sci.physics.electromag

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> The essence, very essence of the Capacitor theory for
> superconductivity is that the old physics thought the world
> had only one type of current where they thought DC and AC currents
> were one and the same and the one and
> only one type of current throughout the Cosmos.
>
> Halliday and Resnick in their excellent book "Fundamentals of
> Physics", 3rd edition, 1988, defines Current
> on page 641 as:
> --- quoting Fundamentals of Physics ---
> The amount of charge dq that passes through a hypothetical plane, such
> as xx, is proportional to the length
> of time dt required for all the charge dq to pass through that plane.
> The proportionality constant is the current
> i; therefore,
>
> dq = i dt (definition of current)
>
> --- end quoting H & R Fundamentals of Physics ---
>
> Now that definition of current probably satisfies the DC and AC
> currents in physics, but however, the
> concept of a Capacitor Current is altogether different from DC and AC
> currents and what Halliday
> and Resnick define in their 1988 textbook.
>
> So the essence of Superconductivity is that it is a different current
> from the old physics of DC and AC.
>
> And to give a good analogy I refer the reader to Newton's cradle or
> called Newton's balls:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton_balls
>
> If you pull one ball at one end the ball at the other end moves. This
> is an analogy to DC current. If you
> pull a ball at one end and then a ball at the other end, would be an
> analogy to AC current. Or another
> analogy is if you had a line of humans and added one more at one end
> would force the person at the
> other end to move forward by one. For AC, if you add one at one end,
> the person at the other would
> have to move forward, but alternating with the line turning 180
> degrees and the addition of a new person
> at the other end would force the other end to move forward.
>
> But this new current of Capacitor Current does not follow any of those
> analogies. What we have here is
> a current that exists where the atoms in an experiment have their
> electrons raised to a higher orbital
> and then discharged, that is electron motion, back to ground state
> orbitals. So in a Capacitor Current
> the electrons move at almost the speed of light and where they
> experience NO Resistance because they
> are simply in an extended higher orbital from ground state.
>
> So Superconductivity is merely the recognition that physics has at
> least a third type of current called
> a Capacitor Current. This Capacitor Current can be seen in Lightning
> bolt strikes or on Wimshurst and
> Van de Graaff generators and in superconductors. Superconductors are
> merely very fancy capacitors.
> And the flow of electrons in these capacitors is the flow of electrons
> in a higher energy orbital back down
> to a lower energy orbital or ground state orbital.
>
> If you examine the entire literature of experiments on
> superconductors, you will easily notice that
> superconductors are capacitors, with their 3rd dimensional layering
> and their doping and parallel planes.
> And the reason that cold temperatures are vital is because the
> geometry depends on temperature
> to form capacitance.
>
> And the reason these superconductors have No Resistance is that all
> the atoms are positive nuclei
> that have their electrons in a higher energy orbital and once
> discharged -- the current flows -- and because
> the electrons are in orbit means no friction and no resistance.
>
> Now whether these means the Maxwell Equations have to be revised to
> take into account that physics
> has at least three different types of currents, is probably true. When
> the Maxwell Equations were written
> in 1860s, the world of physics at that time thought one current exists
> in the Cosmos. But now here in
> 2008, recognizing that Superconductivity equals Capacitor Current,
> that the Maxwell Equations have to
> be modified to accommodate this new type of current. I am not going to
> focus my mind at that
> revision for I already have too much on my plate at the moment.
>

This is April 2008 and the last month I will spend on this first
edition. When I
pick up this book in the future to write the 2nd edition, I should
start of with
this Halliday and Resnick definition of electric current. It is the
very essence
of superconductivity, in that the old physics had a very vague and
muddled
definition of current.

In the above I said that Halliday and Resnick's definition probably
satisfies
both DC and AC current, but I suspect that was incorrect. I suspect
that:

Halliday and Resnick in their excellent book "Fundamentals of
Physics", 3rd edition, 1988, defines Current
on page 641 as:
--- quoting Fundamentals of Physics ---
The amount of charge dq that passes through a hypothetical plane, such
as xx, is proportional to the length
of time dt required for all the charge dq to pass through that plane.
The proportionality constant is the current
i; therefore,

dq = i dt (definition of current)

--- end quoting H & R Fundamentals of Physics ---

Such a definition does not include both AC current with that of DC
current
because the drift speed of electrons versus the "field speed" what I
called
photon messengers is in conflict with that Halliday and Resnick
definition
of current.

It is obvious to all scientists that there is a difference between AC
and DC
currents. So it should be obvious by logic, that the above definition
fails to reconcile those differences and thus the definition is
flawed.

My intuition is telling me that Halliday and Resnick's definition of
electric
current is an "idealized definition" but it has no use or application
to real
physics. Ohm's law is not a law of physics for it is merely a rule,
just as
a slide ruler answer to a mathematical problem is often a estimate not
a
final answer. So I suspect that Halliday Resnick definition above is
only a idealization and not a real physics and not a true physics.

This sort of thing happens alot in mathematics where definitions are
pulled
out of the air and then when lines in a proof clash, is because the
definitions
are "self contradictory". Gauss warned us some centuries back that
the
usual flaw in a mathematics are these half baked and self
contradictory definitions.

The DC current compared to AC current compared to Capacitor current
are all three
very different currents and the Halliday and Resnick definition of
current is too
flawed and fake physics.

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