3 ms·

I like the idea a lot and am not criticizing this article, it's author, or the concept, but a few quick "minor corrections" if I might: >"Superconductors — mat

I like the idea a lot and am not criticizing this article, it's author, or the concept, but a few quick "minor corrections" if I might: >"Superconductors — materials that conduct electricity without resistance" "Superconductors — materials that conduct high amperages at low voltages without heat" >"Most metals lose resistance and become superconducting at extremely low temperatures, usually just a few degrees above absolute zero." Most metals, even small cross-sections -- can already conduct huge amounts of amperage -- but the electricity so passing must be conditioned so as to be at a high enough voltage -- to prevent heating effects. A good example of this would be a high-voltage transmission line; those tall steel towers carrying aluminum cables. The amount of electricity that they carry is enough to melt a small building -- but the cables themselves, despite being much smaller in diameter, never melt -- why is that? -- this is because the electricity is at high voltage... So is metal with electricity running through it at high voltage a superconductor? Technically not, because there are power losses over long enough distances. Also, it would not surprise me if everything (every metal that is, and possibly non-metals as well) -- becomes superconducting at a few degrees above zero... In other words, superconductivity -- might be more of a property of temperature -- than it is of the underlying material... Now, combine that idea with the idea that electricity can be conditioned in various ways to enable greater degrees of conductivity (voltage is one, frequency is another) -- without heat -- and then we might have a larger understanding of the underlying Physics... That being said (and I hope it was not taken as a criticism -- it was not intended to be!), I do like and appreciate very much the idea of superconducting nanowire!

BenjiWiebe 6y ago
Personally, I find the original more accurate and clear.
peter_d_sherman 6y ago
I'm even going to "double down" on my position on this, despite the downvote... My position, on this, is that Scientists, Physicists, in the future, should create tables, matrices, where they test every single element and compound, and they test conductivity at all temperatures -- but they also do this with A/C current at different frequencies and voltages. So we're looking at the combination of material, temperature, frequency, and voltage. Now that would be one hell of a research experiment, should it ever take place. But from the tables/matrices so generated -- now you could start to work on an equation or series of equations for those things, which should (hopefully) be simpler and more interrelated than the ones today, and could potentially give some insight into the atomic sub-structure of materials... Oh, and then there are the crystalline patterns of materials -- that should be included as a criteria too in these tables/matrices. Also -- if someone doing this in the future really wanted to "go for broke" -- they'd import the concept of electrical impedance, and the concept of circuit halving, too. Simple example, an LC coil (that is, a circuit which is broken into two halves, one half inductor/coil (L), and one half capacitor (C) -- is a circuit with two halves). Well, different circuits have different forms of impedance along these "lines of halving". The goal, if someone truly wanted to understand electricity -- would be to create as many different types of "circuit halves" within a whole circuit, then measure these with respect to material, temperature, frequency, etc., etc. -- as described above... A person so doing... would probably discover some interesting things... Or at least might be able to refine existing disparate formulas into something a bit simpler and more holistic... So, downvote if you will! Remember that in the history of scientists, yesterday's crackpots -- are tomorrow's genuises! <g>

BenjiWiebe 6y ago

Personally, I find the original more accurate and clear.

peter_d_sherman 6y ago

I'm even going to "double down" on my position on this, despite the downvote... My position, on this, is that Scientists, Physicists, in the future, should create tables, matrices, where they test every single element and compound, and they test conductivity at all temperatures -- but they also do this with A/C current at different frequencies and voltages. So we're looking at the combination of material, temperature, frequency, and voltage. Now that would be one hell of a research experiment, should it ever take place. But from the tables/matrices so generated -- now you could start to work on an equation or series of equations for those things, which should (hopefully) be simpler and more interrelated than the ones today, and could potentially give some insight into the atomic sub-structure of materials... Oh, and then there are the crystalline patterns of materials -- that should be included as a criteria too in these tables/matrices. Also -- if someone doing this in the future really wanted to "go for broke" -- they'd import the concept of electrical impedance, and the concept of circuit halving, too. Simple example, an LC coil (that is, a circuit which is broken into two halves, one half inductor/coil (L), and one half capacitor (C) -- is a circuit with two halves). Well, different circuits have different forms of impedance along these "lines of halving". The goal, if someone truly wanted to understand electricity -- would be to create as many different types of "circuit halves" within a whole circuit, then measure these with respect to material, temperature, frequency, etc., etc. -- as described above... A person so doing... would probably discover some interesting things... Or at least might be able to refine existing disparate formulas into something a bit simpler and more holistic... So, downvote if you will! Remember that in the history of scientists, yesterday's crackpots -- are tomorrow's genuises! <g>