#20 is Ampere's and Faraday's laws torus shaped whereas Coulomb is spherical shaped Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE
plutonium....@gmail.com
but a calculation-aid Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE,
Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007
a_plutonium wrote:
> Looking into Perturbation theory, I thought I might spot something
> that would help answer some questions
> of water dynamics in a wheelbarrow and answer some questions as plasma
> instability and disturbance of
> plasma flow. Perturbation theory can help in questions of water and
> plasma flow but not what I am
> concerned with for the Fusion Barrier Principle.
>
> And so many things in the sciences are given a title as .... theory
> when they are not a theory. Perturbation
> is not a theory of physics but a mere computational aid of device to
> make the mathematics easier. It is a
> sincere shame that so many things in the sciences, even physics,
> becomes too loose and sloppy as to
> calling something a theory when it never was a theory. Just because
> some method makes the math
> easier is not reason to then call it a Perturbation theory. Perhaps a
> better term is Perturbation aid or helper
> or shortcut. Perhaps the proper term is "method" as in Perturbation
> Methods.
>
> However, I have found a new theory of physics and am calling it the
> Control-Theory. Machines exist
> and the basic characteristic of a machine is control such that the
> machine repeats in some actions. We
> define a "machine" as a device that is controlled and has a repetitive
> action. A fusion bomb is not a
> machine for it is not a repetitive action, nor is it controlled upon
> detonation. An internal combustion
> engine or an electric motor are devices that are controlled and have a
> repetitive action.
>
> The Control Theory of Physics says that the Maxwell Equations of its
> Faraday law and Ampere law are laws
> that control the Coulomb law in a fusion machine like JET or ITER.
>
> This is a brand new idea in physics, that some of the Maxwell
> Equations control another Maxwell Equation.
> That the Faraday Law controls the Coulomb Law. Never before in physics
> have we seen that some
> law or force controls a different law or force.
>
> Living organisms are machines. So we can reduce a living organism to a
> net sum of control forces of
> Faraday or Ampere law. And in many machines, the Coulomb law is a
> control-force.
>
> So in the discovery of the Fusion Barrier Principle back in 1997 has
> now lead me to the discovery
> of a whole new subject field of physics-- Control Theory.
>
> > P.S. Why would the Faraday law and Ampere law pack 1/3 more energy
> > than ever
> > could the Coulomb law over a energy density? I guess that is the next
> > deep question.
> > I suspect the answer is that when you have a static law compared to a
> > dynamic law
> > that you have to have more energy density in the dynamic law than the
> > static law.
> >
The above is a July 2007 post of mine as the last post on that book to
date. There has
been something new abrewing on this subject that has been bothering me
as of lately.
It is simmering in my mind and I will need to address it fully when I
write the 2nd edition
of this book. If you recall, or can read my first edition, you will
see that I prove the FBP
by mathematics. That the Coulomb force is a sphere shaped force while
the Ampere-Maxwell
and Faraday's laws of the Maxwell Equations are not spherical in
geometry but are rather
torus shaped or a cross section of a torus is a special type of a
cylinder. My proof of the
FBP was a reuse of the old proof of Archimedes in Ancient Greek times
where he proved
the surface area and volume of enclosed sphere in cylinder was a
maximum 2/3.
So you can see my problem here. That Ampere-Maxwell law and Faraday
law of the Maxwell
Equations are not really cylinder shaped but rather torus shaped. And
although we may
consider the cross section of a torus as a cylinder, there maybe some
future experiments
of ITER which may end up with a different number than 2/3 as the
maximum.
So far, all the fusion machines built and tested have been less than
or equal to a 2/3
breakeven, especially the Nagamine muon fusion experiments have hit on
exactly
2/3 as the upper limit. JET, before it was disassembled, reached
somewhere in the
64% breakeven, slightly short of Nagamine's 66.66 % breakeven.
So, what the point of this post is to alert readers that yes, the
Fusion Barrier Principle has
a maximum percent breakeven for which no machine can reach 100%
breakeven or surpass it.
This is because all fusion machines have to use the Faraday law or the
Ampere-Maxwell law
to control the Coulomb law. All fusion machines must use two of the
Maxwell Equations in
order to control the repulsion of protons fusing as the Coulomb law.
That means, fitting
spheres inside of cylinders. But the point of this post is that the
cylinder is a cross section of
a torus, because the Faraday and Ampere Maxwell laws are really
toruses.
So there maybe a ITER experimental result where it looks as though
66.66% that Nagamine
achieved is exceeded. And that extra percent beyond 2/3 breakeven is
not due to some
fault of the FBP, but due to the idea that the shape of the cylinder
as a torus cross section
maybe from a "toroidal cylinder" rather than a Euclidean flat plane
geometry cylinder.
The 2/3 enclosing sphere in cylinder presupposes the ends of the
cylinder are flat plane circles
but the ends maybe curved and curved to increase the volume
percentage.
So I am thus giving a precaution or pre-alarm that ITER may someday
reach 71% breakeven
and look as though the FBP is wrong. But it is not wrong because the
cylinder that is
derived from a torus can accomodate a little more volume of the
enclosed sphere that is
the Coulomb force of repulsion.
All fusion machines, according to FBP will never reach 100% breakeven
nor surpass breakeven.
The best they can achieve is around 66.66 % breakeven, but if the
torus cross-section is a
curved-cylinder then the enclosed sphere can take up more space and
the percent of
breakeven rise a little higher to say 70-71% breakeven.
So I am setting a alarm or anticipation that perhaps ITER will go
beyond the 66% breakeven
and for which many will then denounce the FBP, but their denouncing
will be shortlived
as they realize that the enclosing of sphere into a bent-shaped-
toroidal-cylinder has an
upper limit far less than 100% breakeven.
It is worth repeating the crux of Fusion Barrier Principle. All fusion
machines desire to
surpass 100% breakeven in order to make energy. However, all fusion
machines use the
Faraday and Ampere-Maxwell laws to control their machines. All fusion
machines must
fuse protons to protons which is a repulsive Coulomb law. The Coulomb
law is a sphere
and the Faraday and Ampere laws are toruses. A cross section of a
torus is a cylinder or
a bent cylinder. Mathematics proves the maximum volume of enclosed
sphere inside cylinder
is 2/3 volume. That means, the best that any fusion machine can
achieve is 2/3 breakeven.
If ITER reports 69% breakeven or 71% breakeven, does not mean ITER
disproved the FBP.
It means that the enclosed sphere of Coulomb force was inside a bent
toroidal cylinder
which eked out a slightly higher volume than 2/3.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
porky_...@my-deja.com
> Re: #19 Control-Theory for Physics and Perturbation is not a theory
> but a calculation-aid Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE,
> Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007
>
Archie, you have already some many books published, have you
considered donating a copy of each to George W. Bush Presidential
Library?
Charlie Gibbs
<01cba94e-0185-48da...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
porky_...@my-deja.com (porky_...@my-deja.com) writes:
Too late - I hear it burned down, and both books were destroyed.
Even worse, he hadn't finished colouring the second one yet.
--
/~\ cgi...@kltpzyxm.invalid (Charlie Gibbs)
\ / I'm really at ac.dekanfrus if you read it the right way.
X Top-posted messages will probably be ignored. See RFC1855.
/ \ HTML will DEFINITELY be ignored. Join the ASCII ribbon campaign!
jmfbahciv
> In article
> <01cba94e-0185-48da...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
> porky_...@my-deja.com (porky_...@my-deja.com) writes:
>
>> On Jun 12, 12:17 pm, plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> Re: #19 Control-Theory for Physics and Perturbation is not a theory
>>> but a calculation-aid Re: Monograph-Book: FUSION BARRIER PRINCIPLE,
>>> Archimedes Plutonium, Internet published 1997-2007
>> Archie, you have already some many books published, have you
>> considered donating a copy of each to George W. Bush Presidential
>> Library?
>
> Too late - I hear it burned down, and both books were destroyed.
> Even worse, he hadn't finished colouring the second one yet.
>
The only crayon available was black. 'ey, Charlie.
/BAH