Superconductivity at room temperature??

[johanfprins]

Mass per unit volume.

For example, when I sardined myself onto the subway this morning, there were, let's say, 200 people in the subway car with me. Take those same 200 people and put them on the subway platform and I wouldn't have to become close, personal friends with any of them.

In other words, the subway car was dense with humans; the platform was not.

There is also a lot of human density in this thread.

Yes, but you used "density" in your analog of flowing water: I want to know why? Are you claiming that the water has a higher density when it flows from one side of your tree to the other side?

 

[johanfprins]

Yes, Johan, we agree with you that if the charge carriers acted at all times like an absolutely rigid body of uniform density ("equal distance and same speed"), there couldn't be any accumulations of charge. That is tautologically obvious - it assumes the conclusion, in fact (since uniform density is what we are discussing).

It does not assume the conclusion: Ohm's law mandates that along a circuit through which an equilibrium current is flowing, just as many charge carriers must enter ANY cross-sectional area as are simultaneously flowing out of the same cross-sectional area: And since the total number of charge-carriers remain constant within the whole circuit, this demands that there cannot be any accumulation of charge-carriers within ANY cross-sectional area along an Ohmic circuit.

Unfortunately for you, neither cars nor charge carriers behave anything like that, as anyone that has ever approached a toll plaza or charged a capacitor knows.

If the charge-carriers behave like cars approaching a toll gate, the current will be slower at the "toll gate". This is not the case when an Ohmic current flows. Use the experiment you yourself has proposed. Measure the magnetic field around and along the iron-copper-iron conductor, and you will find that it is the same at every cross-sectional area, also at the interfaces. So there cannot be a slow-down as you have for cars at a toll gate.

 

[johanfprins]

Why do you need to invoke quantum mechanics at all? Why can't you discuss these simple examples in terms of classical EM?

Since one of the resaons why wave mechanics was founded is exactly because classical EM could not explain the nature of charge-carriers within conductors. When measuring the current one has N "free" charge-carriers that transports it. When, however, measuring the free charge-carriers by measuring their heat capacity it was found that there are only n where n<<<N. This could only be explained (or rather modelled) after Schroedinger postulated his many-body wave equation. Thus to apply classical EM as if one does have N free "electrons" within a conductor is daft and stupid!

Bye for now

 

[D'rok]

I will not dare to insult another person like this unless I do understand the physics involved: Which you do not and never will be able to understand!!

The typical arrogance I have always experienced when I have had to deal with a lawyer!

I received some excellent advice when I was young - beware the self-taught man. There are exceptions of course, but by and large it is a very good rule. Personally, I would never claim to be an expert in a subject that I had taught to myself. You clearly do not feel this restraint, and it shows.

Note: I am not making any claims to understand physics better than you do. I am making the claim I am aware of my misunderstanding while you are not aware of yours. This seems to be typical of physics cranks on this forum.

 

[D'rok]

Then there cannot be any accumulation of water between the two sides.

Water was flowing in one direction. It pooled on both sides.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Dr Prins is still conflating charge density with current density

For a metal, the latter equation is solved under the assumption that during a steady-state, the negative and positive charges screen each other. When an Ohmic current flows through a circuit, you have such a steady-state at every cross-sectional area: Also a cross-sectional area between two different metals. Thus the change of electric-field across such an interface cannot be ascribed to an accumulation of charge-carriers within such an interface. An accumulation is only possible when the charge carriers cannot flow everywhere along the circuit with the same current I.

Absurd! When the same current I flows through all interfaces along the circuit there cannot be any accumulation of charge anywhere along the circuit.

It is not impossible to have charge-carriers accumulating. This happens when you have a capacitor within the circuit; and also Solid State diodes and transistors. The reaction of the circuit is then NON-Ohmic. It is, however, impossible for accumulation to occur when Ohm's law applies along the whole cicuit. An equilibrium current flows uinder these conditions and under equilibrium conditions identical charges will stay as far away from each other as they can.

I have not assumed that the "circuit was always in the steady state". The "many others" asume that you can retain a non-steady-state accumulation after the circuit has relaxed into an Ohmic steady-state: This is unadultertaed claptrap.
Not while a steady-state Ohmic current is flowing.

Mindlessly repeating Prins's Law will not convince anyone other than Johan F Prins.

Dr Prins is continuing to make the same mistakes. In the quotations below, he once again conflates charge density with current density, and compounds that error by claiming (in effect) that constant current density implies constant charge density. There is no mathematical or physical basis for that claim. Constant current density does not imply constant charge density.

It does not assume the conclusion: Ohm's law mandates that along a circuit through which an equilibrium current is flowing, just as many charge carriers must enter ANY cross-sectional area as are simultaneously flowing out of the same cross-sectional area: And since the total number of charge-carriers remain constant within the whole circuit, this demands that there cannot be any accumulation of charge-carriers within ANY cross-sectional area along an Ohmic circuit.

The highlighted statement (which is about charge density) does not follow from the statement preceding the colon (which is about current density).

That last bit, about "accumulation of charge-carriers within ANY cross-sectional area", doesn't even make sense. Accumulation of charge carriers is about charge density, which is about charge per volume, not per area. Evidently Dr Prins is once again conflating charge density (per volume) with current density (which is per area).

If the charge-carriers behave like cars approaching a toll gate, the current will be slower at the "toll gate". This is not the case when an Ohmic current flows. Use the experiment you yourself has proposed. Measure the magnetic field around and along the iron-copper-iron conductor, and you will find that it is the same at every cross-sectional area, also at the interfaces. So there cannot be a slow-down as you have for cars at a toll gate.

The highlighted statement is false. Dr Prins is conflating automobile density (automobiles per kilometer) with traffic density (automobiles per minute). As sol invictus pointed out, constant traffic density does not imply constant automobile density.

To demonstrate that fact with an even simpler scenario, suppose an electromagnetic pulse were to stall out every vehicle on the toll road. Then the traffic density would be constant (because it is zero everywhere), but the automobile density would not be constant (because autos are queued at the toll booth).

As for the constant magnetic field, it implies constant current density. It says nothing about charge density.

 

[D'rok]

Yes, but you used "density" in your analog of flowing water: I want to know why? Are you claiming that the water has a higher density when it flows from one side of your tree to the other side?

I did not. Where did I say the water was denser? I said the water accumulated. In a seperate statement I said you didn't seem to understand the word "density". That statement was in the context of what everone else was saying about charge density.

ETA: As Mr. Clinger says above. Why is he wrong, Johan?

 

[PiedPiper]

Well - I appreciate the reply. Dr. Prins, to my post . We seem to be in agreement about some basic scientific methodology - that you have to challenge your expectations and be ready to admit that your point of view might be wrong. However, even though you gave agreement with me that scientists shouldn't be afraid of this sort of thing etc, from my point of view there still doesn't seem to be enough flexibility in the argument. And this isn't a personal attack, any more than I attack my graduate students when I see them making (insert mistake here). It's a process of aiding them to challenge their expectations and to adjust things based on experimental results, and to realize the gaps in their own knowledge base that they can then address before coming back to the problem and trying again.

What I see in this thread isn't science, not like I know it and have practiced it. Not from all participants in the thread, anyway. Adamantly stating (perhaps using bold font or, the highest expression of outrage, capital letters) that the point of view a person is expressing is correct, isn't science, or even polite discourse.

Verbally "shouting" or "bolding" your written word doesn't make it any more correct, just like shouting in someones face doesn't make the shouter any more correct. Stating how many citations your paper(s) may or may not have doesn't make you any more or less correct. The first paper I published ended up with just over a hundred citations, only 3 of which were from my advisor. I certainly don't count myself as the authoritative last word on that subject! I just happened to write a popular paper. Why is that even being brought up halfway through this thread, with people asking who taught someone else etc. So silly!

This thread started out interesting and then within just a few pages it dissolved into childish name calling, accusations of lying, and the stubborn refusal of certain individuals to even consider that they were wrong. This isn't science. If I saw this going on in the conference room where I work, I'd get up and walk out.

I'll admit, it is rather amusing...science, however, no. This doesn't apply to many people in this thread, but to those it does, please: don't use your credentials to give strength to a *scientific* argument (Dr this, affiliated with this place over there), unless you're prepared to conduct yourself as a scientist: polite, receptive to other views, patiently explaining a phenomenon, changing your opinion based on arguments from other scientists. Otherwise you're just embarrassing the rest of us!

 

[dasmiller]

Within a pipe the pressure is, according to Pascal, everywhere the same

I really don't want to get sidetracked on Pascal's law, but that's not what Pascal's law says. The pressure is 'everywhere the same' only for a pipe whose contents are not moving and are not being differentially influenced by an external field (e.g. gravity).

I have not assumed that the "circuit was always in the steady state". The "many others" asume that you can retain a non-steady-state accumulation after the circuit has relaxed into an Ohmic steady-state: This is unadultertaed claptrap.

Not that I don't find "This is unadultertated claptrap" to be a compelling counterargument, but it seems to me that your Ohmic current argument simply demonstrates that a steady-state current cannot dissipate any accumulated charge.

Not while a steady-state Ohmic current is flowing.
It is, however, claimed on this thread that if there is such a non steady-state charge buildup, this charge buildup will remain after the circuit has relaxed into an Ohmic steady-state: The latter is impossible.

So any transients that occur before before the steady-state must cancel each other out? Why?

Suppose that we have straight piece of wire and we set a charged capacitor near it. The introduction of the capacitor's electric field will cause some transient currents within the piece of wire, causing some charge accumulation within the wire corresponding to the external field. If we then hook a battery up to the wire so that there's a small current flowing through it, is the pre-current charge accumulation completely erased? Will the charge distribution within the wire be exactly the same as it was if there was no external field?

Although the capacitor is leaky, there are not free charges at the position of its Fermi-level. The leakage current is caused by a totally different mechanism involving a combimnation of hopping and dielectric breakdown. Thus, the free charges moving from the metal into the insulator experience a barrier to their motion since there are not charge-carriers within the insulator that has the same energy as the charge-carriers within the metal.

So the whole no-accumulated-charges-in-a-steady-state-circuit applies only to certain modes of conduction? I thought your 'proof' (charge in = charge out) relied strictly on conservation of charge.

Let's take the following 2 cases:
a) A simple circuit consisting of a 1V power supply and a capacitor. The circuit is in steady-state and capacitor leaks 0.0001A.

b) A simple circuit consisting of a 1V power supply, a perfect capacitor, and a 10K resistor across the capacitor. There's a steady-state current of 0.0001A.

I'd have thought that the capacitor would have exactly the same charge in both cases, but you're saying that it would be charged to 0.9999V in Case A but not charged at all in case B?

Let me repeat again: Current flow through materials can ONLY be modelled in terms of Schroedinger's wave mechanics; and to think that the classical laws of electrodynamics then also apply as if the current exists of individual free charges, as in the case for free electrons within a vacuum, is just plain nonsense. A person who reasons like this, just do not understand the most elementary aspects of modern physics.

There are certainly elementary aspects of modern physics for why my understanding is hazy at best.

 

[johanfprins]

Wrong: There is no p-wave. There is a wave function that descibes an electron in a p state.

Then why are there experiments that can trace the charge-density of the matter-waves and find that this density correlates with the calculated intensity of these waves? Why is chemical bondng successfully modelled by assuming that the charge-densities of wave-orbitals correlate with the intensities of these orbitals?

That is not a wave of any kind.

Why not?

In the Copenhagen interpretation this gives a zero probability of the electron being at the center of the atom. In fact electrons in p orbitals have a finite probabity of being within the nucleus since it has a finte extent (d orbital electrons are even worse!).

This is why I find the Copenhagen interpretation a fantasy based on superstition!

All you are doing is rehashing QM combined with a fantasy that the wave function is an actual wave.

I believe that the assumption that a mater-wave is not a real wave is the actual paranormal fantasy!

The problem is that you remain ignorant of the results of the Wheeler delayed choice experiement where the choice of what to measure after the particle passes through the slits determines whether there is interference or not.

Obviously it does, since you change the boundary conditions of the measurement which in turn determine the result that you measure. To conclude from this that what we do at present affects the past, is a pure paranormal, superstitious fanatasy.

In your world there would always be interference and this is shown wrong by the experiment.

Nope! As usual you are wrong again!

Your waves cannot explain the Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester results either.

Oh yes they can!

In your world the bomb will explode 100% of the time as your wave is split into 2 parts and sent along the 2 paths.

Nope! You are wrong again as usual! I have posted that I do not want to address these problems on this thread since this thread should concentrate on modelling superconduction correctly. Suffice to state at this point that my model for the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester does not explode all the live bombs 100% of the time. My model predicts that the Elitzur-Vaidman criterion for determining dud bombs, also rejects some of the live bombs as dud bombs while they are not. When we reach a satisfactory conclusion to our dialogue on superconduction, I will post my interpretation of the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester in terms of wave interactions (no "particles") on this thread if the readers following this thread so desire.

Evoking an imaginary 'resonance' will not help.

When it comes to wave-interactions resonances are not "imaginary" but VERY-VERY real.

 

[johanfprins]

But this doesn't align with the experimental results, does it? As Reality Check said, if a photon were to "split into two sub parts", why wouldn't the functional bomb trigger 100% of the time rather than 50% of the time. Why would the interference pattern vanish from the tester's output when a functional "bomb" is present, even when the bomb's detector does not intercept a photon?

A sub-part of a photon cannot be absorbed by a detector, as Max Planck already found 110 years ago. The two sub-parts must first collapse to form a single photon before this photon can be detected by a detector. It is this "collapse" during a measurement, which correlates with the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen "collapse" of an entangled "multi-component wave". This brings "probability" into the picture. But this probability has nothing to do with the intensity of a matter-wave being a probability distribution.

So let us now first concentrate on modelling superconduction

 

[Reality Check]

johanfprins: Apply Gauss's law correctly to the Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich

It seems that you will never catch on: It is not about “knowing how” to apply Gauss’ law, but about whether one can apply classical electrodynamics to a system that is modelled by Schroedinger’s many-body differential equation.

That is idiotic. Now you are denying that Ohm's Law and Gauss's Law cxan be applied to any system with more than a few atoms !
That is idiotic because

• Ohm's Law is an empirical law derived from observations of the properties of systems with trillions of bodies (which can be modeled by Schroedinger’s many-body differential equation!).
• You have already stated that you think that Gauss's law is can always be applied. "Always" includes a system that is modeled by Schroedinger’s many-body differential equation!

You can apply Ohm's Law and Gauss's Law to any system modelled by any equation. The application is simple, undergraduate physics:

The change in charge density (accumulation of charge carriers) in a Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich.
​

You can easily prove us wrong - just apply Gauss's law correctly to the Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich and show that the charge density at the interface is the same as that within the layers (no accumulation).
Thsi will support your claim

Yes, but you must apply Gauss’ law correctly, and then you will find that at the iron-copper interfaces there CANNOT be any accumulation of the charge carriers at all.

 

[Reality Check]

johanfprins: Your theory predicts that solid, conducting Cu does not exist

Will you give the names of the authors of the two papers who cited you?

Sure since you seem to be unable to do basic research:
AB Kaiser
KDD Rathnayaka, HJ Trodahl, AB Kaiser

If they have energy that can dissipate, they cannot transfer a superconducting current. READ MY MODEL on my website: The kinetic energy is supplied by quantum fluctuations and therefore it is not kinetic energy that can dissipate.

Who cares about a model on a crank web site?
Any one who is so ignorant to think that there are mysterious 'quantum fluctuations' providing kinetic energy (and so violating the conservation of energy) is too ignorant to have a valid physical model.

I have answered this many times AND it is on my website: Let me do it again: They are localised waves (orbitals) like those you find in an insulator after a metal-insulator transition.

A crank web site that cannot get the simplest things right is not a good citations.
Orbitals are not 'localised waves'.
Insulators are not insulators because orbitals exist. They are insulators because there are no states into which electrons can be excited, i.e. there are no allowed energy bands as modeled by the solutions to Schroedinger’s equation.

The rest is just your usual ranting about kinetic energy, etc.

I suggest that you learn some undergraduate physics.
Start with a basic QM textbook that explains orbitals.
Next learn about the various types of bonding, especially in metals (metalic bonds).

Now think carefully about your model and metals like Cu. Electrons are restricted to 'localized orbitals' in your model. They are never in conduction bands (no metallic bonding). They are never shared between atoms (no covalent bonding). There is no ionic bonding since there is just the metal. That leaves weak intermolecular bonding, which make Cu into a molecular solid which it is not (it is not a gas at room temperature, not easily deformable and not an insulator! ).

Of course what we would get from an typical physics crank would be: It is all caused by my fantasy of 'quantum fluctuations" which are not vacuum fluctuations but something else that I made up. The crank might come back with something to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but then this crank would be showing their ignorance yet again - HIP is included in orbitals.

 

[Reality Check]

Then why are there experiments that can trace the charge-density of the matter-waves and find that this density correlates with the calculated intensity of these waves? Why is chemical bondng successfully modelled by assuming that the charge-densities of wave-orbitals correlate with the intensities of these orbitals? Why not?

Because the wave function determines the probability of electrons being measured at a position. Duh !
Even in most non-Cophenhagen interpretaions, it is the wave function that determines the measurement.

Suffice to state at this point that my model for the Elitzur-Vaidman bomb tester does not explode all the live bombs 100% of the time

Suffice to say that this is yet another a unsupported assertion.
If you have actual physical waves (as you imply since what you have is nothing to qo with QM wave functions) and they go along both paths, all of the bombs will explode.
If you have actual physical waves (as you imply) and only one path is taken the 50% of the bombs will explode. Repeat the experiment and 50% of the remainder will explode. Continue repeating and all of the bombs will explode.

If you have some magical 'resonance' then the 'wave' or bomb can always be selected to explode 100% or 50% of the time.

The Elitzur–Vaidman bomb tester experimental results are that you can determine whether 25% of the usable bombs are usable without being consumed in a single run, going to 33% by repeating the experiment.
There is a theoretical proposal (made in 1996 so it may be experimentally veified by now) that allows up to 100% of the bombs to be identified as usable.

 

[Reality Check]

Absurd! When the same current I flows through all interfaces along the circuit there cannot be any accumulation of charge anywhere along the circuit.

Absurd! My analogy nowhere mentions a circuit or a current.

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Think about it this way - take a slinky. Stretch it out evenly so that there is a constant density of coils. Now compress it slightly at some point. There is now 2 different densityies of coils. There has been an accumulation of coils at that point.

And we can show using simple physics that there an change in charge density (an accumulation of charge) at the interfaces in a Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich

The change in charge density (accumulation of charge carriers) in a Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich
​

This uses Ohm's law (an empirical law measured for Cu and Fe wires) and Gauss's Law wich you agree can be always be applied:

Let me try and make it simpler for you: You (johanfprins) wrote on 3rd September 2011:
...


I hope that you can follow the simple English that you wrote.


ETA
You also stated: ...
which (aside being mistaken because you did) implies that Gauss' law is right and can be applied in the situation of a current flowing througt metals with different resistivity (even resistivity = 0) sandwiched together.

 

[johanfprins]

I received some excellent advice when I was young - beware the self-taught man. There are exceptions of course, but by and large it is a very good rule.

Then where have YOU been taught physics so that I should not be VERY VERY wary of you?

Personally, I would never claim to be an expert in a subject that I had taught to myself.

So I again ask you, who taught you physics so that you are so arrogant to think that you can argue against me

You clearly do not feel this restraint, and it shows.

I do not have this restraint at all, since I have studied physics under instruction of thye best schools up to DSc level. One thing you probably do not understand, since studying law only requires remembering and regurgitation like a parrot, is that an education in physics is broad enough that you are afterwards able to study yourself into a new field of physics; even though you have not been instructed by somebody else. Your argument is, as usual, pathetic.

Note: I am not making any claims to understand physics better than you do. I am making the claim I am aware of my misunderstanding

How can you be aware of my understanding if you know less about physics than an ape about religion?

while you are not aware of yours.

I am well aware of mine, and also well aware that my career proves that I am capable of finding faults in mainstream physics dogma. The latter is one of the primary tasks when you practise physics: And I am sure that I know far more about physics than you will ever know. and even more than you know about law.

This seems to be typical of physics cranks on this forum.

So YOU are an expert to see when a person is a physics crank? It is you who are acting like complete arrogant crackpot on this thread.

 

[Reality Check]

So YOU are an expert to see when a person is a physics crank? It is you who are acting like complete arrogant crackpot on this thread.

Actually, D'rok does not need to be an expert.

The symptoms of physics cranks are easily recocognized and you show many of them:

• You have an idea that you have not been able to get past peer-review. So experts in the field think that your theory is wrong.
• You blame this on the reviewers rather than any defects of your theory or its presentation.
• You self-publish a book that purports to overturn physics and is ignored by the physics community.
  That should tell you something about the quality of your theory but you ignore this like any crank would.
• You join an forum abut your unconfirmed experimental result from 2001 and cannot understand or ignore the physics that is presented to you.
• You tend to insult the users of this forum when they reply to you (just read your reply to D'rok).
• You display an amazing amount ignorant of basic physics such as the application of Ohm's and Gauss's law to a simple case of a Cu-Fe-Cu sandwich.
• Your theory predicts physical impossibilities such as non-conservation of energy, that solids do not exist, that charge density does not change (charges accumulate) at resistance changes, etc.
• You have avoided any real mathematical physics so far about the core of your idea (atomic orbitals that are magically smaller than actual atomic orbitals so that do not overlap and some myterious 'quantum fluctuations').
• And the basic physics crank symptom: You mention Galileo (with the implication that you are in a similar position) !
  Extract from your book:
  "They have, however, established an even worse mentality than the one which had resulted in Galileo being put under house arrest by his peers just because he dared to argue that the earth might not be the unique, stationary centre of our universe!"

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I have not assumed that the "circuit was always in the steady state". The "many others" asume that you can retain a non-steady-state accumulation after the circuit has relaxed into an Ohmic steady-state: This is unadultertaed claptrap.

No, those "many others" are not just assuming. They are led to their conclusions by mathematics and physics. Dr Prins has been unable to refute that mathematics and physics, which is why he is repeating his baseless assertions with increasingly colorful language while touting his qualifications and attacking the qualifications of those who disagree with him.

At one point, Dr Prins claimed to have a mathematical argument in favor of Prins's Law. That argument was demolished by several posters, including several who gave simple counterexamples to Dr Prins's mathematical arguments. In this post, I will give a quantitative version of sol invictus's counterexample, which uses automobiles and traffic as analogies for charge carriers and current.

Dr Prins is conflating automobile density (automobiles per kilometer) with traffic density (automobiles per minute). As sol invictus pointed out, constant traffic density does not imply constant automobile density.

Suppose we have a long stretch of straight road, divided into equal thirds, with a speed limit of 120 km/h in the first third, 60 km/h in the second third, and 120 km/h in the last third. Suppose further that all traffic on this road travels at the speed limit. (That's an simplification: We're neglecting the brief periods of deceleration and acceleration that would be necessary, because taking those periods into account would complicate our calculations without changing our conclusions.)

Suppose further that automobiles are seen to enter this long stretch of road at the rate of 1 automobile every 6 seconds, and that automobiles are seen to exit this long stretch of road at exactly the same rate. Let's suppose that this 10 automobiles/minute rate of traffic is constant throughout the entire stretch of road.

Those assumptions are analogous to assuming a constant current through a sandwich of dissimilar conducting materials. According to Prins's Law, those assumptions imply constant charge automobile density all along the long stretch of road. As will be seen, however, assuming a constant rate of traffic implies that the automobile density within the 60 km/h section is twice the density within the 120 km/h section.

Consider the transition from 120 km/h to 60 km/h. The rate of traffic is a constant 10 automobiles per minute, so 10 cars travel through that transition every minute. Successive cars are separated by 6 seconds.

On the 120 km/h side of the transition, that 6-second separation in time implies a separation of 200 m in distance. (At 120 km/h, each car is travelling 2000 meters per minute, which is 200 meters per 6 seconds.)

On the 60 km/h side of the transition, that 6-second separation in time implies a separation of 100 m in distance. (At 60 km/h, each car is travelling 1000 meters per minute, which is 100 meters per 6 seconds.)

When the speed limits differ, a constant rate of traffic (analogous to constant current density) tells us that the automobile density (analogous to charge density) cannot be constant.

That's a simple counterexample to the mathematical arguments Dr Prins has offered in favor of his belief that constant current density implies constant charge density.

Although the automobile analogy above refutes Dr Prins's mathematical arguments quite adequately, it does not (by itself) rule out the possibility that Prins's Law holds for a certain class of conducting materials, such as metals. Although different metals have different drift velocities (just as they have different resistivities), the charge density of conducting metals is normally very close to zero. If the charge density of conducting metals were always exactly zero, then Prins's Law would hold for metals despite the fact that the arguments Dr Prins has advanced in support of that law have been utterly bogus.

We know, however, that the charge density within metals is not always zero. In particular, we can change the charge density within a conducting metal tube by placing it within an electric field directed perpendicular to the main axis of the tube. By the superposition principle, that gives us a clear counterexample to Prins's Law even if the composition of the metal tube is homogeneous. Since Prins's Law fails even for homogeneous materials, it cannot be cited as Dr Prins's sole authority when he is arguing about a sandwich of dissimilar metals.

 

[johanfprins]

Water was flowing in one direction. It pooled on both sides.

Correct! So you are confirming that there was no pooling of water between the two sides. And since you have conceded that the water levels on both sides were the same, this means that there was NO accumulation of water WITHIN the INTERFACE between the two sides. So you are agreeing with me that charge-carriers cannot accumulate within an interface when an Ohmic current is flowing.

 

[johanfprins]

I did not. Where did I say the water was denser? I said the water accumulated. In a seperate statement I said you didn't seem to understand the word "density". That statement was in the context of what everone else was saying about charge density.

Then why did you not say "charge-density". I think you are fibbing: You did use it in the context of water and then somebody told you that the density of water is constant at a constant temperature. OK, what else can I expect: You are a lawyer!

ETA: As Mr. Clinger says above. Why is he wrong, Johan?

I do not read Mr. Clinger's posts since it will be the same as listening to a parrot and thinking that the parrot is having a true discourse with you.

At least, Ben, Ziggurat, Sol and even Reality Check (although he is fast becoming a Clinger) have raised some interesting new aspects which I have had to consider: However, in most cases their arguments have been based on a misundersarnding of physics. Nonetheless, they did help to sharpen my arguments, as those fellow physicists, here in South Africa, who still understand physics, have noticed when I discussed these issues with them. BZS and Reality Check has led to quite a bit of hilarious laughter. Nonetheless they are trying.