On Jan 23, 1:37 am, Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 23, 1:21 am, Archimedes Plutonium > > > > > > > > > > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 22, 2:58 pm, Archimedes Plutonium > > > <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Should Ohm's law be V = iR or V = i + R Chapt15.34 explaining > > > Superconductivity from Maxwell Equations #1169 New Physics #1289 ATOM > > > TOTALITY 5th ed > > > > Alright, some good news and some bad news. The bad news first, in that > > > the facts surround superconductivity are not very well known nor > > > taught nor communicated. I have a dozen books on purely > > > superconductivity and not able to find facts that I need to have to do > > > a theory on superconduction. For example, almost no scientist knows > > > when a DC or AC current applies. Does anyone in physics even know how > > > Onnes discovered current of no resistance. And, does any physicist > > > know when the measuring instruments of current and conduction are part > > > of the "coldness temperature applied"? > > > > So I am delayed in superconductivity progress because of the > > > shoddiness of the physics community of explaining what the facts > > > surrounding the experiments of superconductivity are. The TV is full > > > of "murder mystery" programs and it seems as though people love > > > watching murder mystery shows, and physics is much like a murder > > > mystery since it is logic that assembles the facts in both cases, but > > > if many of the facts are missing or distorted or obfuse, then there > > > cannot be a resolution of superconductivity nor can there be a solving > > > of the murder mystery. > > > > But, let me get on to the good news. We know Faraday's law of the > > > form: > > > > E = -N dB/dt > > > > which says that the induced emf in a circuit is equal to the rate at > > > which the > > > magnetic flux is changing with time. > > > (snipped) > > > In Faraday's law as stated by: > > > emf = -N dB/dt > > > I am taking emf to be current i. Then I am taking dB/dt the magnetic > > flux with time to be V voltage or potential difference. And finally I > > am taking the N in Faraday's law of the number of windings or turns of > > the closed loop wire to be the R term in Ohm's law provided it is the > > reciprocal of N which is 1/N. Now in Ohm's law we all thought R means > > some form of resistance but that N is a form of nonresistance or > > helper or aid to increasing current and not thought of as resistance. > > But if we take the reciprocal of N we have 1/N and that is a form of > > resistance when N is a helper. > > So now if I multiply by 1/N and get rid of the negative term since we > > do not care about direction in Ohm's law we have this: > > emf (1/N) = dB/dt > > Now we have emf = i and 1/N = R and dB/dt = V > > So the above Faraday Law is i R = V > > which is Ohm's law of V = i R > > > So the Faraday Law defines Ohm's law as the emf is the current, and > > the Resistance is the reciprocal of the number of turnings or windings > > of the coil, and the voltage or potential difference is the rate of > > change of magnetic flux with time. > > > Now that new insight does not alter the formula I proposed some weeks > > back where I said the Ohm's law of V = iR where we substitute Malus > > law of I' = I" cos^2 A > > for the R term gives us the formula for conduction and > > superconductivity where a superconductor has a 0 degree angle of > > polarization and allows all the electrons to move through without > > resistance. > > > It does not affect that formula for what it does is focus the > > attention on a physical quantity of N of windings and its reciprocal > > of 1/N. Now in a superconductor, how many atoms does an electron in > > the current have to trespass through? Is that not a physical count of > > atoms that a individual electron traverses to make the whole current? > > And is that count a number such as N. So that we can say there are N > > number of polarization filters that a individual electron traverses in > > the superconductor current. And if all those N number of filters is an > > angle of 0 degrees then the electron traverses without any resistance. > > > So here I have transformed Faraday's law and derived Ohm's law. > > > What I am after though, is how an induced current can be created from > > a changing magnetic flux with temperature, and not with time. So in > > Faraday's law we have: > > emf = -N dB/dt > > where we have dB/dt or magnetic flux with time > > > I want magnetic flux with temperature Kelvin. Let me denote > > temperature Kelvin as just K. > > > So I want emf = N dB/dK and where we dismiss the negative sign. Which > > can be rewritten as i R = V only the voltage V comes from a magnetic > > flux with temperature. > > > Now where is this dB/dK term in the Maxwell Equations? > > > I believe it is in the Gauss's magnetism law with the magnetic > > monopoles and in the Faraday law of magnetic monopoles with its extra > > term of magnetic current density, the J term. > > > Why do I need this? I need it for superconductivity, to explain why > > physics has superconductivity. Silver as a normal conductor is the > > world's finest conductor of electricity at room temperature. It's > > resistance is measured in resistivity of 1.59*10^-8 (in Ohms). Now if > > the world had plenty of silver, it would be far easier to have all the > > world's electric lines with silver and copper than to have all the > > world's electric lines cooled to the highest temperature > > superconductor, because the energy wasted in refrigeration far exceeds > > the loss of electricity due to silver and copper resistivity. But that > > is just a practical issue. I need the dB/dK for a theory reason. What > > happens when mercury is cooled to 4 Kelvin and is superconductor while > > silver cooled to 4 Kelvin remains with its resistivity of 1.59*10^-8 > > (in Ohms)? > > Why does mercury have no resistance while silver still has that > > resistance. And that is where the dB/dK term comes into importance. At > > 4Kelvin, mercury has no resistance because it has a automatic current > > flow due to the temperature gradient from room temperature outside to > > 4 Kelvin inside the experiment, that imparts a current into mercury > > even though no current is applied. And when an outside current is > > applied it passes through without any resistance because the dB/dK > > term > > supplies the current that counterbalances the resistance. > > So now, why would mercury superconduct at 4Kelvin, yet silver not > superconduct at 4Kelvin if both materials receive a induced current of > dB/dK of the magnetic flux of outside versus inside the experiment? > And the answer lies with the fact of resistance in Ohm's law is that > polarizing of Malus Law, where all electrons get through if the angle > of the filters are 0 degrees. In mercury, at 4 Kelvin all the angles > become 0 degrees, but in silver the angles are slightly off of 0 > degrees and thus only a resistivity of 1.59*10^-8 (in Ohms) still > remains. And from this explanation we can see why perovskite ceramic > type of materials are high temperature superconductors because at > their transition temperature, we get this self induced current of dB/ > dK and all the angles of the polarizing atoms or molecules form a 0 > degree angle for Malus law and all the electrons go through without > resistance. > > Can we have a room temperature superconductor? No, because as you > increase the temperature the differential of dB/dK becomes smaller and > no self induced current arises. >
Is there some experiment that we can prove that Physics has a self induced current of dB/dK of the outside temperature gradient versus the inside temperature gradient? Well of course, we simply go back to the historical roots of superconductivity of Onnes in the early years of the 1900s when he discovered superconductivity in mercury at 4 Kelvin.
We set up the Onnes experiment and we look for a tiny current in the mercury which is self induced because of the temperature gradient between the mercury and the rest of the Universe, the room in which the mercury is frozen to 4 kelvin has a temperature gradient. Now it is a tiny current for it would be a current no larger than the resistivity of silver at 1.59*10^-8 (in Ohms). It is a self induced current with no outside applied current involved. When an outside applied current is involved, the self induced current is added to the outside applied current. So to prove this theory of dB/dK, I need to show that mercury at 4 Kelvin has a tiny self induced current all because of a temperature gradient. --
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: