Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
revealing the decades of shoddy superconductivity research and
reporting #1191 New Physics #1311 ATOM TOTALITY 5th ed
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 3:28 PM
|
|
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:
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
|
|
|
|
