sci.physics.electromag

All things are on the table for review and revision and since the
concept of Current is the heart of superconductivity
that is up for review and revision. Since chemistry has at least three
distinct types of bonds (1) covalent
(2) ionic (3) metallic and since magnetism has at least three types of
magnetism (1) paramagnetic (2)
diamagnetic (3) ferromagnetic, then it stands to obvious reason that
there are at least three different
and distinct types of current.

Now can I say that two of these types of current are DC and AC
current? This seems reasonable and
plausible for they are vastly different.

So I looked to the history of AC current and according to "History of
Physics" Isaac Asimov, page 470
--- quoting ---
In alternating current, however, it is easy to do this by means of a
transformer ( a device that "transforms"
the volt-ampere relationship). In essence, it was a transformer that
Faraday had invented when in 1831
he made use of an iron ring with two sets of wire coils on it in his
attempt to induce an electric current.
--- end quoting ---

So he was the discoverer of AC current? Can we say that Faraday
discovered it and was cognizant
of AC and distinct from DC? Can we say that Maxwell when doing the
Maxwell Equations was
cognizant of DC versus AC current? Or do we have to wait until the
1890s when Tesla and Westinghouse
built AC generators and motors?

I am confident a historical time line can be obtained as to the
discovery of AC current compared
to DC current and who of these scientists were actually consciously
aware of the differences
between DC current and AC current.

But a historical time line as to what Faraday defined as the concept
of current, or what Maxwell
defined as the concept of current, or Henry or Tesla defined as the
concept of current is a more
difficult task.

I suspect the history of physics never had a clear concise and precise
definition of the concept of
"current".

Looking in my old physics text of Halliday & Resnick "Fundamentals of
Physics" third edition, 1988
--- quoting from page 641 ---
The proportionality constant is the current i; therefore,
dq = i dt (definition of current)
--- end quoting ---

But Halliday and Resnick get off lightly because they state earlier
that "restrict ourselves largely to
the study--within the framework of classical physics -- of steady
currents of conduction electrons
moving through metallic conductors such as copper wires."

So there is nothing wrong with Halliday and Resnick's concept of
"current" because they restricted
themselves so much so, that they make few errors.

However, because of their restriction, they should not be able to
discuss superconductivity, since
it is not a current of that restricted definition.

So once again, here is the heart and crux of this book, is to show
that the concept of "current" is much
larger than the concept portrayed by classical physics. That
Superconductivity is a different type of current
than is conduction electrons moving through copper wires.

Let me end this post by poising another question. The Sun shots
streams of charged particles to the Earth,
so do we call that stream of charged particles a "Sun current"? And it
is far different of a flow of charges from
the flow in a DC current or AC current in copper wire.

This is what I mean that modern day physics has a ancient fossil of a
concept of "current" and because of
this we are held back from understanding what goes on in
superconduction. What this book is trying to
unravel is the idea that superconduction is a different type of
current and has no resistance and is diamagnetic.
I call it a Capacitor current.

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