Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007

Science > Physics > Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Science > Physics
User:	"a_plutonium"
Date:	13 Mar 2007 01:12:53 PM
Object:	Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007

Chapters of this Monograph-Book:
(1) preface and introduction
(2) what the Fusion Barrier Principle (FBP) is
(3) physics and mathematical proof of FBP
(4) history of fusion energy
(5) implications of FBP
Preface & Introduction
I am going to call it a monograph book whenever I want to keep a book
less than 100 pages. That may
be tricky since this book is published here on the Internet first. But
the contraint of page size is also
contrained by focus, in that I do not want to wander into other areas
of science but rather a focused
concentration on just fusion energy. So this monograph-book requires
the reader to broaden the subject
from other sources.
And this book comes at a propitious time for I can remember the over
exuberance, the over optimism
of the 20th century with John Wheeler saying in a news release that by
2010 this planet will have
engineered fusion breakeven energy. My response to that zealous over-
optimism is that by 2010, most
physicists will realize that Fusion Barrier Principle is true and that
this planet will never have fusion
energy power stations.
And that by 2010, the currently slated fusion project of ITER will go
ahead, but not for the reason of
engineering fusion, but rather instead, for the reason of proving that
FBP is true both theoretically and
experimentally. In other words, we will build ITER and prove that we
can never have fusion energy power
stations.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: #2 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	13 Mar 2007 01:44:57 PM

a_plutonium wrote:

Chapters of this Monograph-Book:
(1) preface and introduction
(2) what the Fusion Barrier Principle (FBP) is
(3) physics and mathematical proof of FBP
(4) history of fusion energy
(5) implications of FBP

Preface & Introduction

I am going to call it a monograph book whenever I want to keep a book
less than 100 pages. That may
be tricky since this book is published here on the Internet first. But
the contraint of page size is also
contrained by focus, in that I do not want to wander into other areas
of science but rather a focused
concentration on just fusion energy. So this monograph-book requires
the reader to broaden the subject
from other sources.

And this book comes at a propitious time for I can remember the over
exuberance, the over optimism
of the 20th century with John Wheeler saying in a news release that by
2010 this planet will have
engineered fusion breakeven energy. My response to that zealous over-
optimism is that by 2010, most
physicists will realize that Fusion Barrier Principle is true and that
this planet will never have fusion
energy power stations.

And that by 2010, the currently slated fusion project of ITER will go
ahead, but not for the reason of
engineering fusion, but rather instead, for the reason of proving that
FBP is true both theoretically and
experimentally. In other words, we will build ITER and prove that we
can never have fusion energy power
stations.

Now I spent at least 10 years on this subject having discovered FBP
way back in
1997 and during that time I was able to make a beautiful summary of
FBP. I call
it beautiful because in only a sentence am I able to convey virtually
the entire
meaning of FBP. Later in this book I will show you that FBP is part of
the
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle HUP, yet no-one has ever been able in
physics to
summarize HUP in a short paragraph that leaves the reader with a good
understanding. So I can envision a future setting of teaching children
physics
where instead of teaching them HUP first, they teach them a equivalent-
physics-
statement of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle as the Fusion
Barrier Principle.
In other words, HUP and FBP are really one and the same.
Now here is my beautiful one paragraph summary of FBP as on my current
website:
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium and I quote that summary:
"(2) Fusion Barrier Principle. Fission energy is the highest form of
energy that is able
to be controlled and surpass breakeven. A Tokamak such as JET or ITER
can only
reach 2/3 breakeven because 1/3 of the input energy is forever lost in
controlling the
device. "
By the way, on that website I list about 20 important discoveries, and
I will write and
publish a Internet book on every one of those discoveries. FBP is
listed as (2). I have
already written five Internet books and I suspect by the time I am
finished I will have
written about 20 to 30 Internet books on science.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: #3 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	16 Mar 2007 03:17:59 AM

Chapters of this Monograph-Book:
(1) preface and introduction
(2) what the Fusion Barrier Principle (FBP) is
(3) physics and mathematical proof of FBP
(4) history of fusion energy
(5) implications of FBP
What the Fusion Barrier Principle, FBP, is
A monograph book does not require me to delve into other stuff that
is already well known such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
HUP.
Here I assume the reader is well aware of HUP.
In HUP, uncertainty in position multiply uncertainty in momentum is
greater than
Planck's Constant.
Mathematically HUP looks like this
u_x times u_p > h.
Now we consider Fusion Energy. To derive it we must surpass the
Coulomb
force of proton repulsion. To control fusion energy we must use either
Faraday's
law or Ampere's law.
To derive Fusion Energy and to control fusion energy requires the
Maxwell
Equations. Requires Gauss's law for electricity which is Coulomb's
law. To
control fusion energy requires the Maxwell Equations of Faraday's law
and
Ampere's law.
This is very important because it gets at the heart of fusion energy.
The four Maxwell
Equations are split into two groups of static laws and of dynamic
laws. The two
Gauss laws are static electricity and magnetism, and the laws of
Faraday and
Ampere are dynamic laws (in motion).
Because Coulomb's law is static it is spherical. Because Faraday's and
Ampere's
laws are dynamic, they are cylindrical.
To create fusion you have to overcome the Coulomb law of protons
repulsing one another.
To control fusion you have to use the Faraday and or the Ampere laws.
To reach or attain fusion breakeven requires that the energy of
Faraday's law equals the
energy of Coulomb's law of repulsion for two nuclei to fuse. To reach
fusion breakeven
means that the surface area and volume of a cylinder has to be equal
to the surface area and
volume of a enclosed sphere.
There is a mathematical theorem that proves the volume and surface
area of cylinder and
enclosed sphere is a maximum of 2/3.
cylinder enclosed sphere volume is less than or equal to 2/3
For a tokamak to reach breakeven then the mathematical formula
requires this:
cylinder enclosed sphere volume is equal to 100%
The energy to control fusion always has a loss of 1/3 of the energy
that is needed and required
for the Coulomb force to overcome the proton repulsion.
Because fusion energy can not reach breakeven, gives rise to the
mathematical theorem
that 2/3 is the maximum limit of cylinder enclosed sphere as per
volume or surface area.
If a tokamak could reach energy breakeven, then mathematics theorem
about enclosed
cylinder sphere would say something altogether differently, and that
the maximum volume
and surface area is not 2/3 but 100%.
The reason for the Uncertainty Principle is because the observer
interfers with the position
or momentum in the act of measuring. In the Fusion Barrier Principle
the reason it is impossible
to reach breakeven is because cylinders and spheres can never be
enclosed so that the
volume and surface area are 100%.
In the very act of sending two protons together to fuse requires the
Coulomb energy of
overcoming proton repulsion. But the energy that sends those protons
into that fusion
collision is more energy by 1/3 more than the Coulomb repulsion. So
every time we
send two protons on a collision course of fusion we have to supply 1/3
more energy
to get them to fuse. We forever miss fusion breakeven by at least a
minimum of 1/3
the output. The output is 2/3 or less than the input.
So we can write a Fusion Barrier Principle in terms of mathematics
just as we
wrote the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle as:
u_x times u_p > h
FBP is written as:
energy output divided by energy input is less than or equal to 2/3
You see, fusion is related to the Uncertainty Principle in that they
are
inverses of one another.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: muon stickyness is just Faraday's Law #4 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	16 Mar 2007 02:03:02 PM

I have been asked to include sci.physics.fusion
a_plutonium wrote:

(snipped most of)

So we can write a Fusion Barrier Principle in terms of mathematics
just as we
wrote the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle as:

u_x times u_p > h

FBP is written as:

energy output divided by energy input is less than or equal to 2/3

An equivalent statement of the Fusion Barrier Principle, which I like
most of all
is that the Faraday Law of the Maxwell Equations is 1/3 deficient in
energy
compared to the Coulomb Law of the Maxwell Equations when you try to
fuse two nuclei of their proton repulsions.
This is how the World is constructed, in that the Heisenberg
Uncertainty
Principle disrupts position and momentum (or energy and time) when the
observer becomes a part of that which is observed. In the Fusion
Barrier
Principle, it is the fact that Coulomb's Law and Faraday's Law are
different in space-time by a factor of 1/3 deficiency of the Faraday
Law.
If Faraday's Law could be changed from that of cylindrical to that of
spherical
then the Coulomb sphere could occupy the same space as the Faraday
sphere and where the energy of Faraday's Law equals the same amount
of energy as the Coulomb Law of repulsion of protons. If that were
true then
we could reach fusion-breakeven.
But since Faraday's Law is deficient by 1/3 energy, then the maximum
control of any fusion machine will result in only a 2/3 breakeven.
The world cannot change the fact that when we poke around and observe
something that we mess up what is going on by at least Planck's
constant
(Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle), and neither can the world change
the
fact that Faraday's Law is 1/3 defiicient in energy compared to
Coulomb's
Law. That when you try to fuse two nuclei in a Tokamak or in a muon-
catalyzed
fusion experiment that the Coulomb repulsion of protons has to use
Faraday's
Law to fuse but that this Faraday Law is 1/3 deficient in doing that
fusion.
So the output energy can only reach 2/3 breakeven. To control fusion
such as
the Sun or stars or JET tokamak or ITER (if built) or muon catalyzed
fusion, all
of these machines pump in more energy than what the fusion gives off.
The Sun
is a controlled fusion machine but the Sun uses up more input energy
than the
fusion energy output. The Sun reaches about 20 to 30 percent breakeven
in fusion.
A supernova star is a fusion machine that before it explodes reaches
about
50 to 60 percent breakeven.
If my memory is correct JET reached 64 percent breakeven before it was
dismantled.
Nagamine catalyzed muon fusion experiments holds the world record of
fusion in
that he achieved 66 percent breakeven. Nagamine claims that his
problem now is
what he calls the "stickyness of muons" which prevents him from going
beyond
2/3 breakeven. In this monograph-book, I will proceed to show that
stickyness of
muons is really another way of saying that the Faraday's Law is 1/3
deficient in energy
compared to the same space occupied by Coulomb's Law of proton
repulsion. In
other words, muon stickyness is just a fancy way of calling Faraday's
Law to control
the fusion process.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: fusion devices that do exceed breakeven but these are not controlled machines #5 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	16 Mar 2007 02:44:08 PM

a_plutonium wrote:
(most snipped)

If Faraday's Law could be changed from that of cylindrical to that of
spherical
then the Coulomb sphere could occupy the same space as the Faraday
sphere and where the energy of Faraday's Law equals the same amount
of energy as the Coulomb Law of repulsion of protons. If that were
true then
we could reach fusion-breakeven.

But since Faraday's Law is deficient by 1/3 energy, then the maximum
control of any fusion machine will result in only a 2/3 breakeven.

Now there are going to be alot of laypersons reading this book and who
have a difficult time in understanding what they know to be true,
practically.
In practice they know the Sun is a fusion machine and in control of
itself or stable,
and they know that there are fusion bombs. So they are very much
confused about
a Fusion Barrier Principle.
So let me answer their questions.
The Sun and stars are fusion machines but they use up alot of energy
such as
gravitational contraction of the Sun and stars and energy of
radioactive decay
inside the Sun and stars and that energy is far greater than the
energy the Sun
and stars produce from fusion events. The energy of the Sun produced
from nonfusion
is about 70 to 80 percent larger than the energy produced by fusion.
Now in a star
that goes supernova, the amount of energy of fusion events is much
larger than the
energy of nonfusion.
Now in fusion bombs, those all have a fission energy trigger. But the
moment the
bomb explodes, it obviously is no longer under CONTROL, and is no
longer a
machine.
The tokamaks of JET or ITER (if built) would not have a fission
trigger and would not
explode. Tokamaks are built so they do not explode and that they
remain as a machine.
So here is the problem in that you want it to remain a machine to
repeatable get more
energy out of it, but then because the only controlling way is using
the Faraday Law
which is 1/3 deficient in energy from the Coulomb law that fuses
nuclei.
So, fusion energy to be controlled will always waste at least 1/3 the
energy than it delivers.
Fusion energy is never commercially viable because it costs 1/3 more
than it can ever
deliver. If you want fusion to reach and then exceed breakeven then
you can no longer
Control it. Then you must use fission energy as a trigger and explode
the devise. But you
could get more energy out of the fission trigger by burning it in a
nuclear fission station
than by bothering to use it up in a fusion detonation.
Not only are many laypersons confused about the above but most
scientists working
in energy do not have a handle on the above as can be seen by their
obtuse answers and
promotion of ITER.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: Uncertainty Principle rewritten as Faraday & Coulomb Law #6 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	20 Mar 2007 11:12:26 PM

This is what I created for a Wikipedia entry for the Fusion Barrier
Principle which was soon deleted by some
Wiki editor, whose poor little mind I suspect exploded in trying to
understand what I was saying,
and so found a quick excuse to delete by saying "too new research". I
am not bothered by this rejection
because I got some practice in rewriting the below. I usually seldom
rewrite things and this helped.
--- quoting what I created for Wikipedia entry of Fusion Barrier
Principle ---
The Fusion Barrier Principle is stated as:
"Fission energy is the highest form of energy that is able to be
controlled and surpass
breakeven. A Tokamak such as JET or ITER or muon-catalyzed fusion can
only reach
2/3 breakeven because 1/3 of the input energy is forever lost in
controlling the device."
Another statement of the Fusion Barrier Principle is that there will
never exist in the
Universe a fusion-power-station.
The Fusion Barrier Principle is related to the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle in that
both have the same mathematical form
U_m X U_p > h , is the equation for the Uncertainty Principle
and
E_faraday divided by E_coulomb < 2/3 , is the equation for the Fusion
Barrier Principle
The mechanism that creates the Fusion Barrier Principle is the fact of
the Maxwell
Equations, specifically the Coulomb Law and the Faraday Law. The
Coulomb Law
governs the overcoming of the repulsion of protons in order to fuse.
The Faraday Law
governs the controlling of the fusion event. The energy of Faraday's
law compared to
Coulomb law is always 1/3 less. The reason is that Faraday's Law is
energy that
occupies cylindrical space whereas the Coulomb Law is energy that
occupies a
spherical space. And from mathematics we know that cylinder enclosed
sphere
has a maximum of only 2/3 volume or surface area.
So in every fusion event the Faraday Law is deficient by 1/3 the
energy to fuse protons.
References:
(1) Monograph-Book: "FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE", Archimedes Plutonium,
Internet published 1997-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in
sci.physics,sci.math)
(2) Nagamine muon catalyzed fusion experiment, Oxford England, where
these
experiments reached 2/3 breakeven but could never go beyond 2/3 or 66%
breakeven.
NEW SCIENTIST, 16AUG97, pp34-37
http://www.newscientist.com/search.ns;jsessionid=NGCIJNAEFCLC?doSearch=true&articleQuery.sortOrder=1&articleQuery.queryString=Nagamine+muon+fusion
(3) JET tokamak in England before decommissioned reached 65%
breakeven.
http://www.jet.efda.org/pages/history-of-jet.html " a 65% ratio of
fusion power produced to total input power."
--- end quoting my offering to Wikipedia as a Fusion Barrier Principle
entry ---
Now I do notice that the Uncertainty Principle is a inverse of the
Fusion Barrier Principle in that one is
multiply and greater than while the other is divide and less than.
But in my mind I have not yet been able to connect and link the idea
that Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
has to do with Faraday's Law and Coulomb's Law and where one is
cylindrical while the other is spherical.
If I can link Faraday & Coulomb Law with the Uncertainity Principle, I
will have achieved another milestone
of huge importance. So I have to think on this for it is important.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: discovery of fusion-barrier-law, fusion-barrier-principle #7 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	25 Mar 2007 01:13:02 PM

a_plutonium wrote:

I am now in chapter 4 and start it with my discovery of fusion barrier
law or principle. It was
in a conversation with Dr. Rick Spielman that this discovery of a
fundamental principle of
physics exists. Many years later in 2000s , would I come to realize
that the Fusion Barrier
Principle is related to the Heisenbergy Uncertainty Principle.
In the late 1990s and early 2000s when discussing the Fusion Barrier
Principle, I posed
a question for which no critic could answer and for which shows us the
truth of FBP.
The question to all skeptics and critics was-- if you do not believe
that fusion energy
is never controllable, then, where in the hierarchy of energy
exploitation do we arrive
at a barrier to being able to harness energy? If not at fusion, then
do you say that
the next higher rung of energy-- matter to antimatter conversion is
possible, and that
the world will someday engineer a matter to antimatter power station?
My critics and
skeptics always shut up when I pose this question on them. They
somehow seem to
live in a dream world and not a realistic world. An Energy Barrier
must exist at some
level of engineering, and this book claims that the Fusion energy is
the barrier. That
Fission Energy is the highest form of energy that can be utilized, not
only here on
Earth but throughout the Cosmos.
--- quoting a old post of mine of 1997 wherein I discovered what would
be the Fusion-
Barrier-Principle ---
From:

(Archimedes Plutonium)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,sci.engr,sci.physics
Subject: Fusion Power breakeven is theoretically impossible
Date: 21 Aug 1997 16:04:28 GMT
Organization: PLutonium College
Lines: 159
Distribution: world
Message-ID: (5thouc$prt$1@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>
In article (33FA0AB3.6285@worldnet.att.net>
Rick Spielman (rbspiel@worldnet.att.net> writes:
[many snips]

Your are refering to two of physics' basic "assumptions" or postulates

upon

which Thermodynamics (in the case of the Third Law) and the Special

Theory

of Relativity (postulate of the constancy of the speed of light) are
founded. They are not basic truths, as such do not exist in physics.

These

are assumptions that lead to a consistent and predictive view of the
universe.

I do not want to stray off course with other theories. This one
theory is big enough and basically it says that there will never be a
fusion power plant and so confine myself to that theory.

ICF has many classified aspects only because much of the detailed

physics

knowledge in ICF would lead to the ability to fabricate fusion

weapons. ICF

operates quite differently than typical fusion weapons.

I suspect that was the reason noone tried to engineer a Teller mini
fusion bomb power plant. Not because it was the most logical next step
to understand fusion power but because everyone involved were "scared"
of the security aspects. That the fusion bomb building knowledge would
get into unfriendly hands.

Edward Teller suggested the concept of mini nukes generating

electrical

power many years ago. The concept will easily work. The issue is not
scientific or engineering, it is environmental.

I understand Dr. Teller is still alive? Encyc says he was born Jan
1908 and that would make him close to 90, but is his mind alert still
now?
Did he detail how to construct a nuclear reactor, a whole power
plant
to harness mini fusion bombs? If so, I would like to see it.
For I have the suspicion that it is theoretically impossible to
harness fusion energy. That the amount of energy to achieve fusion is
greater than any electricity produced by that fusion. I suspect that
no
mini fusion bomb power plant can achieve breakeven.
Definition of Breakeven from STARPOWER:
Breakeven: The point at which the fusion power generated in a
plasma equals the amount of heating power that must be added to the
plasma to sustain its temperature.
I suspect that fusion engineering will never deliver a single watt
of
electricity more than what it costs to make it. I suspect that we are
stuck with fission power as the *only greater than breakeven nuclear
power source*. Unless matter to antimatter can be discovered in the
future. And whether matter to antimatter can be harnessed.

You are confusing physics/engineering and economic concerns. Tokamaks

are

inherently low beta, low Q devices. This means that they must be very

large

to generate energy. I don't wnat to get into circulating power

fractions.

The construction cost would be huge. In addition, the use of DT fuel

will

end up activating the hardware causing a real nuclear waste problem.

This

overall drives the cost up. If we were willing to pay the price and

damn

the environment we could have fusion today.

I am not confusing economics with this issue. I am searching to see
whether fusion is theoretically possible to harness. And all
indications so far point to it being impossible.
The logical course of action here is to see if a nuclear power plant
of minifusion bombs will deliver greater than a fission reactor power
alone. If a fusion/fission reactor always delivers less than a pure
fission reactor, then this implies that fusion power plants are all
less than breakeven.

If Sonobubbles have fusion which is it linked to, that of

tokamak

design or muon type of fusion?

More like ICF

Thanks Rick. It is not necessary for Mother Nature to have all types
of fusion categorized as either a Sun or tokamak or ICF. Each fusion
could be different. It matters not to 2 hydrogen nuclei how they are
brought together into union. But at that level one ought be able to
envision and compute the parameters of successful fusion. In that way,
one can get a theoretical picture of what all fusion reactions must
have in common. There is a microscopic science that all fusion
reactions must possess and yet the macroscopic science can have a
plethora of ways of achieving that microscopic state. Muon fusion is
different from tokamak, different from ICF, different from fusion bomb
detonations. But there is a microscopic state in which you have
parameters that determine fusion and where all these differences
disappear. Unless there is probability involved. And I say there is
probability involved.

Rick, has anyone seriously tried to engineer a series of the

smallest

fusion bombs to make electricity? Perhaps a pressure chamber will

make

the bombs even smaller.

Yes but not for electricity.

Dr. Rick B. Spielman
Sandia National Laboratories

It appears to me that the quest for fusion power has been a shoddy
planned quest. Having controlled fission and making fission bombs and
then fusion bombs, only the fusion bombs are a mix of fission+fusion.
That the quest neglected to consider and ponder the possibility that
a fusion power plant is or is not possible.
That the quest for reasons unknown to me, but I suspect for the good
reason of security from terrorists or military evils has not done the
necessary next step in the search for fusion power. That of
researching
the viability of a mix of fission and fusion.
Anyone, even a ten year old kid can come to commonsense reason that
when you climb a high steps that it is rather foolish to be skipping
intermediate steps.
Before spending 40 billion dollars for the past 40-50 years on pure
fusion power. It stands to reason that since we already have a fusion
bomb in existence that we should investigate fully whether that fusion
bomb can deliver 1 watt of electricity from greater than breakeven
energy? I mean you do not have to be a wise Ben Franklin to know that
if you assume that a minifusion bomb power plant is workable and never
take the time to build one to make sure of the theory, that you may
get
into trouble.
Perhaps now by 1997 we can research this minifusion power plant
without the fear of security? Perhaps not?
But it seems to me, by logical commonsense that if a mixture of
fission+fusion cannot achieve breakeven that the pure 100% fusion as
what the tokamaks and ICF are researching will also fail. If a mixture
of fission-fusion fails, I see no hope in a pure fusion succeeding.
Did Dr. Teller detail his minifusion bomb power plant and where in
the literature can I find it?
The world has already spent nigh 40 billion dollars and nigh 40-50
years on pure fusion, neglecting the intermediate logical step of
researching a minifusion bomb reactor. Considering that , it would be
irrational, and goofy to go ahead with ITER , tokamaks and ICF. Put
ITER, tokamaks, and ICF on indefinite postponement until a minifusion
bomb reactor is thoroughly checked-out. I believe once this is done a
surprizing result will be found. That fusion power breakeven is
impossible, both theoretically and in practice.
So, do the logical commonsense thing next, build a minifusion bomb
reactor and see if it gives breakeven. I am not a betting man, but my
bet would be no.
---quoting old 1997 post ---
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: ""
Title: Re: discovery of fusion-barrier-law, fusion-barrier-principle #7 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	25 Mar 2007 07:53:30 PM

Is Archie Poo evolving into Jack Sarfatti?
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: summary of the important history and future history of fusion energy #8 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	27 Mar 2007 01:48:35 AM

a_plutonium wrote:

I find a great weakness in most books written on science and even in
print journals is this constant
repeat or rehashed of what is already known. If most books or journals
were required to write about
only that which is new, well about 90 percent of most books and
journals would be cut out. Let
historians of science write about the history and of course not me.
I will write about a few items of history for which there are many
unknowns still. We do know
that JET reached about 64 to 65 % breakeven and we do know that muon
catalyzed fusion
has reached 66% breakeven. So the machines in the world that try to
harness fusion energy
are really only two types, either the tokamak or the muon catalyzed
fusion of Nagamine. So we
have two practical machines that try to harness fusion energy--
tokamaks and muon machines.
There are many others but they do not even come close to what tokamaks
or muon machines
reach in breakeven.
And we can be assured of a principle that all fusion machines are
similar when we consider
each fusion event. A fusion event does not know whether it is a
tokamak or muon machine or
any one of the other machines. A fusion event at the microscopic level
is all the same.
So the history of fusion energy boils down to tokamak and muon
machines and all the others
are insignificant to even discuss.
But there are two other fusion topics to discuss with the tokamak and
muon machines. And they
are the fusion in stars and supernova and the fusion in hydrogen
bombs. Here we have to have the
detailed mathematics of what percent fusion energy breakeven occurs in
stars and supernova. Breakeven
in terms of the inward pressure versus outward pressure to keep the
star stable and existing as a
machine. I wrote many a post to sci. newsgroups saying that the Sun is
about a 30 % breakeven
machine wherein the outward pressure contributed by fusion is 30% of
the outward pressure where most
of the outward pressure nearly 50% was due to Coulombic repulsion. And
that nearly 100% of inward
pressure was due to gravity. So as a fusion machine the Sun reaches
about 30% breakeven. But that
in a Supernova, it reaches about 60% fusion-breakeven, but
unfortunately explodes.
Now the only place in Nature where fusion exceeds 66% breakeven is in
a hydrogen bomb, but it
no longer is a machine. What is unknown to me is whether every single
atom of the fission trigger and
the hydrogen were used. When a hydrogen bomb explodes, were there any
unused atoms of fissile material or
hydrogen? From replies in the 1990s, the opinion was that in a
hydrogen bomb detonation every single atom
is used in the explosion. Which promted me to say that a fusion bomb
is a Bose Einstein Condensate
phenomenon.
So, there are alot of unanswered questions as to the details of star
fusion breakeven related to inward
and outward pressure. So that if no star can every reach 60% fusion
breakeven before exploding into a
supernova, then we have far exceeded the best that stars can do and
remain stable. For we have gone
beyond 60% in JET and muon machines.
And then we need details of hydrogen bombs as to whether any fuel
escaped from being fused. And that
we have to match the mathematics of a Supernova blast with the
mathematics that underpins the hydrogen
bomb blast. So that the same equation yields when the star becomes a
blast and when the bomb becomes
a blast. According to Fusion Barrier Principle, whenever any machine
reaches 66% breakeven, it ceases to
be a machine and it forms a blast.
So the history is easily summarized as that the finest controlling
fusion machines are JET and muon machines
which reached 65% and 66% respectively. Stars such as the Sun reach
only about 30% (outward pressure due
to fusion) and when a star goes beyond 66% fusion outward pressure it
ceases to be a machine and
supernovas. And finally, a hydrogen bomb always goes beyond 66%
breakeven but it also always loses
control and explodes.
So my look into the history of fusion energy is to look at it in terms
of 66% breakeven and the Fusion
Barrier Principle.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: Re: summary of the important history and future history of fusion energy #8 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	27 Mar 2007 01:59:33 AM

a_plutonium wrote:

I find a great weakness in most books written on science and even in
print journals is this constant
repeat or rehashed of what is already known. If most books or journals
were required to write about
only that which is new, well about 90 percent of most books and
journals would be cut out. Let
historians of science write about the history and of course not me.

I will write about a few items of history for which there are many
unknowns still. We do know
that JET reached about 64 to 65 % breakeven and we do know that muon
catalyzed fusion
has reached 66% breakeven. So the machines in the world that try to
harness fusion energy
are really only two types, either the tokamak or the muon catalyzed
fusion of Nagamine. So we
have two practical machines that try to harness fusion energy--
tokamaks and muon machines.
There are many others but they do not even come close to what tokamaks
or muon machines
reach in breakeven.

And we can be assured of a principle that all fusion machines are
similar when we consider
each fusion event. A fusion event does not know whether it is a
tokamak or muon machine or
any one of the other machines. A fusion event at the microscopic level
is all the same.

So the history of fusion energy boils down to tokamak and muon
machines and all the others
are insignificant to even discuss.

But there are two other fusion topics to discuss with the tokamak and
muon machines. And they
are the fusion in stars and supernova and the fusion in hydrogen
bombs. Here we have to have the
detailed mathematics of what percent fusion energy breakeven occurs in
stars and supernova. Breakeven
in terms of the inward pressure versus outward pressure to keep the
star stable and existing as a
machine. I wrote many a post to sci. newsgroups saying that the Sun is
about a 30 % breakeven
machine wherein the outward pressure contributed by fusion is 30% of
the outward pressure where most
of the outward pressure nearly 50% was due to Coulombic repulsion. And
that nearly 100% of inward
pressure was due to gravity. So as a fusion machine the Sun reaches
about 30% breakeven. But that
in a Supernova, it reaches about 60% fusion-breakeven, but
unfortunately explodes.

Now the only place in Nature where fusion exceeds 66% breakeven is in
a hydrogen bomb, but it
no longer is a machine. What is unknown to me is whether every single
atom of the fission trigger and
the hydrogen were used. When a hydrogen bomb explodes, were there any
unused atoms of fissile material or
hydrogen? From replies in the 1990s, the opinion was that in a
hydrogen bomb detonation every single atom
is used in the explosion. Which promted me to say that a fusion bomb
is a Bose Einstein Condensate
phenomenon.

So, there are alot of unanswered questions as to the details of star
fusion breakeven related to inward
and outward pressure. So that if no star can every reach 60% fusion
breakeven before exploding into a
supernova, then we have far exceeded the best that stars can do and
remain stable. For we have gone
beyond 60% in JET and muon machines.

And then we need details of hydrogen bombs as to whether any fuel
escaped from being fused. And that
we have to match the mathematics of a Supernova blast with the
mathematics that underpins the hydrogen
bomb blast. So that the same equation yields when the star becomes a
blast and when the bomb becomes
a blast. According to Fusion Barrier Principle, whenever any machine
reaches 66% breakeven, it ceases to
be a machine and it forms a blast.

the above should have read "surpasses 66% breakeven" which I corrected
in
original

So the history is easily summarized as that the finest controlling
fusion machines are JET and muon machines
which reached 65% and 66% respectively. Stars such as the Sun reach
only about 30% (outward pressure due
to fusion) and when a star goes beyond 66% fusion outward pressure it
ceases to be a machine and
supernovas. And finally, a hydrogen bomb always goes beyond 66%
breakeven but it also always loses
control and explodes.

So my look into the history of fusion energy is to look at it in terms
of 66% breakeven and the Fusion
Barrier Principle.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: history and prerequisite of fusion scientists before they get any funding #9 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	29 Mar 2007 01:08:07 AM

a_plutonium wrote:
Chapters of this Monograph-Book:
(1) preface and introduction
(2) what the Fusion Barrier Principle (FBP) is
(3) physics and mathematical proof of FBP
(4) history of fusion energy
(5) implications of FBP
HISTORY OF FUSION ENERGY
Years ago I posted to the Internet that before any science
organization gets funding for fusion
energy such as the Princeton Univ. tokamak or ITER, that those
scientists have to publish where
they believe the Barrier Principle lies. This book was written to show
and prove that Fusion Energy
is where the Barrier Principle lies. Obviously the scientists who
worked on JET do not believe the
Barrier Principle lies on fusion energy, and perhaps what they believe
is that it lies on the next higher
up order of energy which is Matter to Antimatter Power Stations. But
the burden or onus is on them
to show the politicians and the world wide public why they believe
fusion energy is attainable as a
Fusion Power Station.
Those scientists who believe that engineering fusion energy into a
power-station is do-able, should prove
to us that the Barrier to engineering lies further up there in energy
heirarchies or that the world has
no barrier to tapping into an infinity of energy hierarchies.
That this book shows and proves that the Barrier Principle exists and
falls smack at 2/3 breakeven for
Fusion Energy, then again, the burden and onus is on all those
scientists who are funded by government
to outline where they believe the Barrier Principle lies and why
Fusion Power Stations are attainable.
This is a very reasonable prerequisite before building ITER.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: prerequisite of fusion scientists-- outline where they think the Barrier lies #10 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	29 Mar 2007 01:28:48 AM

a_plutonium wrote:
(snipped)

Years ago I posted to the Internet that before any science
organization gets funding for fusion
energy such as the Princeton Univ. tokamak or ITER, that those
scientists have to publish where
they believe the Barrier Principle lies. This book was written to show
and prove that Fusion Energy
is where the Barrier Principle lies. Obviously the scientists who
worked on JET do not believe the
Barrier Principle lies on fusion energy, and perhaps what they believe
is that it lies on the next higher
up order of energy which is Matter to Antimatter Power Stations. But
the burden or onus is on them
to show the politicians and the world wide public why they believe
fusion energy is attainable as a
Fusion Power Station.

Those scientists who believe that engineering fusion energy into a
power-station is do-able, should prove
to us that the Barrier to engineering lies further up there in energy
heirarchies or that the world has
no barrier to tapping into an infinity of energy hierarchies.

That this book shows and proves that the Barrier Principle exists and
falls smack at 2/3 breakeven for
Fusion Energy, then again, the burden and onus is on all those
scientists who are funded by government
to outline where they believe the Barrier Principle lies and why
Fusion Power Stations are attainable.

This is a very reasonable prerequisite before building ITER.

And, when and if such a report is forthcoming by the community of
fusion
scientists, that report should also include the mathematics of how
much
of the Sun and stars fusion energy related to inward pressure and
outward
pressure to hold that star stable. In other words, indicate
mathematically as
to how much of a percent breakeven in fusion energy that stars
perform.
In the old days, which was everything from last year on back, fusion
physicists
were not held accountable with regards to a Barrier Principle, and
would
usually point to the Sun and say-- "There is a stable fusion machine
which
we try to duplicate here on Earth". But they have not been fully
honest about the
Sun, in that the outward pressure of fusion is perhaps a mere 20%-30%,
and
thus a mere 20%-30% fusion breakeven if the Sun were analyzed as a
tokamak.
Not fully honest, when pointing to the Sun and saying it is stable and
we want
to duplicate it here on Earth. Because that carries the hidden
assumption which
is totally wrong-- that the Sun is a 100% breakeven and far more than
100%
fusion machine. When in fact, the Sun is probably lucky that it
reaches 20% to
30% breakeven (using inward and outward pressure analysis).
So if these scientists were fully honest, they would outline where
they believed the
Barrier Principle lies-- whether in some higher hierarchy of energy
engineering. Plus,
in that report they would fully analyze how much percent breakeven the
Sun displays.
I hope politicians are reading this, because we have in the past
simply thrown billions
of dollars at fusion, and it is about time we have scientists really
think about fusion
and give a outline as to where the Barrier Principle lies, and to
include the Sun's
percent of fusion breakeven.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: history of FBP #11 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	29 Mar 2007 03:08:57 PM

a_plutonium wrote:

I need to post my website to the Internet newsgroup periodically,
because websites
do not offer a reliable date-time group validation, whereas newsgroup
posts insure
a accurate and valid date time group.
One of the reasons I call such books as monograph-books because they
are so
short in length of less than 100 pages. I merely want to blurt out the
"NEW IDEAS"
and get wrangled into
repeating much of the past history of this area of physics. So, since
these monograph book is
so short-- less than 100 pages, gives me the opportunity to include
what I had
written for my current homepage website:
--- quoting what my website -- http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ says
as of 29 March 2007 ---
Science website of Archimedes Plutonium
Sorry about my email box of a_plutonium@hotmail.com. It was heavily
spammed which forced me to set it to Hotmail Exclusive
with Contacts List Only. Unless you are on my Contact List, it is
trashed sight unseen. To get on my Contact List, either post
to a science newsgroup like sci.physics asking to have your email on
my Contact List or you can telephone my answering
machine. Time in life is too precious to be daily weeding out some
email box.
My old website of www.archimedesplutonium.com is discontinued. It
contained my autobiography and many other things written by me. And it
was my archival website and ran into the thousands of pages. I am in
the process of editing it and getting it ready for print publication.
I am writing about 20 books on Science on the Internet. I have about 7
of those
books in near-completion, and update them through the years. These
books were published on the
Internet science newsgroups.
(1) Book: "ATOM TOTALITY THEORY REPLACES BIG BANG THEORY IN
PHYSICS", Archimedes Plutonium
Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math)
(2) Monograph-Book: "FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE", Archimedes Plutonium
Internet book published 1997-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in
sci.physics,sci.math)
(3) Monograph-Book: "UNIFICATION OF THE FORCES OF PHYSICS AS A
COULOMB UNIFICATION", Archimedes Plutonium
Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in March 2007 in
sci.physics,sci.math)
(4) Book: "Correcting Present Day Mathematics and Setting it on
Course for the Next 2 Millenium;
Eucl geom = Riem geom union Loba geom; Reals =
positive Adics union negative Adics", Archimedes
Plutonium, Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.math,sci.physics)
(5) Monograph-Book: "Correcting the Logical Flaws of Euclid's
Infinitude of Primes Proof",
Archimedes Plutonium Internet book published 1993-2006
(assimilated March 2006 in sci.math,sci.logic)
(6) Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF
ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium
Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in
March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med,
sci.physics)
(7) Book: "OCCAMS RAZOR APPLIED TO HISTORICAL JESUS", Archimedes
Plutonium, Internet book published 2003-2007 (assimilated in
March 2007 in sci.archaeology, sci.logic, soc.history)
The Internet sci newsgroups have thousands of my posts from years 1993
to the present day under the names Ludwig Plutonium, to Archimedes
Plutonium and for the past few years of a_plutonium. I averaged about
4 posts per day from 1993 to the present Sept 2006. So you can do the
maths. Approx 13 years X 365 X 4 is approx 19,000 posts by me during
1993 to the present Sept of 2006.
Yes, that is my legal name of Archimedes Plutonium and I am a real
person. My name has changed several times during my life. Since
Wikipedia made an entry of me, and because it is open to edit by
anyone and to a flood of demonizers and hatemongers, I have taken the
time to correct and make "objective" that Wikipedia entry, as listed
below following their format:
Wikipedia
Archimedes Plutonium From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archimedes Plutonium (born July 5, 1950) (nicknamed A.P. or AP by
others debating
him in the sci newsgroups) is primarily noted for his varied
contributions to ideas and theories of science. And in the history of
science, the greatest contributors have often been unrecognized until
long after they are dead, e.g. Democritus and the Atomic theory. Other
examples are Copernicus and Galileo. Some were recognized such as
Newton, but most of them were seldom recognized while they lived. The
reason for this is because the greatest contributors to human thought
are too advanced for their own time in which they lived and worked,
and their contemporaries lacked the ability to objectively understand,
evaluate and test the new ideas.
The first appearances of Archimedes Plutonium's ATOM TOTALITY theory
was in the college newspaper of Hanover New Hampshire from 12July1991
and then about ten more published articles thereafter. There was a
feature article in Dartmouth Alumni Magazine, October 1992 showing a
picture of him. There was a TV program of 1/2 hour broadcast in Boston
in the early 1990s of this theory which has bagpipe music along with
the Atom Totality theory. There was a paragraph in Scientific American
published in April, 1993, stating the Atom Totality theory.
Contents 1
Background 2
Plutonium's claims 2.1
Plutonium's assessment of his ideas 3
Biographical notes 4
Quotes 5
External links
Because Mr. Plutonium has such a strange name, for he legally changed
his name to that of Archimedes Plutonium, that most people upon first
hearing of this name think and imagine it as a hoax or joke, but no,
it is a real name to a real person. And the claim that Plutonium is a
real person is corroborated by many photographs and articles by him in
the College campus newspaper of Hanover, New Hampshire where November
11, 1991 and another picture of him 25 September 1997. According to an
autobiography he posted to Usenet in the 1990s, Plutonium was born
with the name Ludwig Poehlmann in Arzberg, Germany. His family came to
the United States of America in his youth, settling near Cincinnati,
Ohio. Ludwig was adopted in his teens by a local Landscape-Architect
named Willis Hansen, and his name was changed to Ludwig Hansen. His
autobiography stated that he received an undergraduate degree in
mathematics from the University of Cincinnati and did some graduate
work at Utah State University, and headed off to Melbourne, Australia,
to serve as a mathematics teacher in a High School in the early 1970s.
He returned to the United States in mid 1970s due to father's death,
and in the late 1970s worked for a Masters degree
from Utah State University. His autobiography also stated that he
spent some time in the United States Navy during the 1980s. At some
point after his adoptive father's death, he changed his name to Ludwig
van Ludvig, under which he arrived in Hanover, New Hampshire circa
1988 to write a book on stock-market investing. He was always self-
employed and only took jobs to fit his desires and the desire in the
late 1980s and first few years of 1990s was to write a book on stock-
market and so to learn about computers and to have full access to a
College, he took a menial part time job of 2 days per week.
Then in November of 1990, Mr. Plutonium discovered the Atom Totality
theory and devoted all his attention on this science idea; dropping
his desire to write a book on the stock-market. And as luck would have
it, the College was on the cutting edge of the Internet and thus
allowing for Mr. Plutonium to broadcast his new ideas to a world
public. In August of 1993, he found the science newsgroups of the
Internet and began posting his Atom Totality theory and several proofs
of mathematics under the name Ludwig Plutonium which was legally
changed to Archimedes Plutonium in 1994. Mr. Plutonium was forced out
of the Hanover New Hampshire region in 1999 due mostly to his ideas
were too revolutionary and advanced compared to the conservative and
backward College community there. And has moved to a region of the USA
where there are fine, hard working and honest people and where it is
peace and quiet, perhaps the finest area of the USA to live. He moved
to a locale near Vermillion South Dakota where there is a University
nearby in case he needs an extra bit of resource. And where it is
peaceful and quiet surroundings. A place where he can grow some
horticulture specimens where there is rich topsoil.
Plutonium's claims: In late 1990, Plutonium claims to have had the
realization of his Plutonium Atom Totality Theory, a theory he claimed
to be the most important breakthrough in scientific history. According
to this theory, the Universe is a giant plutonium atom, and the part
of the universe we are able to observe from Earth, including Earth
itself, is somewhere in its outer electron shells, the 5f6, and where
galaxies are pieces of the last electron of 231Pu. As Mr. Plutonium
calls it: where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies.
::\ ::|:: /::
::\::|::/::
_ _
(:Y:)
- -
::/::|::\::
::/ ::|:: \::
The above is the ascii art of the 5f6 electron orbital of plutonium
where the dots are dots of the electron-dot-cloud and each dot
represents a galaxy.
Plutonium's assessment of his ideas
(1) Plutonium Atom Totality theory. According to this theory, there
was no Big Bang, but rather progressive growth from a Hydrogen Atom
Totality into the present "Plutonium Atom Totality", in which the
galaxies are dots of the electron-dot-cloud.
New Book: "ATOM TOTALITY THEORY Replaces Big Bang Theory in
PHYSICS", Archimedes Plutonium
Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.physics,sci.math)
(2) Fusion Barrier Principle. Fission energy is the highest form of
energy that is able to be controlled and surpass breakeven. A Tokamak
such as JET or ITER can only reach 2/3 breakeven because 1/3 of the
input energy is forever lost in controlling the device.
(3) Correct theory of Superconductivity is that it is the maximization
of Classical Physics of electronegativity unioned with conduction-band
theory. We have already found the upper limit of superconductivity
within a few degrees of the world recordholder for superconduction.
The BCS theory is a fakery.
(4) Unification of the Forces of Physics as a Coulomb Unification.
Unification logically and obviously means one force and the only force
that is perfect is the Coulomb force, which means the strong-nuclear-
force combines with the weak-nuclear to make a nuclear-coulomb-force.
The Nuclear-Coulomb force arises
from the *nuclear electron* which is inside every neutron in the
nucleus of atoms
wherein this nuclear-electron spills out and runs around holding
together all
the protons in the nucleus. A normal electron has more space than
attractive
force whereas a nuclear-electron trades space for more attractive
force. As for the force of gravity which is mathematically identical
to the Coulomb force only 10^40 weaker means that gravity is Space
itself as a magnetic monopole. Here I am recalling Dirac's ocean of
positrons and that the vacuum of Space is really a ocean of positrons
that attracts matter and
we see it as gravity.
(5) For biology, the theory of Evolution is flawed, it is not a theory
but a rule or algorithm that captures much of what happens but unlike
a theory which captures all of what happens. What replaces Evolution
is Superdeterminism. The Bell Inequality with the Aspect Experiments
show us that Quantum Physics is on the large-scale and that events are
connected stretching across the entire distance of the Universe. You
cannot have Evolution and Superdeterminism both correct. One has to
become a rule and the other the theory.
(6) For Geology: Planets are electric-generators (dynamos) theory
where they grow by Dirac radioactivity accruing cosmic rays from the
nucleus of the Atom Totatlity (debunking the Nebular Dust Cloud
theory) and where Plate Tectonics is missing the important term of
lightning-bolt strikes which adds a direction component to the drift
of continents. The continents basically look like this | | | on one
semisphere of Earth and the other semisphere is the Pacific Ocean.
(7) For Anthropology: Stonethrowing theory. This theory states that
every planet that has intelligent life all came through one and the
same channel of events where a creature began throwing of rocks and
stones and that throwing behaviour will catapult that species to
intelligence and civilization. The likelihood is that every alien
intelligent lifeform had ancestors that lived in trees because
treeclimbing bone anatomy is a short distance in change to bone
anatomy of stonethrowing. And Stonethrowing theory says that throwing
created bipedalism, so throwing came first and created bipedalism.
This theory states that the difference between apes and humans
resulted some 8 to 10 million years ago from a solo quadruped ape that
"started throwing rocks overarm and overhead". This activity gave the
ape advantages in getting food and more females for mating purposes by
killing other rivals using throwing.
New Book: "STONETHROWING THEORY, THE DOMINANT THEORY OF
ANTHROPOLOGY", Archimedes Plutonium
Internet book published 2002-2007 (assimilated in
March 2007 in sci.anthropology.paleo, sci.med,
sci.physics)
(8) For Archaeology: It is missing a vital period of human history
where waterwheels played a huge role in who would become superpowers.
And why the Roman superpower migrated north to that of France and
Germany in the Holy Roman superpowerdom and then finally the England
superpowerdom. History has main chapters based on "energy developments
and technology" and our current history books miss and completely skip
over the important chapter of waterwheel technology.
(9) For Medical Science: The Metal Causation coupled with Weak-Protein-
Point in the body when foreign metals are present. These 5 family-
related-diseases of Alzheimers, Parkinsons, Prion, Autism,
Schizophrenia are mostly caused by foreign mercury in the body in
conjunction with other metals such as cesium and rubidium and silver.
When the body has these foreign metals, they wreck havoc on proteins
and protein synthesis and start the disease. We need a new tool of
Mass Spectroscopy of disease tissue to find out exactly what metals
and the amount of metals that cause these 5 diseases.
(10) For Political Science and for Economics: I have shown that the
foundation base of these two sciences is that of "land rights" and
"food" respectively. And I have endeavored to point out where these
two sciences are heading for in a million years from now, provided
humanity has not extincted itself. In that the goal of humanity is to
survive as long as possible in our solar system which could be 5
billion years in the future. It means a parsimonous plan in using up
our greatest asset-- the uranium and thorium in the solar system. So
if we act wisely, humanity can live to the ripe age of 5 billion
years. If we act foolishly, which present indications are that we are
acting foolishly, we will extinct ourselves in a million years or
less.
(11) For Psychology, the Brain Locus Theory derived from the Atom
Totality with its Superdeterminism via Bell Inequality. This Brain
Locus theory says that the mind is like a radio receiver and thoughts
occur out-of-body. In fact the Protons in the Nucleus of the Atom
Totality shoot neutrinos and photons in the brains of all living
organisms and forces them to have the "thought or action".
(12) For mathematics, from 1993 to present I have made progress in
proving these statements: Riemannian geometry +(union) Lobachevsky
geometry = Euclidean geometry which is equivalent to this statement:
Natural-Numbers are the positive Adic-Rationals +(union) negative Adic-
Rationals = Reals And a consequence of those statements is that the
Natural Numbers are a fake set, an illusional set, and that the
Natural Numbers are really infinite species. They are the Adic-
Integers which I call Infinite Integers. Once mathematics understands
this change then all the old unproven conjectures of Number Theory
such as Riemann Hypothesis, Goldbach conjecture, Fermat's Last Theorem
are proven.
I am also the first to prove Riemann Hypothesis, Poincare Conjecture,
Kepler Packing, 4 Color Mapping, Fermat's Last Theorem, Goldbach
Conjecture. I am the first to show the flaws in the Peano Axioms which
are self-contradictory for the
Peano Natural Numbers can be shown to be uncountable. I also
show where the Goedel Incompleteness Theorem is a fake since it
depends
on Peano axioms.
New Book: "Correcting Present Day Mathematics and Setting it on
Course for the Next 2 Millenium;
Eucl geom = Riem geom union Loba geom; Reals =
positive Adics union negative Adics", Archimedes
Plutonium
Internet book published 1993-2007 (assimilated in
Jan-Feb 2007 in sci.math,sci.physics)
(13) Reversing Global-Warming with an Earth Air-Conditioner. For years
I thought a CFC-variant would form the basis of a Earth Air
Conditioner so we would need no transportive system. Then in 2005 I
thought Aluminium Sequin is the lowest base form of a Air Conditioner
where we inject aluminum sequin into orbit to reflect the heat of the
Sun. By 2006, I realized that some form of Paper Sequin transported by
mostly commercial aircraft in their cargo haul emitted at the apogee
of their flightpath. I needed models and the Pinatuba Volcano of
1991-1992 with its 30 Km cube of reflectants caused the coolest summer
in recorded history. I needed another model for the reflectants such
as Cottonwood seeds or perhaps Thistle seeds that float around for a
long time in air currents. These two models of Pinatuba and thistle
seed would be Earth's first Air Conditioner and in future years we can
build more elaborate and more controllable Earth Air-Conditioner.
(14) Mutually Assured Destruction Fleet, MAD Fleet for political
science: A fleet for the purpose of preventing ever any nuclear
missile attack launching. Composed of all countries who want to
contribute. The fleet parks itself off the coast of a threatening
country/s such as Pakistan and India in 2001-2002. If a country
launches nuclear missile then the Fleet launches nuclear missiles and
annihilates the aggressor. The Cuban Missile Crisis in the 1960s is an
example of the MAD Fleet. Another function of the Fleet is to park off
of NorthKorea or Iran and should they attack the Fleet in any way
shape or form then the Fleet is obliged to regime change the rogue
country. The MAD Fleet injects onto our world a motivation and
incentive for countries who have nuclear missiles to scrap them and
for countries who do not have nuclear missiles to never build them.
(15) Human Overpopulation is the number one major factor that causes
most wars and is the number one social evil on this planet Earth. Wars
occur periodically of about a 30 years spaced apart due to human
generational birthing. USA Civil War and Franco-Prussian War and WW1
then WW2 are examples of where human population is beyond its means
and violence and war erupt due mainly to human overpopulation. We must
correct ourselves of human overpopulation because if we do not then we
extinct many species of animals and lessen diversity. We run the risk
of nuclear war and thus nuclear pollution. We have conquered Earth's
physical environment to lend us comfort but we have yet to conquer our
own greed of filling this planet chock full of people. As long as we
do not control human population we have the recurring and increasing
evils of wars, pollution, terrorism, starvation, crime etc. When we do
not solve overpopulation then wars, disease, starvation, pollution,
crime, terror ensue and solve it for us. Until we solve human
overpopulation we should not call ourselves Homo sapiens but Homo
dumbo and we should not be called an intelligent species but a
reckless species. I believe this problem is best tackled with a
combination of laws restricting the number of babies and a incentive
of human cloning to those that obey the law.
(16) The Optimal Strategy from VonNeumann Gametheory for Playing the
StockMarket is that of switching campaigns with the technique of
Crossover. Which I have demonstrated with SBC and BCE shares for the
years 2004 and 2005. When one crosses-over the other I sell and buy
the other increasing the total number of share units. I prove it is
the optimal strategy because it is the only strategy that has 2 forms
of currency-- paper money currency and shares of stock as currency.
(17) For History, the theory of history that it is part of physics and
as physics, repeats in large-parts in blocks, such as the analogy of
Galileo rolling balls down inclined planes repeats from one experiment
to another experiment.
History, because of Superdeterminism, history is physics. And that the
course of human history is a unfolding of a science physics notebook.
And that the technique to forecast future history is to find the
applicable past analogy. For example, the Vietnam war was easy to spot
as a defeat for the USA since the applicable past analogy was the
defeat of the French
colonialism in Vietnam.
(18) For Religion, I have shown what religion really is-- science
precursor, or
preliminary science. Whenever we find ourselves in a situation in
which we have little to no scientific
understanding, we breakdown into a religious mode. But as facts and
data
and understanding reveal themselves we discard the religious mode and
adhere
to the science mode. With the Atom Totality theory, I am the first
human to know
what God looks like and the purpose of human life. Since God is one
big atom
then God looks like the 5f6 of 231Pu pictured in chemistry. And the
purpose of
life in an Atom Totality is to nucleosynthesize the elements beyond
plutonium
which are not nucleosynthesized in the stars. In other words, life is
cold-stars. It
is a life-form that creates the next God which is the 96Element Atom
Totality. God
is an atom and it brought forth life to create the next Atom Totality.
The only real
truth in the Cosmos is scientific truth and that means God is Science,
and Science
is god. Atom!
Biographical notes In his autobiography (entitled at one point Ludwig
Plutonium: the Chosen One, and claimed to be 2200 pages), Plutonium
claims he started posting to Usenet on August 12 of 1993 under the
name of Ludwig Plutonium. He posts and cross-posts mostly in the sci.
(science) hierarchy. Other than the Plutonium ATOM Totality Theory,
one of his most noteworthy announcements was that he has a single
plutonium atom at the center of his brain, which makes him a super
genius. He claims this follows from the Plutonium Atom Totality Theory
according to which thoughts and ideas do not originate in our own
minds but are created in the nucleus of the atom-universe by the
Nuclear entity which controls every thought and action in the electron
space.
Most of Plutonium's Usenet postings on science seemed to stem from his
ability to draw analogies and comparisons; for instance the similarity
he claimed to see between the entire universe and an atom is seen in
Carl Sagan's book Cosmos where he wrote about this topic on page 267.
Another case analogy is from the book "A Short History of Atomism" by
J.G. Gregory 1931 on page 4 where Gregory says " Democritus allowed
all sizes to atoms; a single Democritean atom might even be, so some
said, as big as the world".
Quotes "God is Science, and Science is god"
"God is this one big atom that comprises all the Universe, much like
what Spinoza discovered some centuries past, called pantheism. Where
we are a tiny part of God itself. And where there is a heaven and hell
in part of the atom structure. And where we will be judged by God when
we die and our photon and neutrino souls will reincarnate once again
in
a future life somewhere in the Cosmos."
"The world's finest Bibles are current physics textbooks or biology or
chemistry
textbooks such as the Feynman Lectures on Physics."
External links Archimedes Plutonium website It is currently disabled.
Here is the archive.org archive of it.
This site appears to be Plutonium's current website-- www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
Categories: 1950 births | Living people | Usenet people
--- end quoting what my website -- http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/
says as of 29 March 2007 ---
.

User: "Phineas T Puddleduck"
Title: Re: history of FBP #11 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIERPRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	29 Mar 2007 03:12:54 PM

On 29/3/07 21:08, in article
1175198937.593441.302270@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com, "a_plutonium"
<a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote:

I need to post my website to the Internet newsgroup periodically,
because

Its a load of old codswallop no-one would willingly go to?
--
Painius admits he cannot answer a single question to NB:
"Yes, you're right of course, NB. And they get very useless very quickly.
I shall do my best to ignore them, as you wish."
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: Re: history of FBP #11 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	29 Mar 2007 03:17:04 PM

a_plutonium wrote:
(all else snipped)

One of the reasons I call such books as monograph-books because they
are so
short in length of less than 100 pages. I merely want to blurt out the
"NEW IDEAS"
and get wrangled into
repeating much of the past history of this area of physics. So, since

Typing error in the above, and should have read "and not get
wrangled". I corrected
the mistake in the original.
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: Implications of FBP #12 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	02 Apr 2007 02:10:22 AM

a_plutonium wrote:

Implications of FBP
If asked to rank my best two ideas they would be the Atom Totality
Theory, and second would be
FBP. And strangely, to me anyway, is that FBP is very much independent
of the Atom Totality theory
in that I could have discovered FBP independently without ever knowing
of the Atom Totality theory.
For example, my Coulomb Unification of the Forces of Physics was very
much dependent on knowing
the Atom Totality theory, and a good reason why no-one before me was
ever going to find a Unification
theory with a background of Big Bang. So this rather surprizes me.
Another theory I have been working
on for the last 16 years or more is the correct theory of
Superconductivity, and it also is independent
of the Atom Totality theory, at least that is my current assessment.
But the FBP very much agrees with a Atom Totality outlook, in that
life was brought forth to help in
nucleosynthesis and to usher in the new Atom Totality via
nucleosynthesis, and so there is no need
for advanced intelligent life to be travelling and roaming all over
the cosmos, but rather to stay at home
on a home planet, confined to that home planet and to perform
nucleosynthesis there. And a good
explanation as to why never a visit from aliens. Simply because a
Cosmos with a FBP cannot allow for
life to travel outside its Solar System.
The implications of a FBP are huge, because it means life is very much
restricted to its home planet
and its Solar System. The math is simple enough. Suppose the closest
star system from Earth is 10 light
years away. And since FBP is true, then the best spacecraft would be
nuclear fission powered. So can
a nuclear fissile fuel be engineered to carry a space-vessel 10 light
years and still have its passengers alive?
I have often posted to the sci newsgroups that pulsars, for the
majority of them, are intelligent alien civilization
broadcasts of aliens that are dying out. That they exhausted their
fissile fuels of their star system and were
now counting down the days in which they will perish. Much like the
fate of humanity under a FBP. There will
come a time and place on Earth when we have exhausted much of the
fissile fuels, and if we were smart enough
to have colonized other planets such as Mars or satellites such as
Europa and the Moon and to mine their fissile
fuels, that we will perish either soon or prolong it. That we cannot
escape our Solar System and that Jupiter
will likely swallow up Earth as it becomes a twin star to our Sun. I
am talking in the millions of years into the
future. That humanity can live and prosper for perhaps a billion years
into the future, but only if we use the
fissile fuels in a proper sequence of planned use so that we extract
all the other fissile fuels from astro
bodies. If we use up all the fissile fuels on Earth and never colonize
the Moon or Mars for their fissile fuels,
then we probably perish in millions of years.
What FBP does, is restrict life to its home planet and makes life
subordinate and subjected to planetary
collisions for which they are helpless to escape from or prevent. I am
not just talking about the routine
asteroid hits on Earth, but am talking about Earth being swallowed up
by Jupiter or Saturn.
So I think what Pulsars are, for the most part, are aliens in a pinch,
who have millions perhaps some have
billions of years of intelligent civilization and for which they are
now trapped with the last amount of fissile
resources and are trapped in some impending planetary collision for
which they cannot escape and will
perish. So as their last voices in the Cosmos is a pulsar beeping to
others.
FBP is huge science for it is huge implications.
It has other implications such as the idea that the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle is related to the FBP.
And the implication that the Maxwell Equations are directly related to
Fusion energy.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: Re: Implications of FBP #13 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	04 Apr 2007 12:41:32 AM

(snipped)

FBP is huge science for it is huge implications.

FBP requires the human civilization to make a MasterPlan of the future
as to whether we as a species
survives for thousands of years into the future, or survives millions
of years or survives billions of years.
Knowing FBP will force us to make choices as to how long we survive or
go extinct.
To survive for billions of years with a Universal Law of Fusion
Barrier will take very much careful
and masterful planning. I am not just talking about the rare
occasional huge asteroid colliding
with Earth but also with the changing dynamics of the Solar System as
it proceeds to make
Jupiter a twin star to the Sun. And with the changing dynamics of the
Sun itself.
So if humanity wants to survive into the billions of years, it will
have to chart out a masterplan
that keeps enough fissile fuels such as thorium and uranium in a safe
place in case we need it.
And enough fissile fuel to hop-scotch around to other planets and
satellites to mine their fissile
fuel.
One of the worst case scenerios is where we use up all the fissile
fuel on Earth and not enough
energy to colonize the Moon or Mars or Europa to extract their fissile
fuels.
I believe most pulsars are dying alien civilizations and as their
tombstone they erected a Pulsar
Machine. For they know they are sitting and waiting to go extinct and
their Pulsar Machine is
their last sign or signal.

It has other implications such as the idea that the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle is related to the FBP.
And the implication that the Maxwell Equations are directly related to
Fusion energy.

Proof of the Fusion Barrier Principle relies on Maxwell Equations that
the two dynamic laws
of Faraday and Ampere-Maxwell are cylindrical in geometry and the two
static laws of
Coulomb and Gauss's magnetic law are spherical in geometry. And the
combination of the Faraday
and Coulomb law implies the Fusion Barrier Principle in that the
maximum volume or surface area
of enclosement is 2/3. So that 1/3 the energy is always lost in making
fusion. So here in physics,
for the first time we connect Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with
Fusion Energy with Maxwell
Equations. All three are related to one another. This is profound and
gigantic physics. I can think of
only one physics that is more meaningful than the Fusion Barrier
Principle and that is the Atom
Totality theory. The Atom Totality theory tells us what the whole
world is and our place in it. The Fusion
Barrier Principle tells us what our limitations are, and tells us that
if we want to live long, we better
make a masterplan.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "a_plutonium"
Title: an analogy before I go #14 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	10 Apr 2007 02:09:01 AM

Some may ask why I seem to love to do several books simultaneously or
why I seem to jump around alot from
physics to biology to mathematics to chemistry, you name it. I guess
my answer is that I am bored too much
if I stay on one subject. And like each and every day in my life, I do
not spend 24 hours on just doing one thing
in the day but do a batch of numerous and rather unrelated things in a
day's time.
There is a huge benefit in doing several science things all
simultaneously, besides curbing boredom. One such
benefit is realized here and right now. In that I am currently writing
the book on the five diseases of Autism,
Alzheimers, Schizophrenia, Parkinsons and Prion and giving a theory to
explain those diseases by using the
analogy of Asbestosis. The theory is that mercury poisoning is the
chief culprit along with other toxic metals
of the environment. So I use the Asbestosis analogy to explain the
theory of Metal Causation on the Weakest
Protein Point of the Brain. I replace the toxic asbestos fibers with
mercury and other metals.
So, that a Analogy is so vastly beneficial in explaining the theory,
that I wonder if I can manage to form a
analogy to the Fusion Barrier Principle. And although I feel the book
is completed without the analogy, that
still, a analogy would always help, considering that most readers are
really not physicists or scientists.
So I am going to try to make an analogy that most everyone can
understand and hopefully appreciate what
a Fusion Barrier Principle is all about.
I may have to look and find a better analogy in the future revisions
of this book, but I am going to try to
establish one here and now:
Wood Burning Stove as a Analogy to Fusion Barrier Principle:
Most people have had some acquintence with wood burning stoves. I grew
up with them and enjoy them
every winter. Now suppose one had only green wood and wet wood. That
they never could have wood that
is dry and cured for burning. If you ever tried burning green and wet
wood you know it mostly gives off smoke
and it really does not burn but smolders. Now suppose your room to be
warmed by this wood stove is below
freezing and you are trying to warm this room up to be comfortable.
With only green and wet wood, the amount
of heat energy delivered to the room is never able to raise the
temperature to be comfortable because the
heat energy of burning this green and wet wood is going into the
evaporation of the water content in the wood
itself. So the energy released by the wood is going into the form of
evaporating the water in the wood. So
the room remains cold and never comfortable. That the wood smokes and
smolders but does not flame and
deliver heat warmth.
That is the best analogy I can deliver at this time. The Fusion
Barrier Principle like the green and wet wood,
would say that most of the energy in fusion goes to controlling the
machine so that 1/3 of the output energy
has to go with the controlling input energy to maintain itself as a
controlled machine. So that a controlled
fusion machine can never surpass 2/3 breakeven. Likewise in the wood
stove, if all the wood was always
green and wet, it can never warm the room because its output energy
goes into removing the water content
of the wood.
Perhaps in the future, I can think of a better analogy and thus
include it in a revision of this book.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
.

User: "Major Quaternion Dirt Quantum"
Title: Re: Uncertainty Principle rewritten as Faraday & Coulomb Law #6 Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007	22 Mar 2007 01:32:27 PM

if you'd put more commas into your spiel,
you might get a better reading, or
at least critique from the Wikiistas --
it's "run-on" sentences, although
your "monographical" phase seems to take care
to break it down into conciser paragraphs.
although this is your best thing,
it's still impossibly obtuse, as well
as certainly wrong. I mean,
does that sticky-muno guy have any reason
to use 2/3, other than your sublimely
ridiculous diagram of Coulomb versus Faraday,
from the absurd metaphor?
where are the proofs of these imaginings?

Archimedes Plutoniumwww.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies

thus:
.... because AP shares a common Britishism,
the lack of adequate punctuation,
mainly the commas, set out as normative pauses
in one's breathing, but to dysambiguate meaning
of a run-on sentence.
they don't all *talk* like that,
even at Oxbridge, Harry Potter PS#1. it's more
annoying than an abbreviationat the end
of a sentence, with only one space after it,
in the newspapaer.

Deep Comma

Yes, one must avoid dangerous punctuation at all costs...

and, eventually, to death. Fortunately enough, he could be

thus:
um, yeah;
Borat wants you in Sudan, why, Baby?

the UNIT quaternions include those
with all half-integers in the imaginary parts.

--DARFUR CONSISTS OF ARABs & nonARABs;
NEWS-ITEM: there are too kinds of people -- or 3?...
Harry Potter IIX, ?Ordeal @ Oxford//Baghdad ^ Parachute!
http://larouchepub.com/other/2007/3410caymans_hedges.html
.

Page 1 of 1

Post reply

#15 a working model of plasma physics turbulence and a good college take home problem Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007
#1monograph-book: UNIFICATION OF THE FORCES OF PHYSICS AS A COULOMB UNIFICATION, Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1993-2007
# 51Perelman's Ricci Flow is just a more elaborate Iterative Roots and Archimedes Plutonium proved Poincare Conjecture way back in 1991; new book "Correcting Present Day Mathematics...."
PDE book recommendation
Anyone have an opinion of this GR book?
Neutron Beams and Synchrotron Radiation Sources - book
Re: Smoot's Book: Quadrupoles and Omega=1
There must be an after-undergrad HTSC book?!

Best Book on Fluid Dynamics?
Good book for learning physics?
Canonical Quantization & QFT book recommendations
Leonard Susskind's book
Re: Ira Einhorn's new book
Lenny Susskind's important new book "Cosmic Landscape"