[Vo]:Superconductors and voltage
While looking at reviews for Caver A. Mead's book, I read a review that said he made a mistake including voltage in a calculation for superconductors. Now I think that there must be voltage of a type in superconductors, there are 2 types of voltage. One is the voltage drop across a conductor. This is similar to the voltage on a charged capacitor. But there are other type is kinetic voltage, this is where a charge is moving at a given velocity as it used in particle accelerators. Voltage of this type can be compared to (or come from) inertia, and if electrons are moving then there will be some persistence even if impedance is removed since electrons still have mass. If a superconducting ring that carried a current was suddenly opened, the electrons are still moving and must compress slightly as they come to a stop leaving the ends momentarily charged to some degree. Additionally imagine a superconductive loop in an alternating EM field, there is a voltage induced by the changing magnetic field (or relativistically distorted electric field) and this does not lead to a voltage drop, but there is still a voltage, if this loop was opened and a normal circuit inserted you would indeed see a voltage. Indeed even if we use a resistive wire in such a loop, no voltage drop is noted, and yet there is still a voltage present to overcome the resistance, and the resistance is still impeding the flow of electrons. But would it be correct to say that this is happening with no voltage, even though none can be read by any instrument? John
Re: [Vo]:Superconductors and voltage
http://phys.org/news/2011-10-physicists-unveil-theory-kind-superconductivity.html and another http://phys.org/news/2014-02-result-cheaper-efficient-solar-cells.html Electrons could become squeezed in that their quantum properties become delocalized. An electron can be spread out all over the superconductor because its location is pinned. It is hard to tell what is going on if the electron is viewed realistically rather like a pin ball. The electron has over 500 modes of existence based on how these particles move in relationship to each other, I adhere to the spin net emergence of the electron in that electrons and light strings are the same thing with the electron being the tip of the light string. Voltage is a description of the electron that is only applicable to a particular state of electron matter. Voltage may not apply to all the ways that an electron can exist. It is not clear that voltage can be applied to electrons in a superconductor; especially when the type of superconductor is not defined. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: While looking at reviews for Caver A. Mead's book, I read a review that said he made a mistake including voltage in a calculation for superconductors. Now I think that there must be voltage of a type in superconductors, there are 2 types of voltage. One is the voltage drop across a conductor. This is similar to the voltage on a charged capacitor. But there are other type is kinetic voltage, this is where a charge is moving at a given velocity as it used in particle accelerators. Voltage of this type can be compared to (or come from) inertia, and if electrons are moving then there will be some persistence even if impedance is removed since electrons still have mass. If a superconducting ring that carried a current was suddenly opened, the electrons are still moving and must compress slightly as they come to a stop leaving the ends momentarily charged to some degree. Additionally imagine a superconductive loop in an alternating EM field, there is a voltage induced by the changing magnetic field (or relativistically distorted electric field) and this does not lead to a voltage drop, but there is still a voltage, if this loop was opened and a normal circuit inserted you would indeed see a voltage. Indeed even if we use a resistive wire in such a loop, no voltage drop is noted, and yet there is still a voltage present to overcome the resistance, and the resistance is still impeding the flow of electrons. But would it be correct to say that this is happening with no voltage, even though none can be read by any instrument? John
Re: [Vo]:Superconductors and voltage
Correction It is hard to tell what is going on if the electron is viewed realistically rather like a pin ball. should read It is hard to tell what is going on if the electron is viewed realistically like a wave rather than like a pin ball. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Axil Axil janap...@gmail.com wrote: http://phys.org/news/2011-10-physicists-unveil-theory-kind-superconductivity.html and another http://phys.org/news/2014-02-result-cheaper-efficient-solar-cells.html Electrons could become squeezed in that their quantum properties become delocalized. An electron can be spread out all over the superconductor because its location is pinned. It is hard to tell what is going on if the electron is viewed realistically rather like a pin ball. The electron has over 500 modes of existence based on how these particles move in relationship to each other, I adhere to the spin net emergence of the electron in that electrons and light strings are the same thing with the electron being the tip of the light string. Voltage is a description of the electron that is only applicable to a particular state of electron matter. Voltage may not apply to all the ways that an electron can exist. It is not clear that voltage can be applied to electrons in a superconductor; especially when the type of superconductor is not defined. On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 6:09 PM, John Berry berry.joh...@gmail.com wrote: While looking at reviews for Caver A. Mead's book, I read a review that said he made a mistake including voltage in a calculation for superconductors. Now I think that there must be voltage of a type in superconductors, there are 2 types of voltage. One is the voltage drop across a conductor. This is similar to the voltage on a charged capacitor. But there are other type is kinetic voltage, this is where a charge is moving at a given velocity as it used in particle accelerators. Voltage of this type can be compared to (or come from) inertia, and if electrons are moving then there will be some persistence even if impedance is removed since electrons still have mass. If a superconducting ring that carried a current was suddenly opened, the electrons are still moving and must compress slightly as they come to a stop leaving the ends momentarily charged to some degree. Additionally imagine a superconductive loop in an alternating EM field, there is a voltage induced by the changing magnetic field (or relativistically distorted electric field) and this does not lead to a voltage drop, but there is still a voltage, if this loop was opened and a normal circuit inserted you would indeed see a voltage. Indeed even if we use a resistive wire in such a loop, no voltage drop is noted, and yet there is still a voltage present to overcome the resistance, and the resistance is still impeding the flow of electrons. But would it be correct to say that this is happening with no voltage, even though none can be read by any instrument? John
Re: [Vo]:Superconductors and voltage
While looking at reviews for Caver A. Mead's book, I read a review that said he made a mistake including voltage in a calculation for superconductors. Now I think that there must be voltage of a type in superconductors, there are 2 types of voltage. One is the voltage drop across a conductor. This is similar to the voltage on a charged capacitor. But there are other type is kinetic voltage, this is where a charge is moving at a given velocity as it used in particle accelerators. Voltage of this type can be compared to (or come from) inertia, and if electrons are moving then there will be some persistence even if impedance is removed since electrons still have mass. There is no need to apply a voltage across the leads of a superconducting loop for current to flow. Any current present will continue indefinitely. And, if you do apply a voltage, the current will ramp up as long as the voltage is applied. The ramp rate is established by the voltage you apply and the inductance of the loop. If a superconducting ring that carried a current was suddenly opened, the electrons are still moving and must compress slightly as they come to a stop leaving the ends momentarily charged to some degree. All of the energy stored within the magnetic field must be either converted into heat by arcing across the open circuit and heating the air, or by charging the effective capacitance formed by the open leads. The energy given to the capacitor will be returned to the loop inductance when the current reverses and this process can ring indefinitely as long as the loss is zero. Additionally imagine a superconductive loop in an alternating EM field, there is a voltage induced by the changing magnetic field (or relativistically distorted electric field) and this does not lead to a voltage drop, but there is still a voltage, if this loop was opened and a normal circuit inserted you would indeed see a voltage. There is a voltage drop in this case due to the AC current induced within the loop flowing through the loop inductance. It does not lead to heat because the voltage and current are at right angles to each other. Indeed even if we use a resistive wire in such a loop, no voltage drop is noted, and yet there is still a voltage present to overcome the resistance, and the resistance is still impeding the flow of electrons. But would it be correct to say that this is happening with no voltage, even though none can be read by any instrument? Perhaps I do not understand what you are saying here as I would expect to see a voltage drop measured across the ends of any resistor carrying current. The resistive wire case would show a drop that increases the further along the resistive line you go. Of course, you must choose some point as the reference of zero volts. ]John Dave
Re: [Vo]:Superconductors and voltage
On Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 1:42 PM, David Roberson dlrober...@aol.com wrote: While looking at reviews for Caver A. Mead's book, I read a review that said he made a mistake including voltage in a calculation for superconductors. Now I think that there must be voltage of a type in superconductors, there are 2 types of voltage. One is the voltage drop across a conductor. This is similar to the voltage on a charged capacitor. But there are other type is kinetic voltage, this is where a charge is moving at a given velocity as it used in particle accelerators. Voltage of this type can be compared to (or come from) inertia, and if electrons are moving then there will be some persistence even if impedance is removed since electrons still have mass. There is no need to apply a voltage across the leads of a superconducting loop for current to flow. Any current present will continue indefinitely. Well obviously. Although a voltage would be required to initiate a current flow however minimal, superconductors still generally manifest magnetic fields which is why they are used in super powerful magnets. This means the establishment of a magnetic field, additionally even if it was somehow perfectly non-inductive it still requires some force to get electrons to move in the first place however minimal this may be, electrons are light but not massless. And, if you do apply a voltage, the current will ramp up as long as the voltage is applied. The ramp rate is established by the voltage you apply and the inductance of the loop. Agreed, but voltage is still required to get it moving. If a superconducting ring that carried a current was suddenly opened, the electrons are still moving and must compress slightly as they come to a stop leaving the ends momentarily charged to some degree. All of the energy stored within the magnetic field must be either converted into heat by arcing across the open circuit and heating the air, or by charging the effective capacitance formed by the open leads. The energy given to the capacitor will be returned to the loop inductance when the current reverses and this process can ring indefinitely as long as the loss is zero. Yes, but here there is clearly voltage. Also a lossless resonant superconductor might be impossible unless radiation resistance is somehow zero. A tiny tiny bit of ohmic resistance stops a copper ring from behaving like a superconductor so I doubt it take radiation resistance to do quench the oscillation. Additionally imagine a superconductive loop in an alternating EM field, there is a voltage induced by the changing magnetic field (or relativistically distorted electric field) and this does not lead to a voltage drop, but there is still a voltage, if this loop was opened and a normal circuit inserted you would indeed see a voltage. There is a voltage drop in this case due to the AC current induced within the loop flowing through the loop inductance. It does not lead to heat because the voltage and current are at right angles to each other. Indeed even if we use a resistive wire in such a loop, no voltage drop is noted, and yet there is still a voltage present to overcome the resistance, and the resistance is still impeding the flow of electrons. But would it be correct to say that this is happening with no voltage, even though none can be read by any instrument? Perhaps I do not understand what you are saying here as I would expect to see a voltage drop measured across the ends of any resistor carrying current. There are no ends, I said a loop, and the entire loop is in a uniform voltage field and the entire loop is uniformly resistive. This produces no measurable voltage unless there is an imperfection of uniformity of these 2 factors.
