sci.physics.electromag

a_plutonium wrote:
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>
> >
> > (1) Experiment with Wimshurst generator shows that a Meissner type of
> > effect is obtained
> > (2) Experiment with several superconductor materials hooked up in
> > series or parallel with the temperature of the coldest
> > Tc, that the behaviour of the resultant end current is a Capacitor
> > discharge current, varying as to the arrangement
> > of the different superconductors. If BCS were true then it would not
> > matter how the superconductors
> > were arranged for the end current would all be the same.
> > (3) Experiment where we match the Wimshurst discharge current by a
> > interrupted-DC-current
> > and then we make a Wimshurst out of a superconductor material and
> > match the other two. The
> > fact that all three can be matched proves they are one and the same.
>
>
> The first two of those above experiments are clear enough. But the
> third
> is very vague and obscure. What I meant to say was that if
> Superconductivity
> is a Capacitor current where in nanoseconds of time the capacitor
> charges up
> and then in another nanosecond of time discharges so that we view the
> superconductor
> as a continuous current when really it is a nanosecond disjoint
> current. And the
> reason there is no resistance is because the electrons travel near the
> speed of
> light and not a slow drift speed. So if that is true, then we an setup
> three
> experimental tables one having a Wimshurst generator which is run at a
> nanosecond charges and discharges. Second table is a regular DC
> current that
> is interrupted in nanoseconds, perhaps stroboscopically and whose
> current output is the same as the Wimshurst. And third table is
> a superconductor setup. So that of these three tables, all of them
> should be
> the same current. All three are the same concerning current but only
> two of them will have a Meissner Effect and only two of them will be
> resistance free.
>

Still working on (3) for it is not refined and polished. What I am
trying to establish
with (3) is the important fact that the difference between a
superconduction
current and a DC current or AC current is not so much the
nonresistance or
the cold temperatures but that the motion of electrons and protons in
superconduction
is different from the motion of electrons and protons in a DC or AC
current. It is the
motion of charge that distinguishes the superconductivity. And this
motion is almost
at the speed of light and this motion is quantized in that there are
breaks and gaps
and intervals between charging and discharging of the capacitor. We
just so happen
to notice superconduction at very cold temperatures but it occurs in
the Sun and
in room temperature such as lightning bolts. So with (3) I want to
contrast the difference
between the motion of charge in a superconductor current.

But I forgot the most convincing data and experimental evidence. The
evidence that
has been with us since the 1990s. The fact that perovskites are really
capacitors and
the fact that adding thin layers of a metal to a superconductor
increases Tc which
is obviously a "dielectric effect"

(4) Superconduction materials form Capacitors and their Tc is improved
by doping
or adding thin layers of metal such as the silver added to lead
superconduction.
The Perovskite superconductors with their copper oxide layers are
merely microscopic
Leyden Jars. Almost daily we hear news of increasing Tc by doping or
thin layers
added to existing superconductors. And the high temperature type II
superconductors
found in the last two decades can easily be described as microscopic
Leyden Jars.

Now let me add a fifth supporting evidence:
(5) We have all known about the Quantized Hall Effect and it is rather
remarkable that all the
researchers and theorists of superconductivity seldom if ever tried to
link the two phenomenon.
Perhaps they did not make an effort because superconduction by itself
and Hall Effect by
itself are enormously complex. But if you assume Superconductivity =
Capacitor current
one is immediately struck by the fact that the Quantized Hall Effect
are the gaps of the
sensor that matches the gaps of charging and discharging of a
capacitor. So Capacitor
and dielectrics as current for superconduction ties together the
Quantized Hall Effect.

The most important evidence or proof that Capacitor = Superconduction
is that we can
take any given superconductor and compute how to improve the Tc by
adding a doping or
thin layer of metal that improves Capacitance and then form that
material, then test it
and find that it agrees with theory. The old BCS theory was never able
to predict beforehand
whether a material was superconductive or not and never able to
improve existing superconductors.

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