Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snip everything else)



So, reading this news item in SCIENCE NEWS of 11May02 of a inverse
proximity effect of lead with silver films. Superconductivity
temperature increased from 1.6 K to that of 1.8 K.


That experimental datum suggests several things.
(i) all materials at a cold enough temperature are superconductive and if
so, then superconductivity is a Classical physics phenomenon
(ii) the difference between pure lead superconductive at 1.6 K and that of
lead mixed with silver films is a huge difference even though the rise in
Tc is a small difference suggesting again that all materials are
superconductive and thus Classical physics involved
(iii) Superconductivity must be a geometrical phenomenon such as
diffraction gratings in that lead at 1.6 K and then another geometrical
addition of silver film to enhance the geometry, again suggestive of
Classical physics

Classical physics is Conduction Band theory and no-one has really explored
the Maximization of Conduction Bands such that normal-conductivity becomes
superconductivity.

Classical physics is Electronegativity/Electropositivity and no-one has
really explored the Maximization of Electronegativity where we take say
fluorine and cesium, cool them, and where the cesium wants to push a
electron and the fluorine wants to pull a electron and between the push and
pull is a electric current self-initiated and self-built. Superconductivity
is not a spontaneous current creation but when maximization of
electronegativity and electropositivity is created then superconduction is
a cinch.

So if we combine Conduction Band Maximization with
Electronegativity/Electropositivity then Superconduction is a cinch.

It seems to me, at this time, that Superconductivity as evidenced by lead
and silver film can all be explained by Classical Physics of Conduction
Band and Electronegativity and that the state of superconduction is a
maximization of Conduction Band and/or/or both Electronegativity.

Troubles with Quantum strangeness as explanation of Superconductivity:
My favorite here is to think that photon messengers combine to become some
neutrino hybrid as a messenger and we all know that neutrinos travel
through matter with almost zero resistance. Trouble with that idea is that
if lead is superconductive at 1.6 K by quantum strangeness in converting
photons into hybrid neutrinos then why should the additional sprinkling of
silver film enhance this conversion. When we study polarization we do not
get better polarization by the tiny adjustment, or do we.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snip everything else)




That experimental datum suggests several things.
(i) all materials at a cold enough temperature are superconductive and if
so, then superconductivity is a Classical physics phenomenon

Please think about what you're saying. "All" is a mighty big word. Does
sapphire superconduct or quarts or any insulators at low temperatures
and normal pressures?

"Joseph.D.Warner" wrote:

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snip everything else)




That experimental datum suggests several things.
(i) all materials at a cold enough temperature are superconductive and if
so, then superconductivity is a Classical physics phenomenon

Please think about what you're saying. "All" is a mighty big word. Does
sapphire superconduct or quarts or any insulators at low temperatures
and normal pressures?

You are arguing with a psychotic idiot troll who is trivially
gainsaid.

1) Bose-Einstein condensates operate at nanokelvins. No anomalous
superconductiviy has been observed. The Meissner effect would be
trivially detected.

2) Liquid helium will stay liquid right to absolute zero unless
compressed to at least 25 atmospheres. We can say with complete
assurance that liquid helium under its own vapor pressure will not be
an electrical superconductor at any low temperature - right down to
absolute zero in the limiting case. There will never be a solid
lattice whose phonons promote Cooper-pairing (much less free electrons
to be Cooper-paired).

http://www.eng.vt.edu/fluids/msc/super/super-f.htm

Archie-Poo is not only a jackass, he is a trolling boring ignorant
jackass.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!

"Joseph.D.Warner" wrote in message ...
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
(snip everything else)




That experimental datum suggests several things.
(i) all materials at a cold enough temperature are superconductive and if
so, then superconductivity is a Classical physics phenomenon

Please think about what you're saying. "All" is a mighty big word. Does
sapphire superconduct or quarts or any insulators at low temperatures
and normal pressures?

Yes, I often choose the wrong word of all when most or some.

But I think in this case I have chosen the correct word of "all". I
like to make the analogy of "digital versus analog TV" in comparison
of Quantum Physics to Classical Physics where the analog is Classical
Physics and that we get not discrete bits but a wavelength of variance
and gradation. So that in Superconductivity of pure lead at 1.6 K add
silver and boost Tc to 1.8 K is one of those fine analog gradations
where if we look hard enough we can get a 1.7 K
by sprinkling in some other ingredient.

I believe Classical Physics gives us this variable spectrum of
endresults. Whereas if superconductivity were a Quantum Physics
phenomenon can not get any such desired endresults that we want. If QM
then superconductivity would not be so fine-tunable.

Indeed, I have not adequately considered pressures in
superconductivity, but that pressure makes the case of Classical
Physics even a stronger case in that we add the variable of pressure
and get a whole new spectrum of gradations. Everyone knows that
Boyle's Law of PV = nRT is Classical Physics.

How much of an argument can I wager that Fusion Physics is Classical
Physics and not Quantum Physics, ie, no quantum strangeness. Ditto for
fission energy technology. No-one would say that quantum tunnelling or
quantum strangeness occurrs in fission physics. So, if Fission and
Fusion were smack square in the middle of Classical Physics, then it
seems to me that Superconductivity should be purely a Classical
Physics phenomenon regardless of the tie with the upper limit of
fusion-- 2/3 breakeven.

Cooper pairs of electrons as per the BCS theory of superconductivity
is a purely Quantum Physics phenomenon in that it invokes quantum
strangeness. What could be utterly more strange than 2 electrons
pairing?? Nothing. In fact, I believe the Cooper pair is the most
absurd and preposterous modern day assumption and on par with the
absurdity of black holes.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Uncle Al wrote:
"Joseph.D.Warner" wrote:




You are arguing with a psychotic idiot troll who is trivially
gainsaid.


I know who he is. I normally ignore his posts but I read this one
without looking to see who it was from. I just had to comment. Even he
must know the difference between insulators and metals. He even tries to
make retractions someimes.

"Joseph.D.Warner" wrote in message ...


snipped



Please think about what you're saying. "All" is a mighty big word. Does
sapphire superconduct or quarts or any insulators at low temperatures
and normal pressures?


I did not seem to spell out the Experiment which I had listed into the title.

The experiment I had in mind which Joseph seems to have jogged my memory, for it seems as though I
have so many things on my mind that if I wander off just minorly I run the risk of not completing
what I had started off in doing.
Joseph talks about sapphire or quartz. And I would say they are superconductive but at a temperature
so close to 0 Kelvin.

The experiment I wanted to discuss and prod someone into doing involves fluorine and cesium. Or any
two of the most electronegative and electropositive elements. I just picked fluorine and cesium but
it could just as well be Cl and Ba or I and Rb. What I want to do is to get an Experiment where I
get the cold temperature to release a Self-Current or Spontaneous Current. Perhaps such a thing has
a different name.

I want an experiment where the coldness of temperature of 2 atoms, one electropositive and the other
electronegative, that the push of the electron and the pull of the electron from these 2 atoms
creates a Self Current of electron flow.

So that the Coldness creates electric current without resistance. And that Superconductivity is just
the creation of an electric current because the coldness has made the Electropositive atom push an
electron and the Electronegative has caused a pull of an electron to such an extent that

Electropositive push + Electronegative pull = current creation = Superconductivity

If Experiment can show that the push and pull of electrons when combined with very low temperatures,
that Superconductivity is the creation of a Self Current and that is why there is no resistance
because when you add an outside source of current it just ties in with the pushing and pulling of
the atoms.

So, set up an experiment with say Fluorine and Cesium and cool them to very low temperatures and
look for a Spontaneous current flow. If there is one, then I believe this is the ultimate
explanation of Superconductivity in that you have simply Maximized the
Electronegativity/Electropositivity and also maximized Conduction Bands. Whether Conduction Bands is
separate from Electronegativity is unclear, but we do remind ourselves that Superconductivity is a
complex process and so it is likely that Superconductivity involves both Electronegativity and
Conduction Bands.

Experiment I request: I am looking for an experiment where no outside source of electric current is
applied but wherein upon very cold temperatures a Spontaneous current appears to arise in the test
sample.

If lead with silver film superconducts at 1.8 K, then is there a tiny Spontaneous current at 1.5
Kelvin??? Where Pb is considered the electronegative element and silver considered the
electropositive element and disregarding Conduction bands.

But I still preferr to use Fl and Cs, or I and perhaps K.

If I can get a current creation by lowering the temperature to very cold, then I think I can
completely explain Superconductivity. It would be a tiny current, perhaps milliamperes, but if I can
get current creation then the riddle of superconduction will be closer to a finish.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

And it is a nice coincidence that my return to Superconductivity theory in the last week is also
received attention in the prizes market, where the 2003 Nobel prize was awarded for work in
superfluidity and superconductivity. But it seems as though the Nobel Committee is falling into a trap
of sorts. Call it a shotgun effect where they give the prize to just about anything in
superconductivity or superfluidity where the long march of history will look back and say "what minor
details were given the highest awards" or in the case of the BCS theory with its Cooper pairing as an
utterly false theory that makes the Nobel Committee look bad. So the shotgun approach to making a past
mistake ameliorated is by giving out so many Nobels in the area of superconductivity to drown out the
initial mistake and flaw of the BCS theory.

And at the rate of the mistakes of the Nobel prize, it maybe frightening prospect in the future that
1/2 of the Nobel awards had reached a point of becoming science mistakes and false science. And should
that Committee start awarding for black holes, wormholes and other exotica would accelerate the
reaching of 1/2 of the Nobel prizes were given for false science.

About the only way that the Nobel Science awards can have a record of being 90% or more of true science
and the other 10% for falsehoods is if the Committee stuck tenaciously to awarding for Experimental
science.

The amazing thing about the Nobel prizes in physics was that in the early part of the 20th century, the
Committee went out on a limb by awarding for Quantum Mechanics to a large extent, and they got it
correctly. But then about 1950 to 2003 the theoretical physics awards were mostly error or false
physics. Perhaps the Committee became lax with its success of awarding Quantum Physics from
1900 to 1950, that this laxness made the Committee feel it could spot theoretical true physics from
1950 to 2003, but instead, its luck had run out and it was awarding far too many false science theories
where BCS and Cooper pairing come to mind. Neutron stars is another falsehood. And although Prion
theory is not physics but biology, a case of another falsehood in science being awarded.
And the entire Quark theory is at best a mere scaffolding. Not even architects and the general public
would award a scaffold structure as one of the 7 wonders of the world.

The Nobel Committee tries to get it right for 100% of the time, but they are fallible as any human
organization becomes prone to error. It would behoove the Nobel Committee and for TV to run a
documentary on the historical fallibility and errors that the Nobel has thus far committed. If an
organization becomes so arrogant that they never seem to admit any wrong, then they only increase their
error rate, rather than reducing it.

I should mention Dr. Legget discussing the Nobel on TV. He mentions the fact that high-temperature
superconductors seem to have no theory to explain them.
As far as I am concerned, the supercold superconductors such as pure lead can be explained by
Conduction Band theory and to experiment seeing whether a Self Created current can be gotten by
lowering the temperature. As for high temperature Superconductors, the idea of Electronegativity versus
Electropositivity maximized would explain them.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

In message , Archimedes Plutonium
writes
And it is a nice coincidence that my return to Superconductivity theory
in the last week is also
received attention in the prizes market, where the 2003 Nobel prize was
awarded for work in
superfluidity and superconductivity. But it seems as though the Nobel
Committee is falling into a trap
of sorts. Call it a shotgun effect where they give the prize to just
about anything in
superconductivity or superfluidity where the long march of history will
look back and say "what minor
details were given the highest awards" or in the case of the BCS theory
with its Cooper pairing as an
utterly false theory that makes the Nobel Committee look bad. So the
shotgun approach to making a past
mistake ameliorated is by giving out so many Nobels in the area of
superconductivity to drown out the
initial mistake and flaw of the BCS theory.

And at the rate of the mistakes of the Nobel prize, it maybe
frightening prospect in the future that
1/2 of the Nobel awards had reached a point of becoming science
mistakes and false science. And should
that Committee start awarding for black holes, wormholes and other
exotica would accelerate the
reaching of 1/2 of the Nobel prizes were given for false science.

About the only way that the Nobel Science awards can have a record of
being 90% or more of true science
and the other 10% for falsehoods is if the Committee stuck tenaciously
to awarding for Experimental
science.

The amazing thing about the Nobel prizes in physics was that in the
early part of the 20th century, the
Committee went out on a limb by awarding for Quantum Mechanics to a
large extent, and they got it
correctly. But then about 1950 to 2003 the theoretical physics awards
were mostly error or false
physics. Perhaps the Committee became lax with its success of awarding
Quantum Physics from
1900 to 1950, that this laxness made the Committee feel it could spot
theoretical true physics from
1950 to 2003, but instead, its luck had run out and it was awarding far
too many false science theories
where BCS and Cooper pairing come to mind. Neutron stars is another
falsehood. And although Prion
theory is not physics but biology, a case of another falsehood in
science being awarded.
And the entire Quark theory is at best a mere scaffolding. Not even
architects and the general public
would award a scaffold structure as one of the 7 wonders of the world.

The Nobel Committee tries to get it right for 100% of the time, but
they are fallible as any human
organization becomes prone to error. It would behoove the Nobel
Committee and for TV to run a
documentary on the historical fallibility and errors that the Nobel has
thus far committed. If an
organization becomes so arrogant that they never seem to admit any
wrong, then they only increase their
error rate, rather than reducing it.

I should mention Dr. Legget discussing the Nobel on TV. He mentions the
fact that high-temperature
superconductors seem to have no theory to explain them.
As far as I am concerned, the supercold superconductors such as pure
lead can be explained by
Conduction Band theory and to experiment seeing whether a Self Created
current can be gotten by
lowering the temperature. As for high temperature Superconductors, the
idea of Electronegativity versus
Electropositivity maximized would explain them.

Archimedes Plutonium,
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Many experiments remain to be attempted...

If you stuck your head in a bucket of liquid helium would your brain
become super-conducting?

--
Jeremy Boden