Science and Technology news... :: View topic - Fusion Barrier Principle; Where does Dr. David Campbell comp

Guest

Seems to me as though the fusion research is not money spent wisely
enough for we already have
many of the most important questions answered by JET tokamak and by
Nagamine>s muon fusion.
JET reached 64% breakeven before decommissioned. Nagamine reached 66%
breakeven in fusion.

--- quoting from ---
Flaw in the £7bn Iter fusion power plan - Telegraph
One of the Iter team, Dr David Campbell, Deputy Head of Fusion
Science, says the hand grenade comparison is misleading because the
energy release is spread ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/03/11/sciiter111.xml
- 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

One of the Iter team, Dr David Campbell, Deputy Head of Fusion
Science, says the hand grenade
comparison is misleading because the energy release is spread over a
big area.

--- end quoting ---

Before billions of dollars are spent on ITER, seems to me that Dr.
Campbell should make these
computations and calculations:

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 of energy utilization between
Fission and Fusion.

More precisely, my math puts the barrier at 2/3 Fusion Breakeven.

Seems to me that Dr. Campbell and other ITER scientists are obliged
and demanded to make
these calculations of where the barrier exists in Nature. Before they
go ahead and spend
billions of taxpayer dollars.

Because to my math, ITER will reach only 64% to 66% breakeven if
lucky. It may just well
happen that JET surpasses ITER when all is done.

The science community and the world community have not held these ITER
scientists to the
highest standards.

If those scientists believe there is no barrier and that humanity will
always conquer the next highest
level of energy organization in Nature, then let them show their
calculations of infinity utilization. If they
believe fusion is possible, then let them show their calculations that
the barrier does not exist between
fission and fusion -- and specifically at 2/3 breakeven of fusion.

I have shown the math-- Faraday Law gobbles up 1/3 of all input energy
and so 2/3 is the maximum.

Before ITER is built, let these scientists show their math and
computations and reasons for why
energy utilization is available for harnessing fusion.

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

Guest

plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]Seems to me as though the fusion research is not money spent wisely
enough for we already have
many of the most important questions answered by JET tokamak and by
Nagamine>s muon fusion.
JET reached 64% breakeven before decommissioned. Nagamine reached 66%
breakeven in fusion.

--- quoting from ---
Flaw in the ï¿½7bn Iter fusion power plan - Telegraph
One of the Iter team, Dr David Campbell, Deputy Head of Fusion
Science, says the hand grenade comparison is misleading because the
energy release is spread ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/03/11/sciiter111.xml
- 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

One of the Iter team, Dr David Campbell, Deputy Head of Fusion
Science, says the hand grenade
comparison is misleading because the energy release is spread over a
big area.

--- end quoting ---

Before billions of dollars are spent on ITER, seems to me that Dr.
Campbell should make these
computations and calculations:

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 of energy utilization between
Fission and Fusion.

More precisely, my math puts the barrier at 2/3 Fusion Breakeven.

Seems to me that Dr. Campbell and other ITER scientists are obliged
and demanded to make
these calculations of where the barrier exists in Nature. Before they
go ahead and spend
billions of taxpayer dollars.

Because to my math, ITER will reach only 64% to 66% breakeven if
lucky. It may just well
happen that JET surpasses ITER when all is done.

The science community and the world community have not held these ITER
scientists to the
highest standards.

If those scientists believe there is no barrier and that humanity will
always conquer the next highest
level of energy organization in Nature, then let them show their
calculations of infinity utilization. If they
believe fusion is possible, then let them show their calculations that
the barrier does not exist between
fission and fusion -- and specifically at 2/3 breakeven of fusion.

I have shown the math-- Faraday Law gobbles up 1/3 of all input energy
and so 2/3 is the maximum.

Before ITER is built, let these scientists show their math and
computations and reasons for why
energy utilization is available for harnessing fusion.

[/quote]
It is easy to turn Dr. Campbell into a true believer of Fusion Barrier
Principle as well as all
the other scientists of ITER. How so easy?

Well, easy because all that is needed is to ask them to calculate how
much energy
it takes to obtain antimatter to combine with matter and thence
produce energy. Once
you have the antimatter, simply introduce some matter and you have
energy. But the
cost of producing antimatter.

Now some may say, ho ho ho, Archimedes Plutonium played a trick. I did
not. Because
Antimatter is part of space as Dirac ocean of positrons proved. So to
get antimatter, we have
to apply energy to Space to extract it.

That means the energy levels of organization that I listed above holds
true.

And if Matter + Antimatter is a net deficit of energy utilization,
then fusion which is a lower level
is also a net deficit of 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

Guest

plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
[quote]plutonium.archime...@gmail.com wrote:
Seems to me as though the fusion research is not money spent wisely
enough for we already have
many of the most important questions answered by JET tokamak and by
Nagamine>s muon fusion.
JET reached 64% breakeven before decommissioned. Nagamine reached 66%
breakeven in fusion.

--- quoting from ---
Flaw in the ï¿½7bn Iter fusion power plan - Telegraph
One of the Iter team, Dr David Campbell, Deputy Head of Fusion
Science, says the hand grenade comparison is misleading because the
energy release is spread ...
www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2008/03/11/sciiter111.xml
- 39k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

One of the Iter team, Dr David Campbell, Deputy Head of Fusion
Science, says the hand grenade
comparison is misleading because the energy release is spread over a
big area.

--- end quoting ---

Before billions of dollars are spent on ITER, seems to me that Dr.
Campbell should make these
computations and calculations:

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 of energy utilization between
Fission and Fusion.

More precisely, my math puts the barrier at 2/3 Fusion Breakeven.

Seems to me that Dr. Campbell and other ITER scientists are obliged
and demanded to make
these calculations of where the barrier exists in Nature. Before they
go ahead and spend
billions of taxpayer dollars.

Because to my math, ITER will reach only 64% to 66% breakeven if
lucky. It may just well
happen that JET surpasses ITER when all is done.

The science community and the world community have not held these ITER
scientists to the
highest standards.

If those scientists believe there is no barrier and that humanity will
always conquer the next highest
level of energy organization in Nature, then let them show their
calculations of infinity utilization. If they
believe fusion is possible, then let them show their calculations that
the barrier does not exist between
fission and fusion -- and specifically at 2/3 breakeven of fusion.

I have shown the math-- Faraday Law gobbles up 1/3 of all input energy
and so 2/3 is the maximum.

Before ITER is built, let these scientists show their math and
computations and reasons for why
energy utilization is available for harnessing fusion.

It is easy to turn Dr. Campbell into a true believer of Fusion Barrier
Principle as well as all
the other scientists of ITER. How so easy?

Well, easy because all that is needed is to ask them to calculate how
much energy
it takes to obtain antimatter to combine with matter and thence
produce energy. Once
you have the antimatter, simply introduce some matter and you have
energy. But the
cost of producing antimatter.

Now some may say, ho ho ho, Archimedes Plutonium played a trick. I did
not. Because
Antimatter is part of space as Dirac ocean of positrons proved. So to
get antimatter, we have
to apply energy to Space to extract it.

That means the energy levels of organization that I listed above holds
true.

And if Matter + Antimatter is a net deficit of energy utilization,
then fusion which is a lower level
is also a net deficit of energy.

[/quote]
Sorry, no, the logic does not support my last paragraph there. What it
does support is this
idea:

If Matter-Antimatter level of energy organization is a net deficit of
energy utilization, means
that a barrier exists between the level of Fission then Fusion then
Matter+Antimatter.

In other words, if Matter+Antimatter is impossible to harness, means
that physics has a Barrier
that lies somewhere between Fission and Matter+Antimatter.

I placed the barrier at 2/3 Breakeven in Fusion.

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

Damon Hill · Guest

plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com wrote in news:1022daa8-d839-464e-82a0-
932455881b40@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

Still tilting windmills, eh? You so remind me of Don Quixote...

The fact remains that the scientific community at large doesn>t
even know you exist, and continue working on fusion.

I>m holding out hope for p-B11 fusion, perhaps in the near future.
We>ll have a better idea of its feasibility soon. D-T fusion
certainly appears destined to achieve breakeven, but at considerable
time and cost; I>m not convinced the resulting reactors will be
economical.

--Damon

Archimedes Plutonium · Guest

plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com wrote:
(snipped in spots)

[quote]
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 of energy utilization between
Fission and Fusion.

More precisely, my math puts the barrier at 2/3 Fusion Breakeven.

these calculations of where the barrier exists in Nature. Before they
go ahead and spend
billions of taxpayer dollars.

Because to my math, ITER will reach only 64% to 66% breakeven if
lucky. It may just well
happen that JET surpasses ITER when all is done.

The science community and the world community have not held these ITER
scientists to the
highest standards.

If those scientists believe there is no barrier and that humanity will
always conquer the next highest
level of energy organization in Nature, then let them show their
calculations of infinity utilization. If they
believe fusion is possible, then let them show their calculations that
the barrier does not exist between
fission and fusion -- and specifically at 2/3 breakeven of fusion.

I have shown the math-- Faraday Law gobbles up 1/3 of all input energy
and so 2/3 is the maximum.

Before ITER is built, let these scientists show their math and
computations and reasons for why
energy utilization is available for harnessing fusion.

Well, easy because all that is needed is to ask them to calculate how
much energy
it takes to obtain antimatter to combine with matter and thence
produce energy. Once
you have the antimatter, simply introduce some matter and you have
energy. But the
cost of producing antimatter.

Now some may say, ho ho ho, Archimedes Plutonium played a trick. I did
not. Because
Antimatter is part of space as Dirac ocean of positrons proved. So to
get antimatter, we have
to apply energy to Space to extract it.

That means the energy levels of organization that I listed above holds
true.

And if Matter + Antimatter is a net deficit of energy utilization,
then fusion which is a lower level
is also a net deficit of energy.

Sorry, no, the logic does not support my last paragraph there. What it
does support is this
idea:

If Matter-Antimatter level of energy organization is a net deficit of
energy utilization, means
that a barrier exists between the level of Fission then Fusion then
Matter+Antimatter.

In other words, if Matter+Antimatter is impossible to harness, means
that physics has a Barrier
that lies somewhere between Fission and Matter+Antimatter.

I placed the barrier at 2/3 Breakeven in Fusion.

[/quote]
I would think the above energy levels is a quantization of energy level
where we could devise a parameter to tell us of the utilization of
chemical energy level, then the utilization level of fission. We skip
the fusion level
and jump right over to the matter-antimatter level of utilization.

So we have a parameter and is able to measure the use of each level of
energy for the chemical level, the fission level and the
matter-antimatter level. Those three levels are probably connected in
some form of equation. We should be able to guess the equation and then
stick back into the equation the fusion level of 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

Guest

Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
[quote]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 of energy utilization between
Fission and Fusion.

More precisely, my math puts the barrier at 2/3 Fusion Breakeven.

I would think the above energy levels is a quantization of energy level
where we could devise a parameter to tell us of the utilization of
chemical energy level, then the utilization level of fission. We skip
the fusion level
and jump right over to the matter-antimatter level of utilization.

So we have a parameter and is able to measure the use of each level of
energy for the chemical level, the fission level and the
matter-antimatter level. Those three levels are probably connected in
some form of equation. We should be able to guess the equation and then
stick back into the equation the fusion level of energy.

[/quote]
I should be able to make those Energy Levels far more precise by
saying this:

(1) Electron Energy Exchanges
(2) Nucleus Energy Exchanges
(3) Entire Atom Energy Exchanges

Chemical Energy is really all about chemical bonds and thus is about
electron energy
interactions. Burning of coal or any fossil fuel or the hydroelectric
dam or windmill or
geothermal are all examples of Electron Energy Exchanges.

Fission and Fusion are the nuclear energy exchanges.

And when we combine both electron and nucleus exchanges we have the
entire atom
of its energy exchanges and the specific interaction of Matter to
Antimatter Interaction.

So in the Fusion Barrier Principle, there is never a question of
breakeven for that of
Electron Energy Exchanges because we never have to put half of the
Maxwell Equations
in a tussle fight with the other half of the Maxwell Equations. In
Nuclear Energy
Exchanges we have the Dynamic Laws of Faraday and Ampere in an
inextricable conflict
of control over the machine to extract energy by trying to overcome
the NonDynamic Coulomb
law of Maxwell Equations.

And finally, when we try to extract energy from the entire atom, of
both its electron and nucleus
all at once in Matter-Antimatter we see very clearly the LOSS of
energy because the input energy
is so overwhelmingly disfavorable in extraction of useable energy. The
energy to obtain Antimatter
is so prohibitively costly, that even a fool can understand there will
never be a Matter-Antimatter
Power Station. Now many dunces will chime in and say that Antimatter
exists like coal floating
freely in space and all we have to do is pick it up for free. These
dunces never heard of Dirac
and how Dirac showed that Space is itself a matter-antimatter complex
called the Positron Ocean.
This means there is never antimatter floating around in space like
free lumps of coal.

But then we should expect every graduate student of physics, let alone
the professors of physics
to thence put the logic together to see that the Barrier to energy
utilization exists somewhere
between Fission and Fusion and Matter-Antimatter.

I place the barrier at 2/3 Fusion Breakeven. I place it there because
the Faraday Law eats up
1/3 of all input energy to overcome the Coulomb Law which can only end
up at 2/3 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

Archimedes Plutonium · Guest

Matthew Johnson wrote:

[quote]
There is not "tussle fight" between Maxwell>s Equations: all the
equations are
always satisfied throughout the entire process.

[/quote]
That is not what a scientist should read into my descriptive language,
my metaphor
language.

A Tokamak uses the Faraday Law in all aspects of "controlling the
machine". The only other
Maxwell Law involved is the actual fusion which is the Coulomb law
overcomed.

So in a metaphorical sense a Tokamak is a tussle or fight between
the Faraday law trying to control all aspects of the fusion events
opposed by the Coulomb law.

A Tokamak boiled down to its essential aspects is Coulomb law divided
by Faraday Law.
Where the Coulomb Law falls short by 1/3 of the Faraday Law. The Faraday
Law is always
1/3 larger in energy content than the energy content of Coulomb law.

And why is the Faraday and Ampere Laws always 1/3 larger in scope than
the Coulomb Law?
That is easy to explain, because Faraday and Ampere are the Coulomb
law-in-Motion. The
Faraday Law is simply a Dynamical-Coulomb Law, whereas the Coulomb Law
is Static. So the
energy content of the Faraday or Ampere Laws are always 1/3 larger than
the corresponding
Coulomb law of the given circumstances.

Do you know enough mathematics Matthew, to be able to compute that the
energy content of Faraday Law is 1/3 larger than energy content of
Coulomb Law? Judging from your reply above, I seriously doubt you can
even begin to entertain that thought.

Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Energy forum
Page 1 of 1