"Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer."
http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/energy_p_reln.htmlHelped me, sharing.
What is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?Please enlighten me.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 08:04 pmWhat is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?Please enlighten me.Destructive interference.Yes.Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from: Mulletron on 10/08/2014 08:15 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 08:04 pmWhat is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?Please enlighten me.Destructive interference.Yes.Please correct me if I'm wrong.Lol,At what frequency?and topology?
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 08:04 pmWhat is the mechanism that destroys SC for AC currents?Please enlighten me.I am not an expert in the theory of superconductors. I experiment with high temperature superconductors and I have observed some of their interesting properties. I can't disclose any of my research. However there is a lot of literature available on this subject. All are concerned with VLF AC. If you know of a case were superconductors are used at microwave frequencies I would like to be informed-https://cas.web.cern.ch/cas/Erice-2013/Lectures/May3_1_Gomory.ppthttp://www.utwente.nl/tnw/ems/Research/AC%20loss%20Twente%20Press/AC_loss_and_stability_of_superconducting_cables_for_fusion/http://iopscience.iop.org/0953-2048/26/9/095001/
Quote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 06:54 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 06:37 pmDr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf... and comment in the thread here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0Much obliged and thanks.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation Thank you. However the topic has been nuked (maybe on my advice.) I am currently trying to understand Hubble and Unrhu horizons as I intuit that is the theoretical key to the anomalous thrust.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 06:37 pmDr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf... and comment in the thread here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0Much obliged and thanks.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation
Dr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf... and comment in the thread here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0Much obliged and thanks.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 07:30 pmQuote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 06:54 pmQuote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 06:37 pmDr. Rodal. I know your expertise on experimental setups.Please could you cast your searching eyes over this please?http://www.sifferkoll.se/sifferkoll/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/LuganoReportSubmit.pdf... and comment in the thread here:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=35805.0Much obliged and thanks.Hi IslandPlaya, still appreciating you being the first one to welcome me to this forum I wish I could, but unfortunately I can't at the moment embark into another topic. I thank you for the gracious invitation Thank you. However the topic has been nuked (maybe on my advice.) I am currently trying to understand Hubble and Unrhu horizons as I intuit that is the theoretical key to the anomalous thrust.It was only nuked because there was an already existing thread for it I imagine.
AC losses in superconductors.http://www.bnl.gov/magnets/staff/gupta/Summer1968/0511.pdfHope this helps.
Mulletron.I have decided you need to go back to physics school.Sorry.We will all welcome you when you get back.Farewell and good luck!
Quote"Superconductivity: a quantum mechanics effect for which people's intuition fails, because our intuition is built around our macro world and not the quantum world. One would have to work out the quantum mechanics math to answer."This is a hasty generalization.
Take another look at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html, Prof. McCulloch has now incorporated the Chinese data, and all the data [Shawyer, China and NASA] is pretty well calculated by McCulloch's formula except for one experiment (out of 3 in the list) by Brady et.al. that I had pointed out is extremely anomalous (they raised the Q by a factor of 2.5 and the force came down to 1/2). The Unruth/McCulloch formula does a great job [compared to everything else that has been offered, and look at this thread we have considered all kinds of stuff]. What is most interesting again is that McCulloch does not use fudge factors or an excessive number of parameters. Actually McCulloch's formula is bare bones: PowerInput, Q, frequency and the geometry: that's all folks.
Quote from: Rodal on 10/08/2014 07:40 pmTake another look at http://physicsfromtheedge.blogspot.it/2014/10/mihsc-vs-emdrive-data-1.html, Prof. McCulloch has now incorporated the Chinese data, and all the data [Shawyer, China and NASA] is pretty well calculated by McCulloch's formula except for one experiment (out of 3 in the list) by Brady et.al. that I had pointed out is extremely anomalous (they raised the Q by a factor of 2.5 and the force came down to 1/2). The Unruth/McCulloch formula does a great job [compared to everything else that has been offered, and look at this thread we have considered all kinds of stuff]. What is most interesting again is that McCulloch does not use fudge factors or an excessive number of parameters. Actually McCulloch's formula is bare bones: PowerInput, Q, frequency and the geometry: that's all folks. Where does the dielectric requirement come in to his calculation? I don't see it.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 10/08/2014 08:42 pmMulletron.I have decided you need to go back to physics school.Sorry.We will all welcome you when you get back.Farewell and good luck!You're asking me questions here. Anyway, it is clear that superconductors break down in the presence of moving magnetic fields.What kind of magnetic field do you have in the presence of AC?.......MOVING.Edit:Now let's play nice.
...I will try to embiggen my knowledge further.