> Decades of sloppy physics research in > superconductivity revealed. > > Now I have been complaining and griping for many > posts, that the > physics researchers in superconductivity are horribly > sloppy,
And notice how _no one_ gives a damn, because you are a bottom-feeder who has accomplished nothing. Your name elicits nothing but guffaws, you stupid fucking baboon.
Still, whatever researchers have done, it is better than anything you ever done. Unlike you, sitting on your fat ass and complaining, these people do _actual experiments_ . You don't do any experiments because you are not worth a f*ck . So go hang yourself, you worthless fucking waste of life.
and the > reason I say that is they fail to give data whether > they use DC > current or AC current and how much amperage current > they use. Research > reports talk endlessly about temperature and > materials, but never > about ampere currents and cross section of wire used. > > This is a fatal flaw, fatal error of > superconductivity research, > because, if the Malus law theory of Superconductivity > is true and the > BCS a fake theory, > then the current is more important in superconduction > than is the > transition temperature. > > In the Malus law, the intensity of the photons is > important, because > what happens when the photons are laser light passing > through > polarized filters? There comes a moment in which the > laser light burns > a hole in the filters. > > When Onnes discovered superconductivity, we know he > used a 0.6 ampere > current of magnetic induced current. We do not know > the cross section > of mercury wire loop. > > At what amperage current does the Onnes experiment > fail to produce > superconductivity? Does it fail at 1 ampere current? > At 2 ampere > current? At 10 ampere current with his cross section > of wire? > > If the Malus law theory of superconductivity is true, > then there is a > room temperature superconductor, however, the bad > news is that it can > only hold a milliampere of current per cross section > and any higher > current breaks down the superconduction. > > On page E12-7 of Halliday & Resnick Fundamentals of > Physics, 1988, 3rd > edition, they list transition temperatures of > superconductors. They > list tin, indium, lead, thallium having Tc ranging > from 2.4 K to that > of 7.2 K. But what they fail in miserably is telling > us what cross > section of wire and how many ampere current is > applied before the > material loses superconduction. > > They list Nb3Ge with Tc at 23.2 K for year 1973. But > did they list at > what cross section of wire and at what amperage > current this material > failed to superconduct? Such shoddy physics reporting > where the > researchers assume and have the world assume that > current and wire > thickness never matters. Just as assuming that in the > Malus law, it > does not matter if a low energy beam of photons or a > laser beam > travels through the polarizing filters. > > So, what is the expression "hats off" , to shoddy > decades of > superconductivity research and reporting. Decades of > where no-one in > physics had a mind to that of "amperage current > limitations". > > -- > > Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from > search-engine- > bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a > excellent, simple and > fair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as > seen here: > > http://mathforum.org/kb/profile.jspa?userID=499986 > > Archimedes Plutonium > http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium > whole entire Universe is just one big atom > where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies