http://www.physorg.com/news3496.html

Of course half are missing it is a patterned matrix like a 3d chequer board. In the superconducting state these patterns are re-aligned to produce rows with no electrons and rows that are all electrons hence superconductivity hence the very directional nature. wheres the problem?

AR

Phil takes in article and is thinking, thermoeletrical relays from inside of fusion torus?

What if they made mini-toruses?

AR, you know *** about superconductivity. Ever hear of Cooper pairs? What happens is you take a spin 1/2 time forward electron and a spin 1/2 time reverse electron, put them together, and you get a spin 1 boson, which loses ALL particle aspects. Hence, you can have an infinite number of cooper pairs in the same space-time. These pairs act just like light, except they flow at the speed of sound. And no, the world is not made of rubik's cubes. g'day.

Oh, and btw, the Pauli exclusion principle is misunderstood by all but a select few. The limitation is in the measurement. It is NOT a characteristic of nature. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to have their head examined.

^ You forgot an asterisk.

AR#2, on Mar 29, stated, "Oh, and btw, the Pauli exclusion principle is misunderstood by all but a select few."

Inasmuch as I earned my B.Sc. in Physicsalmost 54 years ago, I find myself wondering in just what way the Pauli Exclusion Principle is misunderstood by all but a select few?

What I recall is that no system can have more that one particle with the same quantum numbers. I can't remember just what constituted a system, however.

Care to reaquaint me, AR#2?

AR#2

Yes and of course you have all the answers. You want to read the results of the work, read what they say, they have the answers but dont understand them. Its your type of comments which make any discussion here a waste of time.

there are individuals talking of teleportation with no foundations whatsoever but people like yourself are not even prepared to consider suggestions on current work or conceive that there may be answers other than yours.

I would imagine you are a book reader, if it isnt written down it cant be true, for you. You are either decrepid or 5 years old, which?

The recent spate of article say that the experimenters DO NOT understand the principles despite all their fancy kit and work so dont tell me you do!

Try thinking for once, its qite amazing. everthing about the work says pairs, says only half of the material can be paired is very directional all the work description are describing a lattice structure, which in its normal state has no contiguous pathways, these are re-aligned by cuprite action or supercooling, forming alternate rows of solid and clear rows i.e. holes that align themselves. to produce superflow. if the activation energy is too great the alignment is destroyed again simply because the components of the matrix are being pushed into alignment of the next row.

Let me describe the effects this will give and you check them against the results:

Very direction foward or reverse allowed along the same vector lets call this the x axis.
no flow in the y or x axis

z because in a close packed situation only x will produce lines z wont.
y because alternate layers above and below the current layer do not produce allignment at the same single spacial movement.

There are so many articles based on results that imply that this is correct I am amazed at your comments. However, there are so many workers in the field who only consider their own work without relating it to that done by others its not suprizing.

Try thinking afresh forget all the preconceived idea's, and you just might get somewhere.

AR

Let's say you have a collision between two particles. Some people will say that, due to the P.E.P., you will not be able to predict exactly how those particles will deflect. I say bullcrap on that. The P.E.P. only deals with the fact that, because on the quantum level we have to use particles to 'see' other particles, whenever we try measure something we inherently change it. I am confident if we could make a 'neutrino microscope' (or using a similar small particle) we would be able to see much more detail that currently thought possible.

QUOTE

Care to reaquaint me, AR#2?