plutonium.archime...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> David R Tribble wrote:
(snipped)
>
> David, one of the reasons I took this vacation until August is to try
> to
> locate a better Wimshurst Generator to repeat experiment of my
> Superconductivity Experiment that posits Superconduction as merely
> the discharge of a Capacitor Current. That the world has another form
> of a "current" as a Capacitor Current. So in cold temperatures,
> superconductivity
> is merely a capacitor buildup and then a discharge of the current. The
> coldness
> acts as the capacitor to store.
>
> Well in my experiments as witness by March post:
>
> Newsgroups: sci.physics.electromag, sci.physics, sci.chem
> From: a_plutonium <a_pluton...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2008 23:03:33 -0700 (PDT)
> Local: Sun, Mar 23 2008 1:03 am
> Subject: #104 happy to re****t a magnet levitation of Meissner Effect
> on a Wimshurst generator capacitor-current; new textbook: "How
> Superconductivity really works; nanosecond Capacitor discharge
> current"
>
> Today is a happy and proud day for me in experimentation. I never
> realized how time consuming experiments
> can run, although I enjoy every moment of the experimenting. Alot of
> trial and error and alot of having to
> fabricate things to run the experiment.
>
> I built a vinyl table above the electrodes of the Wimshurst in order
> for the Capacitor current to not interfer
> with the suspended iron magnetized lathe shavings. Then I placed
> various m***** of these magnetized
> iron shavings into the vinyl boat. Then I ran the Wimshurst and
> watched as the sparks jumped the gap.
> And as expected, after many trials, that that smaller shavings were
> ejected out of the boat. However, the
> shavings of a given mass were levitated in the vinyl boat. This is the
> pure diamagnetism as the Meissner
> Effect.
>
> Also, I fetched a compass needle to see if the Oersted experiment is
> repeated with the Wimshurst Capacitor
> Current. I was not expecting any deviation from the Oersted experiment
> of the 1800s in that Oersted used a
> battery current which is a DC current and not a Capacitor Current. And
> as expected there were no deviations
> as the compass needle went perpendicular to current flow. But I need
> to experiment further with the compass
> needle with a known perovskite superconductor, for I have the hunch
> that there is some substantive difference
> in the deflection of the compass needle by a Capacitor Current that is
> far different from Oersted's DC current
> deflection. I say this because if a Capacitor Current is pure
> diamagnetism and a DC current is not
> pure diamagnetism, then a substantial difference should come of the
> Oersted Experiment.
>
> --- end quoting the above post ---
>
>
> David, do you have access to a Wimshurst generator, or can you buy
> your own Wimshurst?
> Have you ever set up a physics experiment?
>
> Are you willing to give it a try? So that in August, we can re****t our
> results to the Internet, whether
> they agree or disagree. I can instruct you on the setup.
>
The implications are there and vast. Superconductivity as a capacitor-
current implies
that we can have room temperature superconduction. But the trouble is
that we have to
convert either AC or DC current into a Capacitor current. So you take
away from the AC
or DC current, which means that overall there is no energy savings.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
|
