(...) But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.
My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.
My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.
What are you talking about ? Your new electron ?
Conductivity is the inverse of resistance so it will be infinite for a superconductor.
Also there is a limit of how much current you can pass through a super conductor and if you exceed that it becomes a normal conductor same as if the critical temperature is exceeded.
What happens if we put the electron inside a small copper box - does it still feel the same forces? (I think no) Does the copper box feel any force? (I think yes). So if the copper box was able to move it would move while the electron inside the box stays still, as it has no forces acting on it.
The electron would repel the electrons of the copper box. So the inside of the box would have a positive surface charge and the outside would have a negative surface charge. This results in a force on the electron, attracting it to the box.
In general, charged objects are attracted to neutral objects.
The electron would repel the electrons of the copper box. So the inside of the box would have a positive surface charge and the outside would have a negative surface charge. This results in a force on the electron, attracting it to the box.
In general, charged objects are attracted to neutral objects.
He used the electron just as an indication of an electric field inside the box induced by the two charged external plates. It is a theoretical example where electron is exactly in the middle of the box.
In his example there will be higher density of electrons on the top side of the box than on the bottom side but there will be no electric field inside the box if we ignore/remove that electron from the middle of the box.
Sorry I do not remember if you express your opinion. Is the electrical energy flowing through wire or outside the wire?
How does an antenna get energy to couple to the receiver?
Derek circuit is not at DC (it's a mind trick), the effect he talks about is at ~1m wavelength (and you can see it on the oscilloscope).
The reason why I used 300 Mhz in a 0.1 mm wire is to get a similar ratio between current depth and wire radius in a copper and superconductor wire.
Derek set out to show that energy is in the fields for a DC circuit. He uses the initial transient to drive his point home because the energy that reaches the load before the time length/c cannot come from the cables.
Are you suggesting that even when the transient has subsided the only current in the cable is that on the surface? My take is that Derek uses the term superconductor to mean "let's not consider the resistance in the wires" and not "let's use an exotic material cooled with liquid helium all the way to the Moon".
What if the cables had a total resistance for their entire lenght of 1 microohm? Would you still consider the current as only surface current, after say 10 seconds since the switch is closed?
QuoteDefinitely not in Lewin's. He says E=B=0 inside the superconductor, one of the most well-known fact (or "fact") about them.
If Lewin wanted, he could have taken a wire with a 50 cm thick copper wire, or 5 cm steel wire with a more reasonable size so that it works at 1Hz.
It is, after all, a thought experiment.As far as the coil or the magnet is moving, I don't see a difference between the behavior of a perfect conductor and a superconductor. The difference come with the static field, but a static B field won't be able to induce a current. So, if the induced electric field had no way to penetrate the perfect conductor (because of the surface current killing it in the cradle), Lewin's experiment should lead to the same result both for perfect conductors and superconductors.
I still think Lewin is using the term superconductor to mean "no resistance whatsoever in the material" and not as something his JEE students should elaborate on.
Derek only asked a question on the transient, hence my comment.
If you have 300000 km of wire with a DC resistance of 1 µohm, let's say you have a wire radius of 1 cm so the resistivity is 10^-18 Ohm m (1 billionth copper's).
The skin depth at 0.1 Hz is 1.6 µm, which definitely looks like surface current no?
After a few years (~ nHz) the current will penetrate the core of the wire.
My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.This is a reductio ad absurdum, by which you have disproved your own thesis.
My problem is that my new (electon) electricity needs the photons (electons) propagating along the outside surface of a wire to hug the wire, due to a slowing on the near sides.
These electons also heat the wire due to resistance.
If a perfect conductor has zero resistance then there will be no heating. But, according to my theory, if there is zero resistance then there will be zero or very little hugging effect.
Hence a perfect conductor would have zero conductance. Zero conductance is in effect infinite resistance. Hence zero resistance gives infinite resistance.
And thencely comes the madness.What are you talking about ? Your new electron ?
Conductivity is the inverse of resistance so it will be infinite for a superconductor.
Also there is a limit of how much current you can pass through a super conductor and if you exceed that it becomes a normal conductor same as if the critical temperature is exceeded.
Re my new (electon) electricity u should search electon (on this forum) & find my descriptions (at least 200 posts).
I have never looked very closely at superconductor theory.
But the frailty of superconduction might help my thinking re the role played by my electons.
A supposed disproof of my electons will turn out to be a proof, once again. Its fun being a genius. Waking up in bed is the best part, that first second or two when it dawns that u are so smart (& sometimes hungover).
Re my new (electon) electricity u should search electon (on this forum) & find my descriptions (at least 200 posts).
I have never looked very closely at superconductor theory.
But the frailty of superconduction might help my thinking re the role played by my electons.
A supposed disproof of my electons will turn out to be a proof, once again. Its fun being a genius. Waking up in bed is the best part, that first second or two when it dawns that u are so smart (& sometimes hungover).
Give me a short definition of what an (electon) is.
Something like the definition for an electron which is a negatively charged subatomic particle.
Searching on the forum for electon will result in a lot of typos that people made when they wanted to say electron.
neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).
An electon is a photon that is propagating along a surface (wire).
Photons have 5 existences --
free photons --
semi-confined (electons) --
confined (electrons O)(photons orbiting a nucleus) --
free electrons (electrons L)(photons that have formed a loop, biting their tail) --
neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).
An electon is a photon that is propagating along a surface (wire).
Photons have 5 existences --
free photons --
semi-confined (electons) --
confined (electrons O)(photons orbiting a nucleus) --
free electrons (electrons L)(photons that have formed a loop, biting their tail) --
neutrinos (photons that have formed pairs)(sharing the same helical central axis)(180 deg out of phase).So you say the (electon) is a boson but is not one of the 5 we know about else you will not rename it. Is that so ?
Do this (electons) exists at all times and are they found only along the wire surface? Are they present only in or on the surface of metals ?
What is the role of this (electons) ?
Since an imbalance of electrons gets you electrical potential that we measure in (Volts) and a stream of electrons is electrical current that we measure in (Ampers).
I don’t study standard particle physics. The fundamental particle is the photon. This makes everything we feel & see (except for gravity).
Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
If an electon jumps off a surface it becomes a free photon.
If an electon jumps off a surface onto a nucleus then it becomes an orbiting electon. I wrongly called it an orbiting photon before, which it is (ie electons are photons).
There is no such thing as an orbiting electron.
Volts & Amperes are due to my electons.
However, i am ok with 3 kinds of electricity on/in a wire.
My electons.
Free electrons moving along outside a surface (wire).
Free electrons moving along inside a wire.
They might all contribute to Voltage & Amperage.
U should read the papers by Forrest Bishop, re V & I.
And read the stuff by Ivor Catt.
However, neither Forrest nor Ivor mention my electons.
I don’t study standard particle physics. The fundamental particle is the photon. This makes everything we feel & see (except for gravity).
Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.
If an electon jumps off a surface it becomes a free photon.
If an electon jumps off a surface onto a nucleus then it becomes an orbiting electon. I wrongly called it an orbiting photon before, which it is (ie electons are photons).
There is no such thing as an orbiting electron.
Volts & Amperes are due to my electons.
However, i am ok with 3 kinds of electricity on/in a wire.
My electons.
Free electrons moving along outside a surface (wire).
Free electrons moving along inside a wire.
They might all contribute to Voltage & Amperage.
U should read the papers by Forrest Bishop, re V & I.
And read the stuff by Ivor Catt.
However, neither Forrest nor Ivor mention my electons.I see you are the version of flat earthers. I had the correct idea about you initially but just wanted to make sure.
How does an antenna get energy to couple to the receiver?
Transmitter antenna is one plate of the capacitor and the receiver is the the other plate of the same capacitor.
Far-field E (electric) and B (magnetic) field strength decreases as the distance from the source increases, resulting in an inverse-square law for the radiated power intensity of electromagnetic radiation. By contrast, near-field E and B strength decrease more rapidly with distance: the radiative field decreases by the inverse-distance squared, the reactive field by an inverse-cube law, resulting in a diminished power in the parts of the electric field by an inverse fourth-power and sixth-power, respectively. The rapid drop in power contained in the near-field ensures that effects due to the near-field essentially vanish a few wavelengths away from the radiating part of the antenna.
Electonists are the opposite – we have one at present (me) – but praps in the end everyone will be an electonist.
This is just plain wrong.
Look up near field and far field:
Sredni Naej electrodacus & Everybody & Co.
What is a wire that has zero resistance?
What is a wire that is a perfect conductor?
What is a wire that is a superconductor?
What are the differences?
Electons are only found on a surface (& on a nucleus). Probly only on metals. Or possibly on any conductor.