sci.physics.electromag

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> If I find a deviation and then duplicate that deviation on a Wimshurst
> generator of its Capacitor Current,
> I will have doubly-proven that superconductivity is merely a Capacitor
> current.
>

Looking through the literature I found nothing to suggest that there
is any difference with the
Oersted Experiment of compass needle deflection with DC current versus
Capacitor Current.
Nothing in the literature, but I am going on my own hunches here.

There is a deviation and anomaly within superconductivity as to Type I
and Type II superconductors
with regards to vortices.

And my hunches are that the rate of swing of the compass needles with
respect to Type I versus
Type II and with the rate of swing with a DC current on the compass
needle.

So my hunches are that the concept of Vortices in superconductivity is
merely the differences
between a Capacitor Current versus a DC current. In the DC current
that Oersted used in 1820
and what we now use in modern times has a mild effect of swing. And
also the Type I superconductor
, in my hunches, has a mild effect of swing. But a Type II
superconductor, as my hunches go, would
have a steep rate of swing.

I call the above hunches because I have no superconductor lab to walk
into tomorrow and check out
the rate-of-swing of the compass needle in the prescence of 1) DC
current 2) Type I superconductor
3) Type II superconductor.

So if my hunches bear truth, that a DC and Type I superconductor
performed on a Oersted compass
needle would be a steady mild swing or deflection but a Type II would
be a robust and violent swing.

So what these hunches are resembling is the idea that the *vorticity*
if we can call it a concept, is that
vorticity is nothing more than the rate of deflection or rate of swing
of a compass needle. That all superconductors
deflect the compass needle but that Type II and beyond do it much more
violently because the Capacitor
Current has more magnetic interference at higher temperatures.

All the above is hunches. However, I can test the DC current on the
compass needle and the Wimshurst
generator and see if I can measure a tad difference in the rate of
swing of compass needle deflection. I cannot
test Type I and Type II since I have none available.

But the idea that since 1820 since Oersted Experiment was performed
and here in 2008, the idea that no-one
had the inquistiveness to want to check to see if DC current and Type
I and Type II all give different results is
remarkable in its omission. One would have thought that some scientist
between 1820 and 2008 would have
needed to know or wanted to find out if the compass needle deflected
differently for these three different entities.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies