[Prev] [Top] [Next]


Chapter 3: About theoretical questions(OLD VERSION)
Section 1
About the law of action and reaction

This experimental device isn't against the law of action and reaction. Lorentz force acts on super electron pairs of a superconductive magnet according to the law of action and reaction. But, the acting Lorentz force can't move the super electron pairs. An electric motor is using a similar phenomenon. The motor turns a pivot and gives rotary kinetic energy. Then, the motor itself must rotate when it follows the law of action and reaction. Nevertheless, its main body doesn't counter rotate. It is owing to the weight of the motor and fixing it to the floor. The momentum order only plays a part in the motor's weight and fixing.

Section 2
About the increase of entropy

I answer as follows to the question whether my device creates energy with good quality without increasing entropy and that is against the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Like motors, reaction has occurred but my device is only neutralizing it by using another force. Also, my device consumes electric power like motors. The refrigerators and ripple current consume electric power. Do you think that by my device you can get better energy than usual case A where Lorentz force remains? I attempt to compare case A with case B considering the existence or non-existence of neutralizing Lorentz force. It is possible to say case A is more excellent if seeing the whole physically. Because, as long as the action and the reaction occur separately, it can be thought that case A makes twice as much kinetic energy in the natural world as case B. And, I have no intention to say that Lorentz force doesn't occur at all. From the viewpoint of usefulness for human beings, truly useful case is B of my device. But it is from the viewpoint of usefulness for human beings from first to last. And it is not from the physical viewpoint. Also, standing at the viewpoint of using Lorentz force and its reaction, case A is better from the viewpoint of usefulness for human beings.
As above described, you cannot say case B is physically more excellent than case A. Then, I am comparing the case where the Lorentz force is neutralized by the characteristic of superconductivity with usual case where the Lorentz force is left. It is admitted that the usual case where the Lorentz force is left is not contrary to physical rules such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics as long as Fleming's left-hand rule is right. Therefore, I think that my device which uses case B less excellent than case A is not contrary to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

[ Figure 4 ]


Section 3
About circular electric currents

"To treat superconductive bodies where vortexes are stored as just like homogeneous one is a problem. Around vortexes, the momentum of Cooper pairs isn't uniform. Most of net electric currents in the 2nd kind superconductive bodies are caused by the gradient of vortex density. Around vortexes, a part of Cooper pairs becomes circular electric currents. As for the rest of the Cooper pairs, the speed of barycenter motion is zero. But net circular electric currents don't become zero when there is the concentration gradient of the vortexes. The circular electric currents become the net electric current of the whole macro superconductor. In the meaning, when handling a net electric current, in any case, if thinking of homogeneous superconductor, our discussion doesn't stand up."
As for this question, I answer as follows.
Surely the net electric current is caused by the concentration gradient of vortexes and you use the material of the 2nd kind un- homogeneous superconductor to secure the net electric current. Also, there are Cooper pairs with different momentum around the vortexes. However, it is only the net electric current that becomes a problem with my device and the other Cooper pairs don't become a problem. The net electric current, Cooper pairs of the supercurrent, are doing barycenter motion with the same momentum and can change only all together.
Why don't the Cooper pairs which don't compose the net electric current become a problem? The reason is the following. It is the strong net electric current that is making the strong magnetic field in the outside of superconductor. The strong magnetic field made by the strong net current makes Lorentz force to the cable. I am making Lorentz force acting on the net electric current as reaction a problem. Then, as long as a circular electric current composes a permanent electric current when it composes a net electric current and becomes a part of the net electric current, it rightly follows the momentum order. The supercurrent follows the momentum order. Otherwise observed supercurrents would be attenuated. When you think that circular electric currents which remain by the gradient of vortex density are all of the net current, they are exactly the permanent electric current, supercurrent. When you think a part of the circular electric currents composes the net electric current, if you think the circular electric currents don't follow the momentum order, it disturbs the momentum order of remaining supercurrents and the observed supercurrents would be attenuated.
There is an opinion to "It disturbs the momentum order of remaining supercurrents and the observed supercurrents would be attenuated." as follows.
"If vortexes are stored, the motion itself of Cooper pairs is changing locally. The kinetic energy is increasing as much as that. However, it is necessary to be careful of energy dissipation's not occurring with the other Cooper pairs. Also, it can be thought that the supercurrent to the direction of the length of the coil is carried through the wire rods by the circular electric currents themselves around the vortexes. Because as a whole the circular electric current isn't canceled out by the gradient of the vortex distribution."
I answer this as follows.
The circular electric current, too, is the permanent electric current which will not be attenuated. As long as it is a permanent electric current, it follows the momentum order not to be attenuated. Then, in my theory, it may neutralize the local influence of the magnetic fluxes, too. That is, I think that the circular electric current is a micro superconductive magnet, and that it may neutralize the influence of the magnetic fluxes like usual superconductive magnets through which macro supercurrents flow. As the circular electric current follows the momentum order, it can compose the macro supercurrent which follows the momentum order, without contradiction.
Then, as the direction of motion of the macro supercurrent is changing with circulating through the coil, you cannot help generalizing its direction as the direction of the way for the electric current. Then, I think that the circular electric current, too, can be incorporated as the way for the electric current, as the shunt current of the macro electric current. That is, I think that the net electric current and the circular electric current compose one circuit in a body in the superconductive coil and that they as a whole follow the momentum order.
Also, the branching and joining between the circular electric currents and the net electric current, or the branching and joining between the circular electric currents are described as follows. That is, the net electric current flows through the direction of the tangent line to the circular electric current and it branches in the point of tangency. At the point of tangency the direction of the net electric current and the circular electric current agrees with the direction of the tangent line. As they are in another part of the circuit except the point of tangency, they may change their direction like the macro supercurrent.
In the same way, between the circular electric currents, they exchange an electric current at the point of tangency.


☆Section 4
Comparison of ripple current and alternating current at my equipment

The ripple current is very low voltage at my equipment. Therefore, the power of the wave motion of the magnetic field by the ripple current becomes weak and has no bad influence on the superconductive magnet unlike an usual alternating current has. If comparing the ripple current which I think of with an alternate current which have the same voltage with it, following points are different from the alternating current.
1.
As for the half of the time when the ripple current flows, the electric current is zero. Therefore, the temporal leeway that makes the regulation of the momentum order succeed is given. I think, on the other hand, the leeway that makes the regulation of the momentum order succeed is not given when the alternating current flows since continuously the electric current whose direction turns flows.
2.
The ripple current has only either positive or negative ingredient. And the direction of lines of magnetic force which the ripple current gives to the superconductive magnet is constant. On the contrary, the alternating current has both positive and negative ingredients. And the direction of lines of magnetic force which the alternating current gives turns. I think that the turning of the lines of magnetic force becomes a problem for the "pinning" of the magnetic flux of the superconductive magnet. The magnetic flux is penetrating into the superconductive coil, it acts on the eternal current, and the electromagnetic force generates. And the "pinning" prevents the magnetic flux from moving towards outside in response to the electromagnetic force and keeps the superconductivity.
Thinking of the electromagnetic force when the magnetic field of an alternate current is given to the superconductive magnet, this magnetic flux is thought to be a vector made by combining the flux of the superconductive magnets with the flux of the alternate current as a vector. In case of the alternating current, it is to think of the flux before and after the turning of the lines of magnetic force. Then, the change of the strength of the lines of magnetic force by the change of the strength of the alternating current, i.e. the change of the length of the vector of the lines of magnetic force is added to this. It is to think of the change of the direction of the combined vector in this case.
On the other hand, in case of the ripple current, it is not to think of the turning of the lines of magnetic field but to think of the change of the strength of the lines of magnetic force by the change of the strength of the ripple current, i.e. the change of the length of the vector of the lines of magnetic force. As for the ripple current, too, it is to think of the change of the direction of the combined vector.
When thinking of the angle of the change of the direction of the move of this combined vector, the average of the case of the alternating current can be said to be twice the case of the ripple current. Since the direction of the eternal electric current is constant, the change of the direction of the lines of magnetic force causes a change of the direction of the electromagnetic force. In case of the alternating current, the change of the direction of twice of the angle of the ripple current occurs continuously and the force by the magnetic field of the alternating current is continuously added to the "pinning". I think that this increases the danger that the "pinning" becomes invalid and that a crucial problem occurs to the superconductivity. On the other hand, in case of the ripple current, I think that the "pinning" can keep its effect because the change of the direction of the lines of magnetic force is 1/2 of the alternating current, and the force by the magnetic field of the ripple current is added intermittently to the "pinning".
I think that above differences are important at my equipment. With these differences, the continuous alternating current which has both positive and negative ingredients makes a problem for the superconductivity of the superconductive magnet, but the intermittent ripple current of very low voltage which has either positive or negative ingredient makes my equipment function.


[Prev] [Top] [Next]