SUPERCONDUCTIVITY – NEWSLETTER FOR PHYSICS
It was my intention to add another article about General Relativity to this newsletter, but this thing was not possible. Modern society has considered my abilities are suitable for a sewage job and after 11 hours of daily work in the field there is little time for science; so the physics version of this newsletter is similar to the chemistry one with some small improvement to the text.
If by any chance you have friends to an US university or at CERN please forward this email to them too. These institutions are still banning my domain and the delivery of any email to their scientists; they are stranded and not all of them are happy with this situation.
The newsletter starts with a shocking situation which has not been observed for more than a century: the Kirchoff’s laws are not respected in case of superconductors’ circuits but who cares!?….
In order to have a current which continues to run into the loop after the source is removed, the incoming current cannot split at the junction so the first law is disrespected.
The second law of Kirchhoff is not respected too. Only the simple fact that, a superconductor loop or coil can store ,,electric energy” and this energy can be released later when it is necessary, should have risen the question: how this thing is possible ? How do we have a closed path and the voltage around this path is zero and yet someone can extract energy in these conditions?
A simple analysis of the practical procedure of storing electric energy into a superconductor coil reveals how both Kirchoff’s laws are discarded even for a schoolboy.
The most obvious characteristic of a superconductor is the complete disappearance of its electrical resistance below a temperature that is known as its critical temperature.
It is considered that quantum theory of superconductivity published in 1957 by John Bardeen, Leon Cooper and John Schrieffer (BCS theory) explains in a satisfactory manner the properties of superconductors and of course this theory received also a Noble prize in 1972.
At a glance and without being a scientist, the BCS theory should have been discarded immediately after publishing. It is a pity that those physicists who proposed this theory for Nobel Prize and implicitly the members of Nobel commission have never heard about the existence of covalent bonds and the existence of superconductibility in semiconductors or even nonmetallic compounds; probably a course in introductory chemistry was necessary for them and this is also necessary for scientists working in the field today.
All non metallic elements (including what physicists define as semiconductors) have covalent bonds between atoms and according to quantum mechanics there is no delocalization of electrons in case of covalent compounds. Probably someone is going to think that such covalent compounds under a certain temperature and pressure are going to become metallic and this case is analyzed too.
The question is: how do we define a metallic state or how do we differentiate a metallic state from a molecular one?
To date, the answer to the question has been a very simplistic one: if molecular structure becomes conductor of electricity it was considered implicitly that a metallic state was attaint.
In the new proposed theory a lot of modified or stressed molecular states are going to acquire some of the properties of a metallic state. The fact a molecular structure becomes conductor or even superconductor at certain temperature is not a sine qua non condition that a metallic state was obtained. There is necessary to have more strict criteria which frame the concept of metallic state and these are presented in the newsletter.
What is the experimental reality in the field? Well to name but a few, in certain conditions phosphorous, iodine, germanium, silicon and even oxygen appears to be superconductors.
From the dependence of the critical temperature Tc on the isotopic mass it was accepted that lattice vibrations and hence electron-lattice interactions are deeply involved in superconductivity. This was considered a fundamental discovery; no other reason has been found to explain the dependency of superconducting transition temperature on the number of neutrons in the nucleus.
In the new proposed theory the dependence of Tc from isotopic mass of atom has another explanation. The nuclei and their movement are like ballast for the superconductivity phenomenon. The decoupling of thermal effect from electrical conductibility effect is going to be dependent on the mass of nuclei and the variation of Tc with isotopic mass appears as natural and logic.
BCS theory is never going to explain why the thermal effect is decoupled from the electric effect.
In order to clear the things in this direction a postulate is going to be formulated and the consequences of this postulate are valid for a larger type of phenomenon not only for superconductibility.
Postulate:
Coherent or incoherent beams/pairs of electrons always lose energy as result of their interaction with matter constituents (nuclei or other electrons).
For the modern science, the magnetic effects around a superconductor are a mix of absurd concepts which produce more confusion than explain something in the field.
Superconductors are considered perfect diamagnetic materials but on the other hand they exhibit quite curious magnetic properties like the ,,levitation of a superconductor above a magnet’’.
The use of term levitation for the succession of experiments up presented is confusing and therefore I am going to avoid the use of this term further on. In our case the effect is more subtle and complex and therefore magnetic anchorage seems to be a more appropriate term. If the magnet is displaced laterally, the new magnetic material follows the magnet. If the entire system is turned upside down, the new magnetic material still remains anchored to the magnet
From the perspective of the new theory this is a completely new effect in science and only a conceptual explanation is offered.
The correct interpretation of these properties cannot be done without some new concepts already presented into previous newsletters. i.e. the new concepts for chemical bonds, for electric current and for temperature.
The explanation of magnetic anchorage is quite banal: in the superconductor material there is a succession of antiparallel orientated magnels (electron magnetic moments).
When such superconductor material is placed into a magnetic field, these magnels executes a precession motion around the direction of the magnetic field.
Supplementary half of the magnels are attracted toward magnet and half of them are repelled due to their relative orientation; in this way the interaction between a magnet and a superconductor material is a simultaneously attraction and repulsion and this fact generate the anchorage.
Last but not least last section present a ,,letter for the future” and this letter is going to be send to most academia around the world. It is necessary to be done as a proof of evidence for the future that someone rang the bell for an alarming situation and none bothered to take measures.
Letter for the future - Getting support for changing the world….
For some people the content of this letter and the imminence of some corrective actions may seem not necessary. In few yeas the situation is going to be completely different and the future will have to answer to a very basic question: how this thing was possible?
How do we continue to repeat the errors of history and although we think we have built a democratic and progressist society, in reality the opposite is true: each time some people get in power they seize the power and reject any inconvenient truth. The progress of human society would be better assessed by observing the sophistication of repression methods in different epochs and not looking for some devices built in that time.
Another striking reality is the worst for the modern society though: truth has no intrinsic value at all; what has value is the appearance of truth and how someone can get around facts and present them into a convincing and convenient manner.
As you may already know, a new technology of producing electricity emerged on the market as result of a single individual contribution; supplementary, a new ,,all in one electrical generator” has also been invented.
It was not possible to publish this new technology in the official journals and therefore it has been published online.
With some small structural modifications and changing the working fluid, a common power plant can multiply its output keeping the same input of materials and workforce; needles to say the impact of this technology on climate change, environmental pollution and electricity price.
How long do we need to damage our planet until such simple technology gets implemented?
I wrote a letter to the DG Energy at the European Commission, but they are busy organizing meetings about topic and not looking for solutions. Other letters were sent to some companies involved in electricity production but to date only one bothered to answer. Its answer is very straightforward: they are not interested to finance and promote a new technology of energy production.
I would like to get the support of your institution for further developing and implementing this new technology into practice.
Previously requests made to some Nobel Committee or other research organizations have been either ignored or received a negative answer. As far these are private organization, their option has to be respected. They overplayed their hand and they have to leave the scene of science soon.
I hope to get a positive answer from Swedish Academy though, as far this institution represents the interest of a nation.
Although part of my ideas is free to read on internet, it does not mean the new proposed theory is going to be offered for free.
An investment into this theory now could mean important discounts in the future for your nation.
Modern society with its democratic but irresponsible structures destroyed my entire scientific carrier and implicitly my existence. You cannot imagine what it really means to be an east European scientist unwanted by a wealthy and influential western society.
I will never become the scientist I wanted to be, but at least I want to be sure that such things are not going to be repeated in the future. It is my firm intention to use the intellectual rights of this theory as a lever in order to perform important changes in what we call ,,modern society”.
If you think you can afford waiting another time interval until muddy waters are settled, please think again!
Anyone who wants to use the new proposed theory as basis for future research and development has to know that fees are to be paid from the moment the theory was already ready for publishing and not from the moment someone endorses it. As example, the theory of gravitation was ready for publishing in 1995 and atomic structure in 2000. Someone who is going to change gears toward my theories in 2030, it has to pay backwards the fees from 1995 respectively 2000 for the up reminded theories.
You can judge by yourself the value of the new proposed theory if you analyze a simple statistic with expenses dedicated to exact sciences and other related sciences for your nation in the last two decades.
If a nation or an entire society have afforded to spend hundreds of billions on stupidities and absurdities, by sure they have to learn the price for some valuable things.
Otherwise, there is the option to wait until my intellectual rights finish, i.e. more than a century in the future.
It is going to be the end of an entire world but not the end of the world. It is your option to make at least a good impression for the last meters of the race and prepare the future of your nation.
The warming up period for publishing has finished and now it is high time to enter into the field with the heavy artillery. There is going to be a series of newsletters which are going to shatter what has remained (if any!) from what we call modern science.
Here is a short list of topics which are already in progress:
- Superconductivity
- Electric discharges and quantum absurdity
- Photoelectric effect and quantum absurdity
- New theory of electrolytic dissociation
- Time, relativity and reality
- The combustible of the future
- Our solar system evolution
- Earth and its geology
- States of matter
- Temperature and relativity
- Ohm law and resistivity concept
- Cooling with lasers and quantum absurdity-The true face of Bose Einstein condensate
- Supernovae and universe expansion
- Pulsars and relativity
- Brownian motion
- Diffusion laws
…and the list is going to be updated ….
I am looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely
Sorin Cosofret
