superhubert
Member
what does everyone think? if you have to argue whether superconductivity is a new state or not?
the great debate (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter superhubert
- Start date
Yeah i think it should be coz we do have changed properties.
Just the same way that gas and solids have different properties.
Mag fields can no longer penetrate and electrons expreience no resistance, so basicly its a change of state.
Just the same way that gas and solids have different properties.
Mag fields can no longer penetrate and electrons expreience no resistance, so basicly its a change of state.
superhubert
Member
.....or is it just a new pricipal of solids? there is a definite distinction between gasses liquids and solids, but the main difference is the loss of vibrations in the lattice. so it could be argued otherwise. Is aq considered a new state? or is a feature of liquids?
well could this stand for an arguement as a good example ?
Ok say i wanna fly a jet from point A to B wich is 1Km long.
I could either fly thru air (gas state)
or water (liquid state)
one would work the other wouldn't
Now can we compare that to transfering electricity.
I wanna send an electrical current from on end of a wire (A) to the other end (B) wich is 1Km long.
I could transfer it thru copper - and ide get massive loss in power
or I could transfer it thru super conductor - and get minimal to no loss in power.
Just a thought i guess, something i would use to back up the argument.
Ok say i wanna fly a jet from point A to B wich is 1Km long.
I could either fly thru air (gas state)
or water (liquid state)
one would work the other wouldn't
Now can we compare that to transfering electricity.
I wanna send an electrical current from on end of a wire (A) to the other end (B) wich is 1Km long.
I could transfer it thru copper - and ide get massive loss in power
or I could transfer it thru super conductor - and get minimal to no loss in power.
Just a thought i guess, something i would use to back up the argument.