Last time I did these experiments I used only a Wimshurst, but now am
using both.

I have metal coil lathe shavings of iron and magnetized several and
tied a dental-floss string to one
which was magnetized over 12 hours ago. Tested its "slight magnetism"
with an unmagnetized shaving.
The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
1/10 gram could not weigh it.
So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
of the iron shaving.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm.


Operated both the Wimshurst and VandeGraaf and then placed a compass-
needle at the north-pole of
the electrode (largest electrode on VandeGraaf) and again noticed the
deflection of the needle 90 degrees.

Operated both machines again to fill capacitors. Now while in
operation, hung the iron-shaving attached
to the dental-floss at the north-pole of the large electrode on the
VandeGraaf and as expected it
acted as a ideal-diamagnet or the Meissner Effect. However, the iron
shaving at the equator of the
VandeGraaf was attracted as well as my hair on my arms was attracted.
As for the Wimshurst, at the pole of either of the electrodes the
Meissner
effect occurred.

And finally on the northpole of the capacitors of the Wimshurst
displayed a Meissner Effect
on the iron-shaving.

So here again, in August a repeating of my experimentation in March of
2008, that I again achieve
a Meissner Effect from Capacitor-Current of both VandeGraaff and
Wimshurst generators.

I challenge anyone to duplicate the results.

P.S. this is not Lenz's law as one mistaken responder opined, for he
could have said that
all Meissner tests are Lenz's law under such a mistake.

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

wrote:
Last time I did these experiments I used only a Wimshurst, but now am
using both.

I have metal coil lathe shavings of iron and magnetized several and
tied a dental-floss string to one
which was magnetized over 12 hours ago. Tested its "slight magnetism"
with an unmagnetized shaving.
The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
1/10 gram could not weigh it.
So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
of the iron shaving.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm.


Operated both the Wimshurst and VandeGraaf and then placed a compass-
needle at the north-pole of
the electrode (largest electrode on VandeGraaf) and again noticed the
deflection of the needle 90 degrees.

Operated both machines again to fill capacitors. Now while in
operation, hung the iron-shaving attached
to the dental-floss at the north-pole of the large electrode on the
VandeGraaf and as expected it
acted as a ideal-diamagnet or the Meissner Effect. However, the iron
shaving at the equator of the
VandeGraaf was attracted as well as my hair on my arms was attracted.
As for the Wimshurst, at the pole of either of the electrodes the
Meissner
effect occurred.

And finally on the northpole of the capacitors of the Wimshurst
displayed a Meissner Effect
on the iron-shaving.

So here again, in August a repeating of my experimentation in March of
2008, that I again achieve
a Meissner Effect from Capacitor-Current of both VandeGraaff and
Wimshurst generators.

I challenge anyone to duplicate the results.

P.S. this is not Lenz's law as one mistaken responder opined, for he
could have said that
all Meissner tests are Lenz's law under such a mistake.


Did some measuring tonight for the actual deflection of a Meissner
Effect. These measurements
were done on the north-pole of the electrodes on both generators.

Uncharged Wimshurst: one electrode northpole repeled the iron coil
whilst the other attracted. I am still
trying to explain this attraction as perhaps an induced attraction.
Will try it again tomorrow night.

Uncharged VandeGraaff: Both the large electrode and small electrode
attracted. So here I have a
disconformity. In the Wimshurst one electrode attracted at the
northpole whilst the other electrode
at the northpole repelled.

Charged Wimshurst: Both electrodes repelled the iron coil shaving and
the size of the deflection was
equal to the distance of the electrode gap and was 2 cm approx.

Charged VandeGraaff: Both electrodes repelled the iron coil shaving
and the large electrode deflection
was 7 cm, the size of the gap between the two electrodes. The small
electrode deflected the coil also
but its deflection was approx 3 cm (and a trouble here is to separate
out the influence of the large
electrode from the measure.)

So here I suspect is evidence of a Meissner Effect upon Wimshurst and
Van de Graaff generators,
both would be room temperature superconductors.

And this whole experiment plays into the idea that cold temperature
superconductors are merely
the transforming of materials to act as Capacitors. So mercury at 4
Kelvin or the perovskite superconductors
at 35 K or 90 K were merely acting as the capacitors of a Wimshurst
Generator as electricity flow
from an outside source is the flow of electricity between my
electrodes of my generators.

So as chemists and physicists find new materials that are
superconductors, what they merely are doing
is finding materials that are Capacitors.

So, according to my theory, even the Sun and stars have superconductor
currents running in their
plasmas, since all that is needed is a capacitor. And every time we
view a lightning bolt here on
Earth, we witness a superconductor current where the clouds and ground
were capacitors.

So the phenomenon of "Ball Lightning" was probably the worlds first
view of the Meissner Effect, provided
all or part of my above is correct.

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

Earlier tonight I wrote:

Uncharged Wimshurst: one electrode northpole repeled the iron coil
whilst the other attracted. I am still
trying to explain this attraction as perhaps an induced attraction.
Will try it again tomorrow night.

Uncharged VandeGraaff: Both the large electrode and small electrode
attracted. So here I have a
disconformity. In the Wimshurst one electrode attracted at the
northpole whilst the other electrode
at the northpole repelled.


I think I spotted the problem. The VandeGraaff has a large iron screw
at the northpole
of the large electrode. So if it were not there, it would have
repelled instead of attracted.

So now both machines conform.

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

wrote:
wrote:
Last time I did these experiments I used only a Wimshurst, but now am
using both.

I have metal coil lathe shavings of iron and magnetized several and
tied a dental-floss string to one
which was magnetized over 12 hours ago. Tested its "slight magnetism"
with an unmagnetized shaving.
The weight of this shaving with string was so small that my scale of
1/10 gram could not weigh it.
So will have to build a balancing beam capable of measuring the weight
of the iron shaving.
The length of the iron shaving is approx 3.5 cm. and its diameter
approx 0.7 cm.


Operated both the Wimshurst and VandeGraaf and then placed a compass-
needle at the north-pole of
the electrode (largest electrode on VandeGraaf) and again noticed the
deflection of the needle 90 degrees.

Operated both machines again to fill capacitors. Now while in
operation, hung the iron-shaving attached
to the dental-floss at the north-pole of the large electrode on the
VandeGraaf and as expected it
acted as a ideal-diamagnet or the Meissner Effect. However, the iron
shaving at the equator of the
VandeGraaf was attracted as well as my hair on my arms was attracted.
As for the Wimshurst, at the pole of either of the electrodes the
Meissner
effect occurred.

And finally on the northpole of the capacitors of the Wimshurst
displayed a Meissner Effect
on the iron-shaving.

So here again, in August a repeating of my experimentation in March of
2008, that I again achieve
a Meissner Effect from Capacitor-Current of both VandeGraaff and
Wimshurst generators.

I challenge anyone to duplicate the results.

P.S. this is not Lenz's law as one mistaken responder opined, for he
could have said that
all Meissner tests are Lenz's law under such a mistake.


Did some measuring tonight for the actual deflection of a Meissner
Effect. These measurements
were done on the north-pole of the electrodes on both generators.

Uncharged Wimshurst: one electrode northpole repelled (sic) the iron coil
whilst the other attracted. I am still
trying to explain this attraction as perhaps an induced attraction.
Will try it again tomorrow night.

Uncharged VandeGraaff: Both the large electrode and small electrode
attracted. So here I have a
disconformity. In the Wimshurst one electrode attracted at the
northpole whilst the other electrode
at the northpole repelled.


I redid the experiment tonight and made sure the iron screw on top had
no influence in the
measuring data.
The large electrode of VandeGraaf repells the iron coil.

So now I have conformity in both VandeGraaff and Wimshurst uncharged.



Charged Wimshurst: Both electrodes repelled the iron coil shaving and
the size of the deflection was
equal to the distance of the electrode gap and was 2 cm approx.

Charged VandeGraaff: Both electrodes repelled the iron coil shaving
and the large electrode deflection
was 7 cm, the size of the gap between the two electrodes. The small
electrode deflected the coil also
but its deflection was approx 3 cm (and a trouble here is to separate
out the influence of the large
electrode from the measure.)

So here I suspect is evidence of a Meissner Effect upon Wimshurst and
Van de Graaff generators,
both would be room temperature superconductors.

And this whole experiment plays into the idea that cold temperature
superconductors are merely
the transforming of materials to act as Capacitors. So mercury at 4
Kelvin or the perovskite superconductors
at 35 K or 90 K were merely acting as the capacitors of a Wimshurst
Generator as electricity flow
from an outside source is the flow of electricity between my
electrodes of my generators.

So as chemists and physicists find new materials that are
superconductors, what they merely are doing
is finding materials that are Capacitors.

So, according to my theory, even the Sun and stars have superconductor
currents running in their
plasmas, since all that is needed is a capacitor. And every time we
view a lightning bolt here on
Earth, we witness a superconductor current where the clouds and ground
were capacitors.

So the phenomenon of "Ball Lightning" was probably the worlds first
view of the Meissner Effect, provided
all or part of my above is correct.


What this Experiment is designed to do is show what Superconductivity
is really all about,
and it is all about Capacitors. When a Capacitor charges up and then
discharges, the current
it produces is a superconductor current. The reason mercury at 4
Kelvin is superconductive is
because at that temperature mercury atoms become arranged to be a
capacitor.

So when you have electric current of DC flowing into a capacitor such
as mercury at 4 Kelvin
the mercury atoms build up a current and in nanoseconds discharge that
current. So superconductivity
is simply a Capacitor Current.

Before in physics, we had only two types of currents-- AC and DC.
Nowadays, with this experiment
we obviously have more than two types of currents in the world. We
have a Capacitor Current.

Lightning bolt strikes are a Capacitor Current. I call capacitor
currents as CC.

How does Capacitor Currents explain (i) zero resistance and (ii)
Meissner Effect? Easy answers to
both. The zero resistance is simply the fact of Conservation of
Energy. That energy in is equal to
energy out. The Meissner Effect is also easy to explain as ideal-
diamagnetism of a exclusion of
magnetic field. As in the above uncharged VandeGraaff and uncharged
Wimshurst repell the magnetic
coil.

My old Freshman Physics textbook by Halliday and Resnick, 3rd edition
1988 defines electric current
and where AC and DC are within the bounds of that definition. However,
that definition of current in
physics is outdated. The new definition of current in physics needs to
be expanded so that it includes
this third type of current called Capacitor Current, or CC. So physics
has DC, and AC, and CC

The experiment I am performing for these past year has all been posted
to the Internet sci newsgroups
and can easily be performed by others to confirm the truth of the
particulars.

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