sci.physics.electromag

I am going to take a moment of pause in this book to recount my past
history on working with superconductivity
theory. I feel a need to do this just as I feel the need to clean up a
room or house or a project. I need order,
order in my thoughts and order in my research and so moments
recounting are good for going forward.

I listed superconductivity as my third most important contribution so
I esteem this work, and I do not really
know why I esteem it so much. Perhaps because it is so close to the
interface between practical engineering
and to physics theory. The Atom Totality Theory my first prize is all
theory, for no lab is going to place
"a universe" in a beaker jar. My second most prized contribution is
the Fusion Barrrier Principle, and here again
it is at an intersection between engineers building tokamaks and
theory. But the Atom Totality theory and
Fusion Barrier Principle have huge importance, but I cannot say the
same for superconductivity.

When I started Superconductivity research in 1993 I believed it was
all centered on zero resistance
and so from 1993 to about 2000, I offered a Neutrino Mechanism for
superconductivity. That somehow
photon-messengers of currents changed into neutrinos and since
neutrinos have near zero resistance
explains superconduction. Trouble is, experiments, and how can photons
transform into neutrinos and
how can neutrinos stay confined to a wire of moving charges. It was a
neat mechanism, but it did not
work.

Then from about 2000 to 2007 I offered a new mechanism and called it
the maximum Conduction Band
coupled with the push and pull of Electronegativity and
Electropositivity. The idea here was that if you
had a compound such as Cesium Fluoride the two elements of the highest
electronegativity and
electropositivity that the push of one and the pull of the other would
be so enormous that you could have
a current for "free". In other words a compound material of cesium
fluoride would almost give you a
free flowing current of electricity just from the push of electrons
from cesium to the pull of electrons
from fluorine. So when a current is applied to Cesium Fluoride the
current would enter and exit
with no resistance. I thought this was a great improvement over my
previous Neutrino Mechanism. Trouble
here was the same-- experiments do not support that mechanism. In the
case of superconduction of
lead or mercury, where is there any electronegativity push and pull
since it is 100% pure one element?
Could I say the coldness created a electronegativity of push and pull?
No. Although the new discoveries
of high temperature superconductors such as perovskites did sort of
support this mechanism because
all of the perovskites were a compound of elements from the far right
of the table of elements and far
left of the table. But the mechanism does not explain pure elements
such as lead or mercury so I had
to abandon this theory also.

Then in 2007, I became excited over a new mechanism of Microwires,
that substances at cold temperatures
form Microwires by their electron configuration and where
superconduction is then a Microwire state. I have
not completely abandoned this mechanism, and hold it in reserve for I
may just be able to use it in conjunction
with my most promising mechanism.

My recent mechanism which I esteem is the Capacitor Theory or
Mechanism of Superconduction. The idea
here is that currents come in very many types just as Magnetism comes
in many types and Chemical
Bonding comes in many types. So why should Physics have one type of
current, or even two types such as
DC and AC. And the current that comes from Lightning bolts and
Wimshurst generators are currents that
are very much different and distinct from DC and AC in copper wire.

Now what spoiled the Neutrino Mechanism and the Electronegativity
Mechanism was a lack of agreement with
experiments. Experiments showed them to be false. But with this newest
theory (mechanism) of Capacitor
Current, experiments are proving the mechanism is true.

(1) Experiment with Wimshurst generator shows that a Meissner type of
effect is obtained
(2) Experiment with several superconductor materials hooked up in
series or parallel with the temperature of the coldest
Tc, that the behaviour of the resultant end current is a Capacitor
discharge current, varying as to the arrangement
of the different superconductors. If BCS were true then it would not
matter how the superconductors
were arranged for the end current would all be the same.
(3) Experiment where we match the Wimshurst discharge current by a
interrupted-DC-current
and then we make a Wimshurst out of a superconductor material and
match the other two. The
fact that all three can be matched proves they are one and the same.

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