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 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: