Super-conductor B-field modulator

• Super-conductor B-field modulator by goran d on 29 Oct, 2018 13:21
• Im posting this idea that I posted on one Bulgarian forum years ago.
  One of the participants of the Bulgarian forum said that he tested it and it worked, but there was too much heat going into the coolant and therefore would have C.O.P. <1 even though it has efficiency >1 (by energy).
  We have a circular sheet of super-conductor, very thin, say, a micron. Type I super-conductor.
  There is a magnet next to it, and a coil. There is radiator of tracks of wire placed on the super-conductor sheet behind an insulator layer.
  We heat up the sheet and let it cool down periodically, and switch the magnetic flux on and off. The energy per switch is approximately:
  B_c² r³ / 6
  In Gaussian cgs units which greatly exceeds the heat capacity of the sheet.
  We can change the temperature by only a little.
  However, according to this guy it was still a net loss because cooling helium has a very low C.O.P.
  
• #1 by meberbs on 30 Oct, 2018 18:32
• Again you are talking about something with a bunch of simplifying assumptions. Switching between regular and super-conductivity is a phase transition. The energy content of the material before and after are different. Since the transition involves electromagnetic properties, the presence of a magnetic field also alters the energy state. Account for this and it will all add up. Also, when you get down to within 1 micron, you are getting near the penetration depth of the magnetic field (which is not truly 0, even for superconductors.)
  
  When working with theories such as electromagnetism, that are known to conserve energy, some simple steps to find where you made a mistake:
  -Take a simple version of your system, put it in a hypothetical otherwise empty universe
  -Add up the total energy in that hypothetical universe for each step in your process
  -When you get to a step where the answer changes, it means you made a mistake in either the before or after portions
  
  You seem to have not taken the advice I gave last time I responded to you, so I will repeat it here in case you missed it. There is an apparently unlimited amount of unscientific nonsense available on the internet, and it is not worth anyone trying to debunk all of it, especially blatant ones that have no supporting evidence. (Also, for this site, if you don't specify a spaceflight application, random threads about supposed "new physics" are off topic.)
  
  

  Quote from: meberbs on 04 Oct, 2018 18:40

  If you want to learn about electromagnetism, that is good, and I'd encourage it, but this is a consistent theory, which conserves energy and momentum in general. Trying to find and poke holes in it will teach you about the theory as you learn why the holes you think of don't exist, but it is a painful, slow and inefficient way to learn about it. Since it is known to be consistent, trying to poke holes in it because you want there to be holes in it is just a waste of time though.