws where
the two static laws
are symmetrical and the two dynamic laws are symmetrical. The dynamic
laws will
have both a time and temperature terms. The static laws will have a
term in which Space
is a positron attractive force to all the matter we see (which is the
force of gravity). Space
is distance and so it is time also, and since it is time, means the
static laws must have
a temperature term included.
So the revision that Maxwell made where he added a Displacement-
Current was a simple
revision of Classical physics, where Maxwell simply made some
mathematical order out of
the equations. The revision I am starting is a massive overhaul which
it should be, since it is
a quantum mechanics overhaul of the Maxwell Equations. It is where
physics finally
unifies gravity within the Coulomb force. My revision is only possible
in an Atom Totality
not a Big Bang. The Big Bang is a theory that makes gravity the
central law of physics
whereas the Atom Totality makes Quantum Mechanics the central law.
In the two static laws, one is Gauss's law of electricity or the
Coulomb Law, and that law
needs another term which embodies Space as a positron ocean that
attracts matter, which
is gravity itself. We can see this missing term in that the Maxwell
Displacement-Current
in Ampere Law is really gravity. Gravity is 10^40 weaker of a force
than Coulomb and the
Displacement Current is 10^40 weaker as a "real current" in the
Maxwell Equations.
One guiding principle is that of duality. We have duality of wave to
particle or better yet
of E to B. Whereever there is E there is B tagging along
perpendicular. So this tells us
that there is a duality of static to dynamic and this tells us there
are two static laws
and two dynamic laws. This tells us there are 4 Maxwell Equations.
Duality also tells
us that each of those 4 laws has two terms in it.
So the Maxwell Equations of the future, which are far more correct
than the error-ridden
Maxwell Equations of today would look something along these general-
lines:
Gauss's law of electricity: E1 = q/k1 + D1
Gauss's law of magnetism: B1 = q/k2 + D2
Faraday's Law : E2 = B2 + B3
Ampere-Maxwell Law: B = u0k0 + u0i
Dudly
<plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4acfe4ad-946e-4388...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> Someone may say, AP you are overworking this, simply put a 1/T where T
> is
> temperature wherever you have a dt for change of rate of time t.
Dorkwad, go read a stinking book.