No-one is touting Fusion Energy anymore because of Archimedes Plutonium's Fusion Barrier Principle
plutonium....@gmail.com
saying that by 2015 there would
be a nuclear fusion power station.
I remember the late J. Wheeler say it was almost a sure thing in the
21st century to have fusion
energy on line.
Well, here it is in 2008 with sky high fuel costs and the news media
never mentioning a word on
Fusion Energy. Why is this?
It is because the world learned of a Fusion Barrier Principle in the
late 1990s. That because of the
Maxwell Equations that the Faraday Law is required to harness the
Coulomb Law and thus
there is a 2/3 upper limit of Breakeven. A sphere enclosed inside a
cylinder can deliver only a
maximum 2/3 of volume or surface area, and thus a proof that fusion
energy eats up 1/3 of the
input energy.
That there never will be a Fusion Power Station.
That is why you do not hear any scientists bragg or make rosy
optimistic statements about fusion
coming to the rescue.
Even the newspapers and TV reporters have learned from Archimedes
Plutonium that fusion is
never going to be.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Bob Eld
<plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:30913d8e-3050-4eab...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Please explain in more detail your "fusion barrier pricniple." You jump to
the sphere inside of a cylinder ratio but with no explanaion of the
relationship to fusion. Obviously this priciple does not apply inside the
sun or other stars, why not? It does not seem to apply in a hydrogen bomb
either, again, why not?
Why does the principle apply to tokamaks like that being built for ITER?
What is the relationship to the Maxwell equations and Faraday's law?
Is there a paper or URL where we can read about this in more detail?
Are there any third party or peer reviews of the exclusion principle?
Thanks
Eric Gisin
news:aYMik.14828$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:30913d8e-3050-4eab...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Plutonium that fusion is never going to be.
>>
>> Archimedes Plutonium
>> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
>> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>
You should start a religion, call it Universology.
> Please explain in more detail your "fusion barrier pricniple." You jump to
> the sphere inside of a cylinder ratio but with no explanaion of the
> relationship to fusion. Obviously this priciple does not apply inside the
> sun or other stars, why not? It does not seem to apply in a hydrogen bomb
> either, again, why not?
>
> Why does the principle apply to tokamaks like that being built for ITER?
>
> What is the relationship to the Maxwell equations and Faraday's law?
>
> Is there a paper or URL where we can read about this in more detail?
>
> Are there any third party or peer reviews of the exclusion principle?
>
Nothing better to do than trying to reason with trolls?
Y.Porat
> <plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote in message
ITER cant do it
because it is a 'dog running aftwer its tail
but LHC can do it easyly
(still does not mean it is energy productive !!)
> What is the relationship to the Maxwell equations and Faraday's law?
tose equations has nothing to do with it
and are useless for it
the situation is much complex than those equations
ATB
Y.Porat
-------------------------
>
> Is there a paper or URL where we can read about this in more detail?
>
> Are there any third party or peer reviews of the exclusion principle?
>
> Thanks- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
plutonium....@gmail.com
All the energy interactions are translatable to the Maxwell Equations.
The Coulomb
is spherical. The two dynamic Maxwell Equations-- Faraday and Ampere
laws are
cylindrical (torus shaped). To control fusion you need to use Faraday
or Ampere laws.
To create fusion you have to overcome Coulomb law. The maximum
controlling that the
Faraday or Ampere can muster is 2/3, using up 1/3 of all input energy.
> Obviously this priciple does not apply inside the
> sun or other stars, why not? It does not seem to apply in a hydrogen bomb
> either, again, why not?
Principle applies everywhere. The Sun and stars typically burn on 1/4
of their energy
as fusion. A Supernova does not even reach 2/3 breakeven.
A hydrogen bomb is a mix of fission and without the fission detonator,
you have no
hydrogen bomb. But a bomb is not a machine that repeats and so the
fusion barrier principle
does not apply. When you try to make a repeating bomb blasts to
harness then you have
the 2/3 breakeven enter.
>
> Why does the principle apply to tokamaks like that being built for ITER?
>
> What is the relationship to the Maxwell equations and Faraday's law?
>
> Is there a paper or URL where we can read about this in more detail?
>
> Are there any third party or peer reviews of the exclusion principle?
>
> Thanks
I wrote a book titled the Fusion Barrier Principle, numbered it with
#1, #2, etc etc and
posted it to sci.physics.fusion. Here is the first post of that book.
And I should do the
2nd edition pretty soon.
Newsgroups: sci.physics, sci.math
From: "a_plutonium" <a_pluton...@hotmail.com>
Date: 13 Mar 2007 11:12:53 -0700
Local: Tues, Mar 13 2007 12:12 pm
Subject: #1 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.
plutonium....@gmail.com
Eric Gisin wrote:
> "Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:aYMik.14828$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> >
> > <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:30913d8e-3050-4eab...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >> Even the newspapers and TV reporters have learned from Archimedes
> >> Plutonium that fusion is never going to be.
> >>
> Can't wait to see you interviewed on CNN.
>
> >> Archimedes Plutonium
> >> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> >> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> >> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
> >
> You should start a religion, call it Universology.
>
There is a price to pay for these airhead nonscientists who chime in
on discussions over their
head.
According to Eric Gisin the barrier to energy is not fission nor
fusion but according to his rants,
must be higher than fusion, or, go to infinity.
Here are the levels of energy utilization
(1) Chemical
(2) Fission
(3) Fusion
(4) Matter- AntiMatter
(5) infinity of levels of energy
Archimedes Plutonium puts the barrier between Fission and Fusion.
To a ranting airhead like Eric Gisin, where is his calculations of
where the barrier exists in Nature.
Let us see an airhead do some science instead of constant worthless
opinions.
Eric Gisin
news:8469f77f-0652-4415...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Eric Gisin wrote:
>> "Bob Eld" <nsmon...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:aYMik.14828$cW3....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> >
>> > <plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:30913d8e-3050-4eab...@y21g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> >>
>> >> Even the newspapers and TV reporters have learned from Archimedes
>> >> Plutonium that fusion is never going to be.
>> >>
>> Can't wait to see you interviewed on CNN.
>>
>> >> Archimedes Plutonium
>> >> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
>> >> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>> >> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
>> >
>> You should start a religion, call it Universology.
>>
>
> There is a price to pay for these airhead nonscientists who chime in
> on discussions over their head.
>
Neither are so deluded they think the universe is one big plutonium atom.
> According to Eric Gisin the barrier to energy is not fission nor
> fusion but according to his rants,
> must be higher than fusion, or, go to infinity.
>
Clear sign of schizophrenia, making up something bizarre (about me).
> Here are the levels of energy utilization
>
> (1) Chemical
>
> (2) Fission
>
> (3) Fusion
>
> (4) Matter- AntiMatter
>
> (5) infinity of levels of energy
>
>
> Archimedes Plutonium puts the barrier between Fission and Fusion.
>
> To a ranting airhead like Eric Gisin, where is his calculations of
> where the barrier exists in Nature.
>
> Let us see an airhead do some science instead of constant worthless
> opinions.
>
Everyone knows the energy barrier is at the edge of our galaxy, see "Where No Man Has Gone Before"
Michael Moroney
><plutonium....@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8469f77f-0652-4415...@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> You should start a religion, call it Universology.
I think Archie's actions are probably very similar to how many actual
religions got started. Except Archie doesn't have any followers that
I know of.
>> There is a price to pay for these airhead nonscientists who chime in
>> on discussions over their head.
>>
>Let me guess, you think you are a scientist. So do Bob Lazar and Jack Sarfatti.
>Neither are so deluded they think the universe is one big plutonium atom.
Archie believes that if he dreamed it up and posts it on the internet,
it's science. He actually doesn't understand what the word really means.
>> According to Eric Gisin the barrier to energy is not fission nor
>> fusion but according to his rants,
>> must be higher than fusion, or, go to infinity.
>>
>Clear sign of schizophrenia, making up something bizarre (about me).
I've wondered for quite some time whether his delusions of greatness (King
of Science/being "chosen" by the cosmic plutonium atom as its prophet) is
schizophrenia or something else.
andy everett
> I remember the late E. Teller in a newsprint in the 1980s or 1990s
> saying that by 2015 there would
> be a nuclear fusion power station.
>
> I remember the late J. Wheeler say it was almost a sure thing in the
> 21st century to have fusion
> energy on line.
>
> Well, here it is in 2008 with sky high fuel costs and the news media
> never mentioning a word on
> Fusion Energy. Why is this?
>
> It is because the world learned of a Fusion Barrier Principle in the
> late 1990s. That because of the
> Maxwell Equations that the Faraday Law is required to harness the
> Coulomb Law and thus
> there is a 2/3 upper limit of Breakeven. A sphere enclosed inside a
> cylinder can deliver only a
> maximum 2/3 of volume or surface area, and thus a proof that fusion
> energy eats up 1/3 of the
> input energy.
Did someone prove that airplanes can't fly? Oh right, go Google it.