Date: Feb 1, 2013 2:26 AM
Author: plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com
Subject: we need a graph of current carry capacity versus temperature #1195<br> New Physics #1315 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed

I have been looking to see if anyone has found limits of the cross
section of copper and silver wires for current carrying capacity and
for superconductors. I found nothing. I did find this website which
talks about critical magnetic field. I suppose one can work out the
relationship of critical magnetic field and the ability to carry a
large amperage current.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/solids/scbc.html

Shows a graph of Critical magnetic fields B_c
versus Critical temperature T_c and we see the familiar mercury at
around 4 K and lead at 7 K
and niobium at 9 K. And we see Rh at less than 10^-3 Kelvin and W at
10^-2 Kelvin.

I guess we can focus on magnetic field versus temperature, but it is
far more important to focus on
current carrying capacity versus temperature.

If we focus on current carrying capacity, what we find out is that
superconductivity is a exotica phenomenon and not very important,
because silver and copper should be on the diagram shown on that
website. Silver and copper would be near that of Rh, rhodium, except
would zoom upwards since it has no limitations of a critical magnetic
field in the context of that graph.

In other words, when we view superconductivity in context to normal
conduction, that silver and copper are the two major conductors of
electricity and that nothing as far as superconductors is going to
make any dent in that view. The only time that superconductors are
needed is when you have a tiny amperage current that you want to
maintain.

In terms of energy costs. It is easier to maintain a high current
conductor of pure silver or copper at a cool temperature nowhere near
0 Kelvin than to maintain a high temperature superconductor which has
only a fraction of the current carrying capacity.

The physics community of superconductivity research needs to change
its attitude and view of superconductivity. Not only is BCS theory an
utter fakery, but the attitude of researchers blinded to never
focusing on current carrying capacity. This attitude leaves the
impression around the world of scientists and nonscientists that
superconductivity is someday going to replace normal conductivity is a
silly idea. Superconductivity is always going to be a dabbling in the
exotica of electricity and magnetism.

And what has to emerge is the understanding that normal conductivity
of copper and silver wire is the highest we can achieve as far as
conductivity.

Once we focus on graphs of Temperature versus Current Carrying
Capacity, we see and understand that the future of electricity is in
copper and silver as the transport and storage.

There is an analogy in physics that relates to superconductivity, and
it is fusion energy. The promise of the 20th century was a fusion
energy future, but with the realization of the Fusion Barrier Law,
that controlled-fusion (emphasis on controlled) will always take in
1/3 more energy to create it than useable energy released in output.

The 20th century was a century of crazy hopes that could never be
fulfilled-- hopes of commercial fusion and everything run on
superconduction. The 21st century cuts away those crazy and silly
hopes and puts us more realistically what the future is going to be--
no commercial fusion, but we never needed it anyway since geothermal
(tapping the Earth's interior) will solve our energy needs, and that
normal conduction of copper and silver outbest the superconductors.

--

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