Science fiction or a wrong model again.

[Ludwik Kowalski <kowalskil@MAIL.MONTCLAIR.EDU>]

Jack wrote:

> This relativistic effect has come up twice
> in my life. Once was in my Ph D oral exam
> (I answered correctly), the second was in
> a patent application I wrote ...

Is this patentable, Jack? Consider the most
simple circuit loop: a long wire and a
source of emf, such as the secondary
winding of a transformer. The potential
energy gained in the source is used to
accelerate free electrons between collisions
with bound atoms of the wire. It is then
thermalized. But suppose that the entire
loop is made from a semiconducting wire. In
my naive model electrons would no longer
collide with atoms. They would circulate
the loop with a constant speed if the primary
of the transformer was off. Right or wrong?

But with the transformer is working. Therefore
electrons should gain kinetic energy when the
emf is positive and loose it when it is
negative. In other words they can be accelerated,
like in a betatron. At f=100 Hz electrons are
strongly accelerated for two or three ms during
each cycle. That is sufficient to make a very
large number of round trips. Where am I wrong
this time?

Suppose the average accelerating emf is 10kV.
How much energy will electrons gain after
making only 100 round trips? One million eV;
they will become ultarelativistic. Suppose
the loop also contains an element in which
superconductivity can somehow be destroyd at
the end of each accelerating cycle. This
element would then act as an anode in an x-ray
tube. By controlling the frequency, and the
averge accelerating emf, one can create a
very flexible x-ray machine. The ironless
transformer could be used to avoid practical
complications (keeping the secondary at the
very low temperature).
Ludwik Kowalski