Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 204 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#7014 - 05/26/06 03:47 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
You have continuously avoided to give a straight answer but rather resorted to insults and subterfuge.
Let's read this thread from the start. I'm going to list all the insults I encounter from the start of the thread.

Insult nr.1:

Quote:
Do not advise me to read a book if you are not mentally capable of providing the answer yourself.
Count Iblis II ignores this insult and replies in a civil manner.

When Johnny Boy claims that circulating currents should radiate em radiation I do refer him to:

http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html

I don't count this as an insult, because that page was written for people like you.

Insult nr.2:
Quote:

It is clear that you are incapable of reasoning logically! How about starting with high school physics; although it is clear to me that it will be WAAAAAY above your head!
Insult nr.3:

Quote:

I hope you are not a professional scientist; or else I despair about our future.

Top
.
#7015 - 05/26/06 03:55 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
The fact is that when you switch on a magnetic field over a superconductor, currents start to flow exactly as one would expect if they are generated by the induced electric field. You deny that the electric field is responsible for this and stated that:
(i) Feynman deliberately misled his students because the mechanism is so complicated.
(ii) Then you argued that the mechanism is driven by some obscure "advanced mathematics" which you are unable to explain.
That's not true. Of course, it is the induced electric field that causes the screening currents. However, you have to show that the screening currents that will be generated will indeed expell the magnetic field completely. That requires a non trivial calculation using advanced methods of theoretical physics which the average undergraduate physics student isn't familiar with, let alone a person who thinks that a circular steady current will radiate em-waves beause ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''.

Top
#7016 - 05/26/06 06:44 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Quote:
The fact is that when you switch on a magnetic field over a superconductor, currents start to flow exactly as one would expect if they are generated by the induced electric field. You deny that the electric field is responsible for this and stated that:
(i) Feynman deliberately misled his students because the mechanism is so complicated.
(ii) Then you argued that the mechanism is driven by some obscure "advanced mathematics" which you are unable to explain.
That's not true. Of course, it is the induced electric field that causes the screening currents. However, you have to show that the screening currents that will be generated will indeed expell the magnetic field completely. That requires a non trivial calculation using advanced methods of theoretical physics which the average undergraduate physics student isn't familiar with, let alone a person who thinks that a circular steady current will radiate em-waves beause ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''.
Thank you, for at last admitting that it is the induced electric field that is driving the currents. Of course these currents must expel the applied magnetic field completely when the charge carriers are not scattering; this is just simple first year physics (Lenz' law- have you heard about it?) and do not require a "non-trivial" calculation based on virtual physics; based in turn on manipulations of the phase of a so-called order parameter (Bose-Einstein condensate) which, by the way, does not even form and is NOT required to explain superconduction.

If you are willing to argue so force-fully for your "non-trivial" calculation, you should be able to explain why this calculation is at all required and what it achieves. If not, you do not understand physics at all.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7017 - 05/26/06 09:45 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
Of course these currents must expel the applied magnetic field completely when the charge carriers are not scattering; this is just simple first year physics (Lenz' law- have you heard about it?) and do not require a "non-trivial" calculation based on virtual physics; based in turn on manipulations of the phase of a so-called order parameter (Bose-Einstein condensate)
The arguments based on London theory which uses the order parameter is pretty simple. They are not real derivations because by writing down the effective theory you almost put in the effect by hand. This is similar to the Higgs effect: Photons become effectively massive and em-fields don't propagate inside the superconductor.

I'm talking about a derivation from a funbdamental theory like BCS theory, see e.g. here.

You can't just say: Let's assume that the electrons don't scatter. Then you also put in the desired result in by hand. You have to start from some realistic microscopic model that describes the electrons in the metal and then show that you indeed have the Meissner effect. This is done in the book by Rickayzen (and in many other books, but I happened to have read that book).

Top
#7018 - 05/27/06 09:23 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Quote:
The arguments based on London theory which uses the order parameter is pretty simple. They are not real derivations because by writing down the effective theory you almost put in the effect by hand. This is similar to the Higgs effect: Photons become effectively massive and em-fields don't propagate inside the superconductor.

I'm talking about a derivation from a funbdamental theory like BCS theory, see e.g. here.

You can't just say: Let's assume that the electrons don't scatter. Then you also put in the desired result in by hand. You have to start from some realistic microscopic model that describes the electrons in the metal and then show that you indeed have the Meissner effect. This is done in the book by Rickayzen (and in many other books, but I happened to have read that book).
Firstly the BCS theory IS NOT a fundamental theory. It is only descriptive because it cannot be used to predict what one should do to a material in order to make it superconductive (As Pauli would have remarked: "It is not even wrong"). This has been pointed out by many experimentalists that worked on superconduction; I rather believe experiment than an "advanced theory" which you are clearly not capable of understanding to such an extent that you can explain it in terms of the physics involved.

Secondly you keep on bringing in the Meissner effect into the discussion. It has nothing to do with this thread. If you go back to your undergraduate books (which I recommend that you do before reading books with "advanced mathematics" which you are clearly not able to explain in terms of physics) you will realise that Kamerlingh-Onnes generated non-dissipative circular currents at least 15 years before the Meissner effect was discovered. To generate these currents by switching on a magnetic field that increases to a maximum value so that an opposite and equal magnetic field is established such that the currents keep on going, proves zero resistance and NOT that the material is a perfect diamagnet.The Meissner effect manifests when a static magnetic field is established before cooling the superconductor through its critical temperature. It was expected from basic electrodynamics that the magnetic field within the material will become trapped as soon as the material becomes superconducting. It was thus a great surprise when the material expelled the field.

Since I started this discussion I discussed the situation when a magnetic field is switched on to increase over a material that is already in the superconducting state. This IS NOT the Meissner effect; but for some strange reason you are unable to understand this simple fact. Please go back to your undergraduate books and FIRST try and understand them before trying to meddle with "advanced mathematics" which you are obviously incapable of interpreting in terms of physics.

To conclude with, I confirm that you have agreed that the circular currents which establish themselves when you switch on a magnetic field OVER AN EXISTING SUPERCONDUCTOR, ARE CAUSED BY THE INDUCED ELECTRIC FIELD. Just like Feynman has explained !

Oh yes; has the Higgs' effect been proved experimentally? Some of you guys becomes so wrapped up in your "advanced mathematics" that it does not occur to you that theoretical models ARE ONLY VALID ONCE PROVED BY EXPERIMENT!
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7019 - 05/27/06 10:41 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
I have to apologise that I have missed this posting. dr_rocket your reasoning is absolutely correct and superb.
Quote:
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
I have to agree with Count Iblis II on this one. When one is proposing a novel theory to replace another, some things are absolutely required. The first is a solid knowledge of the theory you mean to replace. You should be able to say exactly what is wrong with the current theory and how yours is going to fix it. Your theory, or any theory for that matter, should be based on matters of fact, i.e., experiments or careful observation.
Yes this would the preferred procedure; however, this thread has not been started to critisize the BCS theory in depth. I do that in my book and in a publication I have submitted four months ago. This thread is only meant to point out a contradiction that has not been picked up the hundreds of thousands of PhD students.

Quote:
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
It is one thing to say that Bardeen's idea of electron-phonon coupling is BS and another to say explicitely what is wrong with it. Quite a bit could be said in this regard as it is clearly not a perfect or complete theory.
Again you are correct. It is my intention to address this after we all have agreed about the contradiction I amk trying to illustrate.

Quote:
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
You need to be careful about using terms like "superconducting charge carriers". It is too easily misunderstood. A charge carrier is an electron, proton, ion etc. and their motions constitute a current. The quoted phrase seems to indicate that charge carriers have an additional property beside the electric charge.
Probably correct; what I intend to say is that the charge carriers are of a type that they can sustain superconduction. We all agree that the charge carriers must have a special property. At pr4esent it is erroneouisly accepted that they must be Cooper pairs.

Quote:
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
Frankly, your words "I will not elaborate on just now" seem like a dodge. How about a few hints?
You are correct, it has been a dodge. As mentioned above I hope to correct it at the end of this thread.

Quote:
Originally posted by dr_rocket:
Having said that, I will not deny that textbooks can be very wrong and that doddering old university profs have gone insensitive to new possibilities.
There are two essential properties a superconductor must have which the BCS theory cannot explain. Once we agree on the contradiction I am trying to lift out, I will post these properties and you will see for yourself that BCS cannot explain superconduction at all. We are getting somewhere now that Count Iblis II has conceded that the induced electric field is causing the circular currents when switching on a magnetic field over al already superconducting material. I AM JUST WAITING FOR HIM TO CONFIRM IT!
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7020 - 05/27/06 12:24 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
I rather believe experiment than an "advanced theory" which you are clearly not capable of understanding to such an extent that you can explain it in terms of the physics involved.
No, you simply lack the education to understand it. Why don't you learn the theory?

BCS theory is also descriptive but at a deeper level. It does make nontrivial predictions.

You are wrong about what you write about the Meissner effect and you have zero credibility because you think that a steady circular current will radiate EM radiaton because ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''. Now you tell me to study undergraduate physics?

Top
#7021 - 05/27/06 12:41 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Quote:
I rather believe experiment than an "advanced theory" which you are clearly not capable of understanding to such an extent that you can explain it in terms of the physics involved.
No, you simply lack the education to understand it. Why don't you learn the theory?

BCS theory is also descriptive but at a deeper level. It does make nontrivial predictions.

You are wrong about what you write about the Meissner effect and you have zero credibility because you think that a steady circular current will radiate EM radiaton because ''the charges are accelerating toward the center''. Now you tell me to study undergraduate physics?
Yes you do need to study some real physics. Guessing a Hamilton-operator and getting descriptive results does not mean you are actually doing physics.

You have accepted that it is the induced electric field that creates the circular currents; did you not? Is it then not logical to deduce that the current generated between two contacts to a superconductor must also be generated by the applied electric field? Or is logic above your ability? In fact it must be, because when you increase the emf in such a circuit the velocity of the superconducting charge carriers increases. Yet, you do not measure a potential difference between the two contacts when a current is flowing. What does this experimentally verifiable fact tells you about the properties of a superconductor? Try and give an answer that does not rely on an obscure Hamilton-operator, but on actual physics.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7022 - 05/27/06 01:32 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Johnny Boy, R=0 only in case of steady currents. So, you set up a current and then see if
Delta V = 0 in the limit t --> infinity. Superconductors don't have zero resistance to nonsteady curents.

How do you verify that R=0? You take a normal metal wire with R>0 and you let a current flow through it. You then connect a supeconductor between two points of the wire. There is a voltage difference between the two point before you connect the superconductor. After you connect it the current will flow through the superconductor and bypass the wire. If you then measure the voltage between the two points you find that it is zero.

So, even though the initial voltage difference was needed to cause the current to flow through the superconductor, once the current flows through it, the voltage difference is zero.


I admit that my knowledge of superconductivity is incomplete. I don't work in the field and I studied this topic a long time ago. However, you don't understand some of the the basics of electrodynamics which makes any criticism you have about superconductivity highly suspect.

Top
#7023 - 05/27/06 01:46 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Johnny Boy, R=0 only in case of steady currents. So, you set up a current and then see if
Delta V = 0 in the limit t --> infinity. Superconductors don't have zero resistance to nonsteady curents.

How do you verify that R=0? You take a normal metal wire with R>0 and you let a current flow through it. You then connect a supeconductor between two points of the wire. There is a voltage difference between the two point before you connect the superconductor. After you connect it the current will flow through the superconductor and bypass the wire. If you then measure the voltage between the two points you find that it is zero.

So, even though the initial voltage difference was needed to cause the current to flow through the superconductor, once the current flows through it, the voltage difference is zero.


I admit that my knowledge of superconductivity is incomplete. I don't work in the field and I studied this topic a long time ago. However, you don't understand some of the the basics of electrodynamics which makes any criticism you have about superconductivity highly suspect.
Congratulations! At last we are getting to a real discussion. Your analysis is correct to a point; however, you have not given me a reason WHY the electric field falls to zero once an equilibrium current has been reached between two contacts. From BCS theory, or any other previous model, there is NO physical reason why this should happen. So you have not answered my question fully! I will give you so far a mark of 25%. Let us try for 100%. You are coming along impressively well: good work, keep it up!
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7024 - 05/27/06 05:43 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Quote:
however, you have not given me a reason WHY the electric field falls to zero once an equilibrium current has been reached between two contacts.
This is explained in detail in textbooks such as the one by Rickayzen.

Quote:
From BCS theory, or any other previous model, there is NO physical reason why this should happen.
Nonsense. Read the book by Rickayzen or any other book on this topic. I have to admit that I studied the topic a long time ago and I don't know the details anymore.

All the elementary properties of low temperature superconductors have been derived rigorously from theory. You are claiming that BCS theory is flawed, so it is up to you to show exactly where BCS theory goes wrong.

Of course, the theory is only an effective description of a superconductor, but that doesn't prove that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Also, the fact that I can't explain here how you can derive from BCS theory all the properties of a superconductor isn't a valid argument that BCS theory is wrong.

Top
#7025 - 05/28/06 01:26 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Quote:
however, you have not given me a reason WHY the electric field falls to zero once an equilibrium current has been reached between two contacts.
This is explained in detail in textbooks such as the one by Rickayzen.
That is a blatant lie!

Quote:
From BCS theory, or any other previous model, there is NO physical reason why this should happen.
Nonsense. Read the book by Rickayzen or any other book on this topic. I have to admit that I studied the topic a long time ago and I don't know the details anymore.[/QB][/QUOTE]

That is no lie! You clearly do not know Artha from Martha when it comes to superconduction. Dont send ME to find it in your "bible" written by Rickaysen. Prove to me why the electric field goes to zero when the current becomes steady state. It CANNOT be derived rigorously from BCS theory as you maintain.

Quote:
All the elementary properties of low temperature superconductors have been derived rigorously from theory. You are claiming that BCS theory is flawed, so it is up to you to show exactly where BCS theory goes wrong.[/QB]
Another lie! you cannot derive rigorously from BCS theory why the electric field between two contacts become zero when the current reaches steady state. Furthermore, the BCS model fits the experimental data very poorly. See, for example the data measured for tin Phys. Rev. 28 (1962) 591. For a person who do not know much about experimental accuracy (like theoreticians that think by guessing Hamilton-operators is the same as doing physics) it might be interpreted as a small deviation; however I can assure that it is an enormous discrepancy.

Quote:
Of course, the theory is only an effective description of a superconductor, but that doesn't prove that the theory is fundamentally flawed. Also, the fact that I can't explain here how you can derive from BCS theory all the properties of a superconductor isn't a valid argument that BCS theory is wrong. [/QB]
If it is only an effectivevdescription the chance that you can derive all the properties of a superconductor
"rigorously" from it is remote. It is one of those theories that is not even wrong. All yopu are proving is that you are a fool, because you claim things that you cannot prove. If you cannot prove what you claim you should first go and do your homework instead of wasting everybody's time with your inane stupidity.

Let me give you the first part of the answer:

A superconductor has to be a PERFECT dielectric EVEN WHILE A CURRENT FLOWS THROUGH IT.

Now prove that from BCS; and then proceed to explain the properties of the CuO ceramics. OR ELSE TRY AND PUT YOUR BRAIN INTO GEAR BEFORE POSTING ANY MORE UNPROVEN NONSENSE, BASED ON RECITING VERSES FROM RICKAYSEN WHICH ARE NOT EVEN IN THE BOOK!!
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7026 - 05/28/06 04:42 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Anonymous
Unregistered


PLEASE do not SHOUT. It's unmannerly.

Amaranth
Moderator

Top
#7027 - 05/28/06 10:32 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Amaranth Rose:
PLEASE do not SHOUT. It's unmannerly.

Amaranth
Moderator
I apologise with deep regret.
I have posted the previous message at three o'clock in the morning because I could not sleep, I was irritated and went overboard. I also apologise that it seems as if I am accusing Count IblissII as a deliberate liar. Calling him a fool is also not mannerly. He probably believes what he has posted; although it is not true, and therefore I hold him to prove it. In my mind if he cannot do so he does not know enough about the subject to comment on it as if he knows. Thanks for reprimanding me; however, a scientific argument cannot be brought to a satisfactory conclusion if one of the participants refer to books which he himself cannot explain. Such an argument has religious overtones; i.e. "the Bible has all the truth so who are you to question?"
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7028 - 05/28/06 10:04 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Anonymous
Unregistered


Apology accepted.

"Amaranth"

Top
#7029 - 05/30/06 09:46 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
No more posts or objections? So let me summarise all the properties of a superconductor, which have to be explained by the correct model:

1. The charge carriers must not scatter (even BCS concede this)

2. Once an equilibrium current flows, the superconductor must be a perfect dielectric.

3. When the emf increases, the charge carriers must be able to increase their drift velocity WITHOUT increasing their kinetic energy (It is strange that John Bardeen, the co-inventor of the transistor did not pick this up).
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7030 - 06/01/06 08:16 AM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
No more arguments and insults? It seems that you all agree that there can be issues which hundreds of thousands of graduate students and their professors have missed; eve a giant like John Bardeen!

I will now open a thread on another issue which I believe hundreds of thousands of students and their professors have missed; i.e. the elctric field energy of a solitary electron.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7031 - 06/01/06 12:37 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Count Iblis II Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 01/21/05
Posts: 375
Johnny Boy, I'm open to the idea that you can have superconductors for which BCS theory doesn't apply. In fact, We know that for high temperature superconductors BSC theory doesn't apply, so this must be true.

As I wrote earlier here, I'm not an expert in these matters, I read the book by Rickayzen a long time ago. However, if you claim that all of the BCS superconductors are in fact not correctly decribed by BCS theory, you also need to explain why BCS theory does make correct predictions, like e.g. the isotope effect etc.

Top
#7032 - 06/01/06 02:39 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
Quote:
Originally posted by Count Iblis II:
Johnny Boy, I'm open to the idea that you can have superconductors for which BCS theory doesn't apply. In fact, We know that for high temperature superconductors BSC theory doesn't apply, so this must be true.

As I wrote earlier here, I'm not an expert in these matters, I read the book by Rickayzen a long time ago. However, if you claim that all of the BCS superconductors are in fact not correctly decribed by BCS theory, you also need to explain why BCS theory does make correct predictions, like e.g. the isotope effect etc.
You are of course correct (to acertain extent); however, such an analysis will be far too long for a BB. So I am not going to concentrate on critisizing BCS; except to note that it is amazing that the BCS theory seems to be consistent and useful when modelling the low temperature metals. I have wondered about this frequently; however there is a LOT about superconduction BCS cannot explain!

Having analysed all the superconductors discovered to date; i.e. low temperature metals, CuO ceramics and semiconductor superconductors; I have found that I can model all of them with the same (one single) mechanism. Thus my model must be better, because BCS cannot model the CuO ceramics.

Going back in the literature, I came to the conclusion that Eugene Wigner has solved superconduction already in the 1930's; without realising it. Wigner looked at the mean-field approach when the metal being modelled is not a "perfect" metal so that the nearly-free electron cannot be used (exactly the metals in which SC manifests). He then found that at a low enough temperature, the electrons will localise to form a crystalline arrangement. The electrons or electron pairs that form can be modelled in terms of Gaussian functions (zero-point vibrational functions). Such an array has become known as a Wigner crystal. In order to form such an array, the electrons must lose energy by de-exciting from one energy level to a lower one. They are then anchored at the site where they form by positive charges. This is why Wigner predicted that the formation of such an array will define a metal-insulator transition.

The point to notice is that such an array forms a dielectric structure. When an external electric field is applied, the now localised electron orbitals become polarised relative to the positive charges that anchor them and cancels the electric applied electric field. Furthermore, they all have the same energy although they are NOT a Bose-Einstein condensate. They are more like marbles on a Chinese Checkers board.

But can these orbitals convey a current? Yes they can if the distances between them becomes small enough. How? they can march coherently from one anchor point to another by "tunnelling". I do not like the term tunnelling here because it implies that electrons move "through" barrier. I believe this is impossible. What really happens is that each orbital borrows the required energy for a time interval, as allowed by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle for energy and time. Thus the kinetic energy when moving from one anchor point to the next is also on loan. For this reason the charge carriers can move at a speed v without gaining kinetic energy.

Now what about the isotope effect? In such a metal the Wigner orbitals are a superpostion of Bloch waves (quasi particles) and the energy levels are not purely electronic but vibronic. Thus when changing the isotope ratio you also change the energy interval between the two vibronic levels over which the electrons have to lose energy in order to form the Wigner orbitals. This is the cause of the isotope effect; not the exchange of virtual phonons (what BS).

In the CuO ceramics the concomitant orbitals form BETWEEN the crystallographic layers. They are in effect covalent bonds forming an array. When their density becomes high enough, superconduction initiates in exactly the same way as in the low temperature metals. In this case the orbitals do not couple as strongly with the phonons in the crystallographic layers; and therefore the isotope effect is minimal.

In highly doped p-time diamond one can also get superconduction at low temperatures. In this case the charge carriers are holes (fermions) tunnelling from one acceptor site to another.

So you do not need a Bose-Einstein condensate. Neither do you need bosons.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION POSTED BY EDIT:

My model leads to a simple quadratic equation of the speed of the charge carriers that explains ALL superconductors; no perturbation theory, no Feynman diagrams etc. What does Occams Razor tells you?

Furthermore, Bardeen pointed out that Josephson tunnelling is not possible for Cooper pairs. He was right. It is not possible. Josephson tunnelling is a natural consequence of my model. Which model is the best? The one with "epicycles" or the one that does not need ad-hoc corrections like coherence lenghts?
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
#7033 - 06/07/06 03:00 PM Re: "Eddy" currents in a superconductor
Johnny Boy Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/29/05
Posts: 330
Loc: South Africa
I have promised that I will post the report by the "peer reviewer" on my manuscript about the mechanism of superconduction. The "peer reviewer" took four months to write the following:

Editor, Physica C
encloure
Ref Report
In the present manuscript :" Superconductivity: coherent "tunnelling"
by a dielectric array of charge-carriers" the author proposed a
"new mechanism" for superconductivity. This mechanism is not based
on the requirement that electrons create Cooper pairs below the transition
point.

1) The microscopic mechanism for the description of low temperature
superconductors (s-pairing) is known since 1957. This mechanism
describes well all known experimental data on low temperature
superconductors and it is a text book material. Therefore there is no
need to consider a "new mechanism" for the low temperature
superconductors.

2) The microscopic mechanism for high temperature superconductors is indeed
not known. However, in the present manuscript I can see several important
missing points:
i) It is not shown explicitly that the proposed "new mechanism" provides a smaller
value for the ground state energy of the superconducting state in comparison with
the value of the ground state energy of the normal state.
ii) There are no comparisons with the numerous experimental data on
thermodynamic properties of high temperature superconductors.
iii) It is not clear what are the new predictions which follow from the proposed
mechanism and what kind of experiments are necessary to check a
validity of this mechanism.

In conclusion I do not recommend this

It does not require a brilliant IQ to realise that the "peer reviewer" is blocking the paper in order to protect the status quo; i.e his own publications in this field. So one has to respond. See next posting.
_________________________
http://www.cathodixx.com

Top
Page 3 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.