true theory of Superconductivity; Classical physics or Quantum phenomenon??

this is an old post of mine:


*** begin old post ***
From: [Only registered users see links. ] (Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.particle,sci.physics.electromag,sci.ch em.analytical
Subject: #2 Formula for the highest temperature superconductor
Date: 23 Jan 1999 07:26:32 GMT
Organization: formula for superconductivity temperatures
Lines: 77
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (78btj8$1vq$[Only registered users see links. ]>

In article (789cik$aqs$[Only registered users see links. ]>
[Only registered users see links. ] (Archimedes Plutonium) writes:


I am wrong. It is chemical bonding strengths that prohibits an
infinity range of superconductivity temperatures.

Already in my mind I am envisioning a general formula. This research
reminds me of the historic Balmer then Rydberg and the other spectral
line physicists that gave the birth of quantum mechanics.

A formula of first finding out what the spacings of the plane
Euclidean geometry stacks are in the superconductors. Call it the
diffraction-grating spaces. To decompose the photons into neutrinos.

The diffraction grating spaces imply a distance for which photons
are
decomposed into neutrinos.

Again, using known superconductors, find out another distance spacing,
precisely the spacings of these plane Euclidean geometry stacks of
superconductors. Call it the parallel-plate-capacitors spacings.

The parallel-plate-capacitor spaces imply a distance for which
neutrinos are a stored standing wave within the material.

Tabulate many of the high temperature superconductors of these
distance spacings as well as their superconductivity transition
temperatures/ pressures. I suspect that temperature and pressure can
be
seen as one variable where a material's temperature can be raised if
pressure is applied.

Now apply some chemistry, or physical chemistry. Find the bonding
numerical strength correlated with the temperature/pressure to achieve
the superconductivity state. That is find the bond strength of each of
the atoms in materials such as Ba-Y-Cu-F-O is Tc at 155K. The key to
finding, if one exists, materials of a higher temperature
superconductor is whether the same geometry can be fabricated with
atoms of a stronger bond than Ba-Y-Cu-F-O. Fluorine atoms on the
right-side of the periodic table forms very strong bonds as well as
the
base atoms on the left-side of the periodic table. What we are looking
for, provided my theory is correct in whole or in part, is for the
strongest bonds of compounds which can achieve the geometry to
decompose photons into neutrinos and storage them.

Once the above is derived. Then one can look for *stronger chemical
bonds* so as to allow for an increase in superconductivity
temperature.
That is, the existence of a higher temperature superconductor beyond
155K.

In this theory of mine, the superconductivity state is achieved as a
purely geometrical condition. If one gets a material as near to
perfect
plane Euclidean geometry stacks (or sheets) that act as diffraction
plus capacitors of the photons. Turning the photons into neutrinos,
then the superconductivity state is achieved. The material that has
the
strongest chemical bonds and achieves all of the conditions for
superconductivity is the material with the highest temperature
superconductivity. If a material is not strong enough in its bonds,
then colder temperature or more pressure is needed in order to achieve
that near perfect geometry.

So, above, already we can start to derive a formula for the
superconductivity state and to apply that formula in search of higher
temperature superconductors.

I am not directly involved in superconductivity experimentation. But
it is my guess that the 155K superconductor of Ba-Y-Cu-F-O distance
spacings has been thoroughly researched and known.

Chemical bonding strengths, not the Fusion Barrier Law, implies that
the range of superconductivity temperatures is bounded. My guess is
that 155K is probably the limit, and if not, is close to the limit.

I need an expert superconductivity researcher to give the numbers
data of the distances I spoke of above.

*** end old post ***

I know when I have been away from a subject too long, in that I can
barely remember where I left off with the subject.

In my vagueness of memory, seems to me that I left off of the
Superconductivity theory with the firm belief that Superconductivity
was **purely** a Classical physics phenomenon and had no strange new
physics or Quantum physics involved. I cannot remember why or how I
came to that conclusion. I remember saying that it is purely Classical
physics because it was merely the application of cold temperature to
any substance to get it to Maximize both the Electropositive elements
such as Cs, Rb, Ba and to Maximize Electronegative elements such as F,
Cl, Br, I, O, S etc etc

Of course, that needed proof, Experimental proof that
Superconductivity was not a Quantum phenomenon but just a pure
Classical physics of maximizing electronegativities.

If Superconductivity were truly a new Quantum Phenomenon then my old
theory that photons turn into neutrino messengers telling the
electrons at the other end of the wire to move would still be a viable
nice theory.

But somehow when I last visited this subject, it seems to me that I
had cobbled together some sort of evidences that indicated that
Superconductivity was all just pure Classical Physics without anything
new or strange or Quantum phenomenon and that Superconductivity
derived solely out of just Maxwell's theory of EM.

Seems to me that when I last dived into Superconductivity theory that
I had it concluded that Superconductivity was just Classical Physics
stretched to the limits of Maximization in that the material were made
Maximal Electronegative combined with maximal Electropositive such
that the electrons could flow without any resistance because the pull
of the electropositive and the push of the electronegative cancelled
out all resistance.

Obviously I need to refresh myself on this theory. And as a word of
wisdom, when one can only remember something vaguely where they had
left off is a beautiful time to revisit the subject because then the
mind has been sort of "on vacation"
from that subject and is ideally prepared to see it in a new light and
make progress.

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

Traditionally about this time of the year I take down the skylights and
re-install the pipes for the woodstoves for the wintertime and before I leave the
roofing I check to see if any rust or patches for tar-cement or tar-paint is
needed to the steel roof. Of all the roofing materials I seem to prefer steel
roofs since they are strong and long lasting and pretty to look at.

Now I ran into something while tarring spots of the steel roof. I notice if rust
appears and I put tar on that rust spot and return to that spot years later and
peel away the tar that the steel metal is as if there had never been any rust at
all. Perhaps I made a mistake in thinking that I had the same spot. So I need to
confirm this claim before I put the claim to good use.

Unsubstantiated Claim: if you have galvanized sheet metal with some rust spots
and if you coat that rusty spot with tar-cement or tar-coating and years later
peel away the tar, you will find underneath shiny steel metal with no signs of
any rust???

I put three question marks because I am not sure of that observation.

But if true then tar would be a means of reviving old steel rusted items.

And if the claim is true, I cannot think of the physics or chemistry as to why
tar can remove all rust and leave shiny bare steel metal?

P.S. And today I did some tar patching and for the first time in my life was able
to not get any on my fingers or hands or clothing or anything except the roof
job. I attribute that to carefullness but also to the application of vaseline to
my hands in case I did get some on that it would not stick. Also I bought a cheap
50 cent paint brush that I was going to throw away after the job. So that if one
anticipates the job so as to not get any tar on them, then success is attainable.

Archimedes Plutonium, [Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


I suspect that you are simply removing the oxides mechanically via
adhesion to the asphaltum. Sort of like mud pack treatments to remove
zits or other facial crud.


Adhesion.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

Steve Turner wrote:


I suspect more is going on than just adhesion. If just adhesion then as soon as it
drys to rusty steel and removed would unvail shiny steel. I have not performed
that experiment.

I suspect that tar is some sort of solvent of iron oxide just as water dissolves
sugar or salt. That when tar is applied to rusty steel it dissolves all the rust
after a year of contact. That is what I suspect but all of this is speculation.

Archimedes Plutonium, [Only registered users see links. ]
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:

[Only registered users see links. ]

Now, can you predict whether or not BECs superconduct?

Mark L. Fergerson

"Archimedes Plutonium" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ]...
Steve Turner made a good suggestion that it is probably a physical
effect of transferring the loosely adhering rust from the steel onto the
highly adhesive tar. However.....

Did you see any of the red rust in the black tar matrix of the peels?
What was the name of the "tar" product you used?
Was it molten tar?
Was it tar dissolved in Turpentine/Kerosene?
Was it a Tar/Lignin-sulfonate/water emulsion?
The latter here could have induced a slow chem reaction and
converted/sequestered the rust over time into a black iron chelate.
Lignin sulfonates are commonly used in corrosion inhibitors.

But, let me know what product you used, since I'd like to try your
procedure on steel vents and flanges.
hanson

"hanson" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message news:<9wBfb.1777$[Only registered users see links. ].pas.earthl ink.net>...
<snips>

Archie makes reference to *galvanized* steel. It seems reasonable
that sealing a rusty area for a while will allow the rust to be
re-reduced by the Zn in surrounding areas. Any rust not in good
electrical/mechanical contact with the Fe substrate gets yanked
off by the tar when it is removed. Seems reasonable.

A more general application would be the protection of steel
by the sacfificial oxidation of Zn in marine vessels.
As you know, rapid progress in gunpowder and cannon are making
current warships obsolete. I expect to see more "Ironclads"
being built, and even full steel hulled ships! (Even though
people say a steel ship can't float). Corrosion in metal ships
will be a factor of much concern and worry to the Navy. I am
sure any device or invention to counter it will be of much value
and great utility to our navy.

Yours Allways,
Tony.

"Tony" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote in message
news:[Only registered users see links. ] m...
news:<9wBfb.1777$[Only registered users see links. ].pas.earthl ink.net>...

It is not that simple. The rust will not be re-reduced. That is only a
hope. Fe once oxidized on the surface will remain Fe2O3, Fe3O4,
FeO... rust. The purpose of the Zinc coating (galvanized, e-plated
,impact plated or in primers) is the same as you mentioned below:
sacrificial. But once there is a naked spot, a thru-abrasion of the
Zn layer which just slightly bigger than a pinhole, thru' the galvanized
(Zn) surface, letting the naked Fe be exposed to H2O/O2 then the
rusting sets in invariably. The sacrificial anode / cathode effect does
not reach very far. In a perfect world Archie's Steel roof would
main rust free as long as there is a single spot of sacrificial Zn left.
But it unfortunately doesn't work that way because Uncle Murphy lives
at the interface where everything that can go wrong ...will go wrong.
In time the Fe corrosion even creeps on under the edges of the
protective Zinc layer.
Corrosion is an extremely complex surface(mono)layer phenomena
and its theory is still by n' large a story where most practical advances
in the art are experimental/empirical in nature.

However, the purpose of my posting on this is not pontification,
for a change, but it is my hope to hear Archie sing and tell me
the brand name of the tar product he used.
Or is he the only one around who is in love with steel roofs?
ahahaha.......ahahahahanson

Helmut Wabnig wrote:

The 104 year old "Government Bridge" or Arsenal Bridge between Davenport
Iowa and Rock Island Illinois is coated with black tar... and evidently
always has been. I was just across it and talked with some of the
workmen putting on repairs to the tar protection- well, a week ago.

The "Black Gate Bridge" will nevertheless never be so honored as the
Golden Gate Bridge.

Jim Buch

--
................................


Keepsake gift for young girls.
Unique and personal one-of-a-kind.
Builds strong minds 12 ways.
Guaranteed satisfaction
- courteous money back
- keep bonus gifts

[Only registered users see links. ]

[Only registered users see links. ] (Edward Green) wrote:


I don't think so. "Tar" (generically speaking here) is slow but very
thorough at permeating porous materials, and rust is porous.
Viscosity is high but surface tension is low. This also explains why
you don't see the rust in the tar: the particles of rust are
encapsulated. You would be able to see the rust if the tar was
transparent and colorless.

It would be possible to do an experiment: take the tar which has
theoreticlly peeled up the rust, dissolve it in hexanes or other light
petroleum distillate, and filter. Look at what's left on the filter
(if anything). Appropriate controls would be needed.

Steve Turner

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet