Talk:Flux pinning

Merged from Flux creep

I started this stub because I'd like to know more about the phenomenon. A little more info can be found here: [1]--Joel 07:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've merged flux creep into this article, which seemed a bit more fleshed out, and added another reference in addition to the one you supplied. --Christopher Thomas 05:09, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this entry, it seems like flux pinning is only a superconductivity issue. Does it occur in other systems?

FLux Pinning in the Future

I feel this section sounds like it was copied from a speech or pamphlet. It doesn't fit Wikipedia's style. --Natedawg1013 (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed

I don't have time to do anything with the article now, but briefly:

"Flux pinning is the phenomenon where a superconductor is pinned in space above a magnet." No, it is the phenomenon where flux lines become pinned an unable to move through the material. The levitation effect is related, but it's not that.
"On a simple 3-inch diameter, 1-micrometer thick disk, next to a magnetic field of 350 Oe, there are approximately 100 billion flux tubes that hold 70,000 times the superconductor's weight." Aside from the messy mix of imperial, SI and antiquated SI units, it doesn't make any sense. Flux tubes hold flux, not weight. The weight they can support depends on their configuration and the configuration of the field. In a uniform field they cannot support any weight.
The arrangement of flux in the picture is wrong. It is misleading to show lines pinching together through the superconductor as this happens on a microscopic scale and has nothing to do with the levitation. The field is drawn as uniform away from the superconductor, which would produce no levitation. The lines should bunch together into the magnet at the bottom of the picture
The "Importance of flux pinning" section is mostly OK
the "Flux pinning in the future" section is a mix of OK and total rubbish.

I would recommend "Introduction to Superconductivity" by Michael Tinkham for any editors with the time to get stuck into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.101.163 (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not (semi-)protected. You can make these changes yourself. I'm not going to make them for you because I don't feel comfortable introducing material changes unless I have the expertise to evaluate them myself. Anyway, the {{disputed}} template is not intended as a "badge of shame." It's intended to mark an ongoing, active discussion. Since such discourse is obviously not taking place here, I've removed it from this article. Anyone who wants to is still free to implement any or all of these suggestions, of course. --N Y Kevin 02:26, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flux pinning. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071024182238/http://quench-analysis.web.cern.ch/quench-analysis/phd-fs-html/node41.html to http://quench-analysis.web.cern.ch/quench-analysis/phd-fs-html/node41.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum locking

I assume from the redirect that this is the same phenomenon known as quantum locking or quantum levitation? If so does somebody have a good reference for this name, as it's the one I've seen used overwhelmingly in popular discussion and should probably be included in the article text. BlackholeWA (talk) 15:00, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]