# Can superconductivity be faked by using precise mathematics in a simulated circuit & specific materials in an actual circuit? [closed]

A type of electrical amplifier is proposed in which only magnetism and it’s analogous current exists for the most part. There is no voltage and no wattage (to speak of) in which electricity has to noticeably exhibit Ohms Law. Once connections are made to an outside appliance, voltage appears, because none of the junctions in and around the load are shorted with each other nor with ground. But all of the nodes of the power supply section of the circuit are shorted with each other. So there are only two nodes in the power supply, the ground node on one terminal of the sine wave generator and the common node among all of the inductors on the other terminal of the sine wave generator.

Self shorting all of the nodes (in common with each other) eliminates the effectiveness of utilizing any diodes, capacitors, or spark gaps. Only inductors have any relevance in this type of circuit.

Since there is no electrical throughput except through the sine wave generator, mutual inductance has to be precisely tuned. And self inductance also has to be structured a certain way as shown below…

Given a pair of coils (#1), and another pair of coils (#2), and a single coil (#3), and the following magnetic couplings among them:

• Coupling #1 is between coils #1 and coils #2.

• Coupling #2 is between coils #1 and coil #3.

• Coupling #3 is between coils #2 and coil #3.

• Coupling #1 is greater than or equal to the golden ratio of 0.618… (e.g. 0.99).

• Coupling #2 is precisely the square root of the difference between unity and coupling #1: $$\sqrt{(1 - 0.99)} = \sqrt{(0.01)} = 0.1$$, or 10%

• Coupling #3 is precisely the cube of the difference between unity and coupling #1... ie, (1 - 0.99)^3 = (0.01)^3 = 0.000001, or 0.0001%.

What are the chances of effectively replicating super conductance (without altering temperature) by shorting out all of the nodes among all of these five coils and connect this common node to the output of a sine wave generator operating at 1 µV and a frequency of 1 MHz?

I am assuming that the simulator environment (of a Micro-Cap circuit from Spectrum-Soft) is both theoretical and logical to assume that anything is possible within that environment and limited to that environment with no guarantees outside of that environment making it highly theoretical - not necessarily probable, nor possible - in the concrete world, but only guaranteed in the world of the abstract mathematics involved.

In the physical world, it’s conjectural to assume it’s probability if coils #1 are made of iron, coils #2 are made of copper, and coil #3 is made of aluminum?

Since resistance merely governs voltage drop, any impedance of high resistance will foster our habitual tendency to solve a problem by increasing the voltage. This is known as the Ferranti Effect. On the other hand, a purely reactant impedance can, actually, overcome resistance and begin to exhibit characteristics analogous to superconductivity if the frequency of reactance is high enough to overcome resistance per unit time. Raising the frequency of a sine wave generator does not “cost” more energy. Nor does it defy physics’ conservation of energy. Yet, in this case, amplification of current occurs while voltage retains a zero status within the body of each inductor.

It is not the conservation of energy which is being defied, here. Instead, it is Michael Faraday’s Law of Induction which is given a restraint, a limitation, of jurisdiction. For, it is not always necessary to move a coil through a magnetic field in order to manifest current inside of that coil. Purely reactive impedance, devoid of resistive impedance, is a satisfactory replacement.

Frequency over time is equivalent to motion through space. Magnetic flux, or it’s analog, is rotating in both examples.

The amplitude of a voltage source is not the only option available for supplying an energy input. The frequency of a low voltage source is another, because frequency is a potential form of energy. This is why the conservation of energy has not been defied, because conservation includes both kinetic and potential forms of energy. And Michael Faraday’s Law of Induction has simply been expanded to include a more pervasive definition.

"Energy lost to resistance" merely accounts for the physical contribution of self-inductance. Mutual inductance is not taken into account probably because it is not a physical contribution; it is a non-physical mathematical contribution without any physical counterpart to justify its existence apart from the ephemeral relationship among lumped inductors (in the case of this circuit) and their mutual inductances.

Energy conservation is a simple and straightforward affair whenever impedance is purely resistive as in a flashlight circuit. But whenever reactive impedance dominates resistive impedance, conservation of energy and the logical progression of energy production exceeding its consumption (due to resistive losses) does an about-face. Energy will remain mathematically accountable, but will lose any of its familiarity with our conditioned way of life... Energy will be consumed at a rate which is faster than it is being produced, because of stationary inductors generating negative watts in a negatively resistive environment.

As an example, coils should theoretically become cool (endothermic) rather than warm or hot (exothermic) due to these coils absorbing heat rather than dissipating it under conventional expectations of their being positively resistive. But, due to resistive impedance shrinking its role into becoming submissive to reactive impedance, resistive impedance gets rescripted into an inversion of its resistive losses becoming resistive gains. And, unlike heat absorption from a coil's environment, electrically reactive power has no physical source for its energy. Instead, its energy arises from the mathematical behavior of: frequency, capacitance and inductance modifying a scant input of (so-called) normal energy into becoming almost entirely reactive.

This transcendence of reactive power is always dependent upon real power for initiating its existence. But normalcy stops right there as the rate of amplification (of this conversion) escalates at an ever-increasing rate.

A "load" would, normally, halt this escalation preventing it from surprising us. And loads come in several formats. A voltage source is one of them when substantial enough to do the job. A sufficiently low frequency of input is another.

But the load of an appliance is not sufficient to suppress this escalation whenever its location carefully places it in the circuit where it won't suppress this escalation. Normally, this location is adjacent to its paltry source rather than somewhere else...

Micro-Cap schematic...

Nodal voltages...

First set of virtual oscilloscope tracings...

Second set of tracings...

I discovered this when I wrote a provisional patent proposal this past summer by studying the behavior of a neon bulb spark gap. I calculated the total negative watts against the total positive watts to see if the generation of power versus its consumption would zero out. This would account for all energy expenditures. It didn't work except in the case of circuits which were regulated by a voltage source, such as: a simple simulation of a flashlight involving a resistor and a battery. It did not work for circuits with a precharged micro-voltage stored within a capacitor and if this precharged capacitor was inline with a neon bulb spark gap. The precharged condition would quickly dissipate and was superseded by a rising voltage which escalated at an exponential rate.

This is why I hold this latest development to be so unique. Instead of a circuit dominated by explosive electromotive force, it is dominated by explosive magnetomotive force. Thus, current excels and voltage is suppressed. High voltage is so pervasive in our culture in which Tesla Coils abound. It is refreshing to see its alternative of high current without voltage!

I caution against expecting a satisfactory accountability. Not when reactive impedance dominates resistive impedance will a physically-oriented accountability yield satisfaction. Instead, it may unhinge our sensibilities by producing unexpected results.

Source for the images, above

• Welcome to the site! I think we may need a bit more detail to address your question; it might just be outside my area, but I'm not quite sure I understand what is being asked. It looks like you are trying to include some context in the hyperlink, but this seems like some externally hosted document. It would probably be better to include the relevant information directly in your post so we can better determine what is being asked.
– Tyberius
Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 19:57
• @Tyberius Thank you. I corrected the text. Commented Jan 5, 2022 at 20:25
• Have you checked that your proposal satisfies energy conservation? And, have you already taken into account of the fact that one cannot make a zero-resistance induction coil using non-super-conducting material, therefore the inductors are not pure inductors but have a non-zero resistance? Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 11:26
• @wzkchem5 he does not claim that. he claims he can build superconducting resonators but refuses to call it that. He thereby assumes he has access to superconducting resonators to build his whole thing. By ignoring the fact that the losses are not negligible, he can act as if there's no inherent "out-of-the blue" energy. Commented Jan 6, 2022 at 23:04
• I hate to be the "voice of close", but this post is far too long for anyone to reasonably gleen anything out of it, there is an electrical engineering stack exchange this should be moved to if its not closed, but it also seems to be slightly "cranky". There is no real question here as far as I can tell and its definitely not a matter modeling question either way. I would support a follow up question if it asked something actually along the lines of the actual materials used/available in a well defined manner though. Commented Jan 7, 2022 at 21:02