sci.physics.electromag

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Alright, as promised I would tell of the experiments of such:
>
> (1) Wimshurst Generator current producing a Meissner type effect of
> diamagnetism
> (2) DC current yielding no effect to outside magnet
> (3) AC current yielding no effect to outside magnet
>
> So far my three above experiments are too crude to detail and I am not
> satisfied myself with the
> setup tables of the three. Trouble is the imprecision of my
> measurement of current and the effect
> of the magnet on the current.
>
> So I am going to have to stall on reporting detailed accurate data and
> can only report these
> preliminary findings.
>
> My trouble is when saying "no effect" may be due to the imprecision of
> my measuring devices.
>
> My preliminary findings are that there exists a effect of a outside
> magnet on a "rather continuous
> Wimshurst current" I would like to get a elaborate Wimshurst Generator
> that is able to produce
> what I call an "almost continuous current." I do not need a nanosecond
> gap in current and would
> be happy with much larger gaps in current.
>
> So what I have found preliminarily is that there is a diamagnetic
> effect or the Meissner Effect on
> a Capacitor current from a Wimshurst Generator.
>
> From my crude setup so far on the DC and AC current when a outside
> magnet is applied there
> was no effect on my instrument but that could be because my instrument
> was too crude to
> register an effect.
>
> So in summary, my experiments so far have revealed that a Capacitor
> Current is a superconduction
> current because it displays a diamagnetism. And that a AC current or
> DC current are nondiamagnetic.
>
> By several more weeks I should have more information on these
> experiments.
>

In the book "Quantum Generations" by Helge Kragh, 1999, in the chapter
on the history of superconductivity, he keeps talking about wanting
the Micro-explanation of the physics involved in superconduction. Around
the pages of 376, Kragh outlines the Macro physics of the Meissner
Effect and talks about the history of the London brothers with their
shortcomings because their theory is Macro physics, not a Micro physics
explanation.

Well, if I am correct that superconductivity is Capacitor Current, then
superconduction does not really belong in a history of Quantum Mechanics
as a strange and exotic piece of Quantum Strangeness that the BCS theory
turns out to be. Superconduction as a Capacitor Current ends up being
a part of physics that would be more apt and appropriate as a extension
of Maxwell theory and Maxwell Equations. We do not need bizarre and
strange and exotica explanations for "no resistance" as Cooper pairing
of electrons and that of phonons.

So how does Superconductivity = Capacitor Current explain the Micro
physics? Good question, but an easy one to answer. Remember in Quantum
Mechanics that the electron never experiences friction or resistance in
energy but is forever
"quantum energetic". That as an electron orbits an atom it is forever
resistance-free or friction-free. This is what Quantum Mechanics is all
about in the first place, in that there is no friction or resistance of
electron in motion around an atom. Yes, of course, the electron can gain
or lose energy and jump orbits, except for the ground state electron
cannot go lower. But jumping orbits is the Quantum of Quantum Mechanics
and what is different about Quantum Mechanics from the old Classical
Mechanics is that the electron never experiences what in Classical
Physics we think of as Resistance or Friction.

Enough of a prep lecture.

Now think of Superconductivity. How do we have a phenomenon of
Superconduction with no resistance, no friction involved? Well, since
a electron never has resistance or friction in its orbits of atoms
we have a case where electrons in flow motion simply have a current
instead of jumping from quantum levels in atoms. The explanation of
the Micro physics of superconductivity is simply that electrons never
have resistance or friction.

In a normal conduction such as AC current or DC current, those currents
are not electrons in motion of quantum levels as friction or resistance
free. AC and DC currents in conductors is a transfer of energy which
has much room for resistance and friction. But a Capacitor Current that
originates from electrons to atoms is a current that is the Quantum
Mechanics free of resistance and free of friction.

As others begin to confirm the above experiment that Capacitor Currents
of a Wimshurst Generator yield the Meissner Effect, and that lightning
bolts in Nature are also Superconduction Currents, then we begin to
fill in the holes and gaps of Maxwell theory and of Physics at large,
for the twisted and convoluted history of superconduction theory is
really a correction of the old physics in that they were not bright
enough to realize physics had more than one type of electric-current.

All the physics textbooks prior to 2008, all of them assume physics
has but one and only one type of current. This is a horrible assumption
and even very much laughable, considering that those same physics
and chemistry textbooks talk about various different types of magnetism
such as paramagnetism, ferromagnetism, diamagnetism, yet they still talk
about only one type of Electric current. And chemistry talks about at
least three different types of bonds in chemistry, yet laughably, it
never dawned on them that currents would come in different types.

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