Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #680403

Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition

Show all headers | View raw

Newsgroups: sci.math
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 11:51:29 -0800 (PST)

Subject: page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell
 Equations/ textbook, 8th ed.
From: Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium....@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2017 19:51:30 +0000


page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed.

page47, 6-3/ Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations/ textbook, 8th ed. 


Deriving Fusion Barrier Principle from AP-Maxwell Equations 

First, what is the Fusion Barrier Principle, FBP? And what is its history? 

Its history starts 1997 with a discussion with Dr. Rick Spielman:: 
> 
> 
--- quoting a old post of mine of 1997 wherein I discovered what would 
be the Fusion-Barrier-Principle --- 

From: Archimedes.Pluton...@dartmouth.edu (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 (33FA0AB3.6...@worldnet.att.net> 

Rick Spielman (rbsp...@worldnet.att.net> writes: 

[many snips] 

>Your are referring 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 no-one 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. 
--- end quoting old 1997 post --- 
> 
> 

The Fusion Barrier Principle was discovered by AP circa 1997 while TFTR and JET were trying to make hot fusion (like the fusion in the Sun) work by big tokamak machines heating up isotopes of hydrogen to fuse together. The nearest to breakeven was JET and was muon cold fusion experiments by Nagamine and both reached almost 2/3 breakeven. Since 1997, it is planned for a huge tokamak called ITER which is yet to be constructed. But hopefully they will read the FBP and realize they are throwing away a lot of time and money which could be better employed in Geothermal Energy by tapping into volcanoes and other geothermals. 

The Fusion Barrier Principle says that the Faraday law is 1/3 less in energy content than the Ampere law. So if you want to commercialize fusion energy, you will never succeed for to control any machine that harnesses fusion, you spend more than 1/3 more in energy to control the machine than any energy output. 

My first proof of the FBP in late 1990s was simple, ultra, ultra simple for it was to simply show that the Ampere Law was a cylinder in energy content while the Faraday law was a sphere in energy content and a volume comparison is that a sphere has only 2/3 the volume of a cylinder. The cylinder has 1/3 more of a volume than does the sphere. And that in fusion production, you always need the Faraday law to produce the energy, and then you need the Ampere law to contain that which you produced. Obviously you cannot reach break-even for you throw away 1/3 energy. 

It is still a very viable proof today, for we can sense that in the Ampere law you start with a electric current as given. Whereas the Faraday law, you start with a bar magnet and wire coil and have to do work to produce electric current, so you can easily see that Ampere has a larger energy content than does Faraday. 

In 1997, I was experimentally proving FBP, and by doing so, I realized the EM theory can be reduced to a far more simple form, that the laws, the 4 dynamic laws can be reduced to geometrical laws. 

The essence of EM theory is "going around in a circle". 

The law of magnetism-- must have two poles-- a dipole in essence creates a circle. The law of electricity-- can be monopole-- creates linear momentum and not necessarily have to go around in a circle. 

Faraday's law becomes a magnet and loops of wire creates a sphere. 

Ampere's law becomes a loop of wire for current to pass, creates a cylinder. 

FBP says that EM theory governs fusion energy and that one of the laws-- Faraday law creates energy while the other law -- Ampere law controls the machine in order to create the energy. So the amount of energy coming out of the machine is given by Faraday law and the amount of energy put into the machine to keep it together and working properly is Ampere Law. Faraday Law gives only 2/3 energy at maximum, while Ampere law requires 1 in energy to run. So no machine is ever going to go beyond a output of more than 2/3 and every machine of fusion is going to lose or waste 1/3 energy to produce 2/3 energy. FBP means fusion will never reach break-even because the energy to control the machine exceeds the output by at least 1/3. 

Proof of the FBP 

First think of a sphere enclosed or nested inside a cylinder and the volume of the sphere is 2/3 that of the cylinder. The dynamic laws are Faraday/Lenz law and the Ampere/Maxwell law. The energy content of the Faraday/Lenz law is no more than 2/3 the energy content of the Ampere/Maxwell law. In other words, Ampere/Maxwell law has 1/3 more energy content than the Faraday/Lenz law. The Coulomb force comes out of the Faraday/Lenz law which is the force that is overcome in fusion. Yet the forces needed to control a fusion machine are the Ampere/Maxwell law. So to control fusion, takes a machine that costs 1/3 more in energy than that which is produced by fusion. So commercial fusion can only ever be 2/3 breakeven. 

In the latest SCIENCE magazine of 24 June2016, on page 1498, titled "Fusion laser may never ignite" is a rare example of where scientists and magazine editors use logic in their reasoning and actions. What this article is about, is to have physicists first think about if fusion can break-even, if ever, rather than a mindless chase of ever larger and costly machines. So these scientists are just now starting to look if fusion has a barrier principle-- of which I discovered in the late 1990s. 

What I discovered as the Fusion Barrier Principle is that the Faraday/Lenz law is deficient by1/3 less energy than the Ampere/Maxwell law. The one law produces the fusion events while the other controls the machine. So, commercial fusion will never exceed 2/3 break even. 

Now I hope these scientists, when they come to realize the truth of FBP, that they have the honesty and decency to give AP credit for work done long time ago. I do not do science for others to steal my work. Many scientists have the habit of stealing without giving proper credit. 

Now in 2016, I found another proof of FBP where I find the numbers 2/3 and 1/3 in the Maxwell theory. It is called Eddy Currents Experiment, where you have a copper tube and you drop a magnet slug down the tube and it is slow to fall down because of Lenz law in Faraday law. When we drop a plain steel slug, not magnetized we have normal speed of gravity. When we drop the magnet slug it takes 3 times as long to fall. Here again, one of these two laws Faraday or Ampere is 1/3 larger in energy content and it is this larger energy law that controls the fusion machine. 

In my Experiments, called eddy currents of a falling magnet in a copper tube versus a plastic tube, the copper has a Lenz law resistance of 1/3. I have to make the copper tube be 3 times longer to match the plastic tube where the LED comes on. This is important for the Fusion Barrier Principle, in that all machines built to control fusion, allow breakeven to only reach 2/3 breakeven. 

Now when people read about the Fusion Barrier Principle, the scientists especially, are too dumb to realize and understand this principle. Like I said so many times before, that for a scientist to have a gram of logic, is a rare commodity. For they immediately think that because the Sun is a fusion machine and that humanity built fusion bombs, that it is a simple matter of building a fusion tokamak, given some smart engineering. Without a logical mind, you see, they never understand that a fusion bomb is 0% trying to control fusion, but the unleashing of just Faraday's law, no Ampere's law in controlling Faraday. Without a logical mind, dolts never understand what a principle of FBP means. 

Now comes year 2017 and where I caused a massive upheaval of all sciences, for the Real Electron is not that small particle of .5 MeV but is the muon that is the real electron at 105 MeV and the Real Proton is 840 MeV. What that small .5 MeV particle is, is a magnetic monopole and is the cause of electricity, the electric current. It is the flow of monopoles that is electricity, and so, a whole new review of Fusion energy is in tow. 

No longer can you write or speak of the electron without saying electron = muon. 

Very crude dot picture of 5f6, 94TH 
ELECTRON=muon of 231Pu 

                ::\ ::|:: /:: 
                 ::\::|::/:: 
                     _ _ 
                    (:Y:) 
                     - - 
                 ::/::|::\:: 
                ::/ ::|:: \:: 

One of those dots is the Milky Way galaxy. And each dot represents another galaxy. 
  
http://www.iw.net/~a_plutonium/ 
whole entire Universe is just one big atom 
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies 

I re-opened the old newsgroup PAU of 1990s and there one can read my recent posts in peace and quiet.      

https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!forum/plutonium-atom-universe         
Archimedes Plutonium

Commentary-- Alright, the reason I do so much commentary, is that I have a huge problem in writing a textbook. The problem is that I discover new science along the way, and that upsets much of the textbook already written. I could just start all over, but then, I probably can never finish any one textbook. In this text of 8th edition, I discovered the Real Electron = muon and the little particle of .5MeV was really a magnetic monopole and not an electron. This of course, changes everything I had written before. So, my solution was, add a commentary after a page discussing the new findings, new discovery. It works well, although it may seem jumbled up and not in order, but it serves the purpose of relating the new discoveries. I suspect I will use this technique from now on.

I am near the end of this 8th edition and will stop before January 1, 2018. I intend to spend the entire 2018 writing the TEACHING TRUE MATHEMATICS textbook.

But before I go, let me talk a bit about the difference between knowledge, education and that of wisdom. We can be knowledgeable, be educated and still, be, very dumb person. This is the difference between knowledge and wisdom. I loved the philosophy of Pragmatism when I was a off to college Freshman in 1968. I read New World of Philosophy by Kaplan, and had begun to realize that Pragmatism was a philosophy much like the enterprise of science and how science works. Although later, I would realize science is better than philosophy, and then by 1990, know full well, that physics rules all knowledge all wisdom.

But, Pragmatism sort of addresses the sciences without a heavy hand in mathematics. And pragmatism would say of Knowledge, that "knowledge is in the "doing"". We are knowledgeable of something because we have "done it" or is "doing it". But what would Pragmatism say about "wisdom"? Would it say that we are easy feeling and comfortable about doing some aspect of knowledge? Would it say that wisdom is different than knowledge in that knowledge is a narrow view of a subject, whereas wisdom is putting all of the subject together in one full blown view. After reading Kaplan, I read Four Pragmatists by Scheffler, on Pierce, Dewey, Mead, James, after graduating college in 1972. And not too surprising, Pierce anticipates a Atom Totality Universe-- in his "crystallization of the universe", only thing missing-- the universe is already a crystal-- a 231Pu Atom Totality.

But, what would the Pragmatists say was the difference between Knowledge, Education and now Wisdom? Can we be dumb and stupid in wisdom, yet good in knowledge and education? 

Of course we can, for we see people all over the world who are highly educated, have lots of knowledge yet be a stupid idiot of wisdom. 

I am speaking now of Physics from when JJ Thomson discovered what he thought was the electron of atoms in 1897, where he discovered a particle of .5MeV rest mass and where by 1919 Rutherford would discover the proton with rest mass 938 MeV, and the muon discovered in 1936 by Anderson and Neddermeyer.

So, we have all these physicists, all of them well educated, very bright, very knowledgeable. All the physicists from 1897 to 2017, all bright, all knowledgeable, all well educated. 

And all of them able to read Halliday & Resnick textbooks on Physics and able to do problems and homework.

But, was there one, just one single person with any sort of wisdom from 1897 to 2017? That was 120 years elapsed time.

I mean, was there a single person with really, a tiny tiny bit of wisdom? Who could have gone through mechanics of angular momentum, of momentum, of inelastic and elastic collisions, of bonding in chemistry. Who could have read Halliday & Resnick Physics text from page 1 to 1200 with Appendix. And put it all together, put all that knowledge together about mechanics and force and bonding, and realize, that Thomson's .5MeV particle, could not, could never be the particle that gives Chemistry.

To put the story more clear to those who never studied science or physics. Suppose you are taught in school that a car works by a engine and the way the engine works is that you have a conveyor belt where squirrels are running on the conveyor belt that makes the wheels turn around. Would you not laugh and say-- you are crazy. But, even more, the instructor tells you that squirrels are too big to cause the car to move, and that the conveyor belt is propelled by "inch-worms" as the relative size of a proton to a .5MeV is "inch-worm" size.

What is the problem here? Is it that the human mind, once it is taught something, which is false in reality, that such a mind simply cannot be reasoned with, and must stay put in that "imbecile stupidity stance" for the rest of that life of that mind?

So the question I am raising, is, how in the world can anyone master any physics textbook with all its mechanics and all of chemistry bonding and never raise the question-- If Chemistry bonding is all about electrons and electrons are .5MeV while protons and neutrons are 940 MeV-- is that not crazy to think a puny tiny .5MeV is going to compete with 940 MeV? Is it not crazy to think your car is a conveyor belt run by "inchworms".

So, that in Chemistry, and Quantum Mechanics, a vital rule is the octet rule, the 8 to 1. And that once the muon was discovered in 1936. Why did no chemist ever say, "stop a moment, you want me to believe chemistry is the science of this .5MeV competing with 940 MeV? When easily, one can say-- alright, I gained some wisdom, I found some wisdom, that the science of Chemistry is 105 MeV competing with 840 MeV.

You see, Pragmatism never defined what is wisdom. I can define wisdom, now, very well defined. Knowledge and education are mostly "doing" and so is wisdom is from "doing". But, what knowledge and education lack is logic, is reasoning. You can have all the doing and knowledge and education you want. But if your mind is hollow in logic, you are no better than the last fool that did that science.

If your mind is hollow of logic, you can read all the textbooks and do all the experiments of both chemistry and physics, and never realize, never be able to put angular momentum of a proton versus electron together and realize the electron cannot be that puny .5MeV but is rather the 105 MeV particle.

As I wrote so many times before in math and physics. Our education system in science has a huge gaping hole flaw in it. It does not teach formal Logic. Across the world, we graduate science students, all of them, never taking formal logic in school. We simply expect the student to think straight and think clearly. But, we never teach them to think straight and clear.

Happy Plutonium days, 2017.
ATOM!

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

-PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 08:26 -0700
  Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 11:52 -0700
    Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 16:51 -0700
      Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-17 17:55 -0700
        Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 12:49 -0700
          Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 14:59 -0700
            Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-18 16:29 -0700
            Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-22 18:55 -0700
              Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 14:36 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-23 16:33 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 10:42 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 13:28 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 15:37 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-24 18:27 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-25 20:52 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 13:56 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 15:44 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 17:04 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-26 20:52 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 11:26 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 12:20 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 15:32 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-27 16:34 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 12:45 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 16:28 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 17:09 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-28 21:23 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 10:47 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 19:32 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 12:59 +0100
                talking to Keith about his "thoughts" Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 11:36 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 15:38 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 12:03 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 17:39 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 10:43 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 16:28 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-01 20:25 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 12:25 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 14:09 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-04 23:36 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 16:25 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 18:47 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 13:05 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 19:12 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-07 12:58 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-08 20:19 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 13:35 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 16:00 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-09 17:54 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-10 17:09 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-11 16:29 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 14:15 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-12 20:17 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-13 23:08 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-15 21:03 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 00:23 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 13:25 -0700
                Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium.archimedes@gmail.com> - 2018-04-16 17:05 -0700
                -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-04-17 01:29 +0000
  Re: -PLUTONIUM ATOM TOTALITY UNIVERSE textbook by Archimedes Plutonium, 2017, 8th edition Keith Stein <keithstein111@gmail.com> - 2018-03-30 12:08 +0100

csiph-web