Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika's Pattern Recognition On Fusion

Dr.A.B.
Rajib Hazarika’s Pattern

recognition on fusion
By Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika’s Pattern Recognition on Fusion
1
Page no.(i)
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika, A.E.S.

MSc, PhD, MIAMP (Germany), FRAS (Lond.), MWASET, MFFS (USA), MIBC (UK), MNPSS
(USA)
Assistant Professor, Res: “Anjena Manzil”, Kadomtola,

Dept. of Mathematics, Modhupur, P.O. Modhupur,
Diphu Govt. College, Diphu, Dist: Nagaon, Assam, India
Karbi Anglong, Assam, India Pin - 782001
Pin- 782462, M- 9435166881 Ph- 03672-256327
************************************************************************
Page no.(ii)
PREFACE ABOUT THE AUTHOR
As available on website: http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib_Hazarika
User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User:Drabrh
Jump to: navigation, search
" A.B.Rajib Hazarika" redirects here. For Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika, see Dr.A.B.Rajib
Hazarika.
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika
2
[[File:Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika & his two kids.jpg [1]

|frameless|alt=]]
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika with Laquit(son) and Danisha(daughter)
Azad Bin Rajib Hazarika
Born July 2, 1970 (age 40)
Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Residence Nagaon, Assam, India
Nationality Indian
Ethnicity Assamese Muslim
Citizenship India
Education PhD, PDF, FRAS
University of Jodhpur
Jai Narayan Vyas University
Alma mater Institute of Advanced Study in Science & Technology
</ref>http://www.iasst.in/]
Kendriya Vidyalaya[1] http://www.akipoonacollege.com/
Assistant Professor (Lecturer), Diphu Govt. College ,
Occupation
Diphu,Assam,India
Years active 2004- onwards
Diphu Government College
Employer
Government of Assam ,Assam Education Service
Lecturer ,Assistant Professor,Mathematician,
Known for Academician ,Fusion,Astronomy
Home town Nagaon, Assam, India

Salary Rs 40000 per month
Height 6 feet and 2 inches
Weight 100 kg
Doctorate, Dr., FRAS (London), Assam Education Service,
Title
AES
Board Member of Scientific and Technical committee & Editorial
3
review board of Natuaral and Applied sciences World

Academy of Science ,Engineering & Technology</ref>
member of
http://www.waset.org/NaturalandAppliedSciences.php?
page=45
Sunni Islam,
Religion
Spouse Helmin Begum Hazarika

Children Laquit Ali Hazarika(son), Danisha Begum Hazarika(daughter)
Rosmat Ali Hazarika@Rostam Ali Hazarika@Roufat Ali
Parents
Hazarika and Anjena Begum Hazarika
Call-sign Drabrh or Raja
Website
http://www.facebook.com/Drabrajib
http://in.linkedin.com/pub/dr-a-b-rajib-hazarika/25/506/549
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drabrh
http://www.diphugovtcollege.org/
http://www.karbianglong.nic.in/diphugovtcollege.org/teaching.html
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika,PhD,FRAS,AES (born July 02, 1970, in Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India) is
Assistant Professor(Lecturer) Diphu Government College ,Diphu in KarbiAnglong district , Government of
Assam[2], [3] , KarbiAnglong,Assam's largest conglomerate by Government of Assam . He is also the
Fellow of Royal Astronomical Society[4],London ,Member of International Association of Mathematical
Physics, World Academy of Science ,Engineering & Technology , Focus Fusion Society, Dense Plasma
Focus, Plasma Science Society of India, International Biographical centre, Assam Science Society, Assam
Academy of Mathematics,International Atomic Energy Agency,Nuclear and Plasma Society,Society of
Industrial and Applied Mathematics,German Academy of Mathematics and Mechanics,Fusion Science &
Technology Society,Indian National Science Academy,Indian Science Congress Association,Advisory
Committee of Mathematical Education, Royal Society,International Biographical Centre.
Contents
 1 Early life
o 1.1 Early career
 1.1.1 Currently working
 2 Career
4
 3 Research
 4 Patent & Innovation
 5 Research Guidence
 6 Personal life
 7 Quotes
 8 Awards and recognition
 9 References
 10 External links
Early life
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika was born into the famous Hazarika family, a prominent family belonging to Dhing's
wealthy Muslim Assamese community of Nagaon district. He was born to Anjena Begum Hazarika and
Rusmat Ali Hazarika. He is eldest of two childrens of his parents younger one is a Shamim Ara
Rahman(nee Hazarika)daughter .
Early career
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika completed his PhD degree in Mathematics from J N Vyas University of Jodhpur in
1995 with specialization in Plasma instability, the thesis was awarded “best thesis” by Association of
Indian Universities in 1998 and the Post-Doctoral Fellow Program from Institute of Advanced Study in
Science & Technology [5] in Guwahati Assam in 1998 as Research Associate in Plasma Physics Division
in theory group studying the Sheath phenomenon. As a Part-time Lecturer in Nowgong college, Assam
before joining the present position in Diphu Government College ,Diphu in KarbiAnglong district [6],[7]
He is a member of the wikipedia[8], [9].
He is Fellow of Royal Astronomical Society [10],member of International Association Mathematical
Physics [11], member of World Academy of Science,Engineering & Technology [12], [13],member of
Plasma Science Society of India [14] , [15] ,member of Focus Fusion Society forum [16] ,member of Dense
Plasma Focus [17], Member of Assam Science Society [18], Member of Assam Academy of Mathematics
[19]
Currently working
He joined the Diphu Government College[20] in July 2004 as Lecturer in Mathematics (Gazetted officer)
through Assam Public Service commission[21] in Assam Education Service [22] ,AES-I. [23] now
redesignated as Assistant Professor.
Career
In May 1993, Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika was awarded Junior Research Fellowship, University Grants
Commission, National Eligibility Test and eligibility for Lecturership ,Govt. of India and worked as
JRF(UGC,NET) in Department of Mathematics and Statistics of J N Vyas University in Jodhpur. Later on

in May 1995 got Senior Research Fellowship(UGC,NET) and continued research for completion of PhD on
27th Dec 1995 .From 1993 onwards taught in Kamala Nehru College for women, Jodhpur and in Faculty of
Science in J N Vyas University in Jodhpur up to the completion of PhD .In 1998 May joined Plasma
5
Physics Division of Institute of Advanced Study in Science & Technology in Guwahati as Research
Associate for PDF in theory group to study the sheath phenomena of National Fusion Programme [24] of
Govt. of India . Then joined Nowgong College as a part-time Lecturer after which in 2004, July joined the
present position of Lecturer in Diphu Government College which is redesignated as Assistant Professor.
Research
During PhD </ref> http://www.iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/51/6/012/pdf/physcr_51_6_012.pdf

</ref> http://www.iopsciences.iop.org/1402-4896/53/1/011/pdf/1402-4896_53_1_011.pdf
</ref> http://www.niscair.res.in/sciencecommunication/abstractingjournals/isa_1jul08.asp
</ref> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikitionary:Sandbox
</ref> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996PhyS..53...578
during PDF the research was based on Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geophysics , for plasma instability with
the title of thesis as “Some Problems of instabilities in partially ionized and fully ionized plasmas” which
later on in 1998 was assessed as best thesis of the year by Association of Indian Universities in New Delhi.
His current interest lies in Astronomy, Astrophysics, Geophysics, Fusion Plasma, and innovation of fusion
devices, design of fusion devices, simulation codes and theoretical mathematical modeling.He is known for
his theoretical research work on Gravitational instability and gravitational collapse M=2 3/2 Msun as a new
formula for Chandrasekhar limit now known as Bhatia-Hazarika Limit , when the rotating neutron star,
pulsars are formed .When the mass of the star is more than this limit a neutron star shrinks or abberates due
to gravitational collapse up to a point size in space. As it is known that when the star passes limit of the size
of old star more than three times that of mass of sun it passes the Schwarchild radius and there on is a black
hole from where we can receive no more information as its gravitational field is too intense to permit
anything , even photons to escape.Research at Diphu Govt. College </ref>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Drabrh/File:Drabrhdouble_trios_saiph_star01.pdf
</ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drabrh_bayer_rti.pdf
</ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Columb_drabrh.pdf
</ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drabrh_double_trios.pdf
</ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drabrhiterparabolic2007.pdf
</ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drabrh_mctc_feedbackloop.pdf
</ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Drabrh_tasso_07.pdf
</ref> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Abstracts.pdf?page=2
Patent & Innovation
Applied for patent in US patent and trademarks office has innovated three future fusion devices Double
Tokomak collider (DTC), Magnetic confinement Tokomak collider (MCTC) hub, Duo Triad Tokomak
collider (DTTC) hub .A Hall thruster as diffusion associated neoclassical indigenous system of Hall
assembly (DANISHA)is designed applied for international application No.PCT/IB2009/008024 in World
Intellectual Property Organisation[25].He has innovated a new simulation code Fuzzy Differential
Inclusion Code in 2003 for fusion process.[26], [27]
Research Guidence
6
Research guidence is given to two students in Mathematics for MPhil degree
Personal life
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika has a metallic Scarlet red Tata Indigo CS of Tata motors make and loves to drive
himself.
Quotes
 "Fakir(saint) and lakir(line) stops at nothing but at destination"

 "Expert criticizes the wrong but demonstrates the right thing"
 “Intellectuals are measured by their brain not by their age and experience”
 “Two type of persons are happy in life one who knows everything another who doesn’t know
anything”
 “Implosion in device to prove every notion wrong for fusion”
 “Meditation gives fakir(saint) long life and fusion devices the long lasting confinement”
Awards and recognition
Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika got Junior Research Fellowship,Government of India

Senior Research Fellowship,Government of India
Research AssociateshipDSTGovernment of India
Fellow of Royal Astronomical Society [28]
Member of Advisory committee of Mathematical Education Royal Society London
Member of Scientific and Technical committee & editorial review board on Natural and applied sciences of
World Academy of Science ,Engineering &Technology [29]
Leading professional of the world-2010 as noted and eminent professional from International Biographical
Centre Cambridge
References
1. ^ http://www.kvafsdigaru.org/
Poona College of Arts, Science &Commerce
 Template:Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:contributions/Drabrh
External links
Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib

Hazarika
 [30]
 Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika's profile on the Linkedin Website

 [31]]]
dr ab rajib hazarika aes 19:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC) dr ab rajib hazarika aes
7
Categories: Jai Narayan Vyas University alumni | Institute of Advanced Study in Science & Technology
alumni | List of Indian mathematician | List of Indians by state | List of people of Assam | PhD | PDF |
Assamese | Nuclear fusion people | Hazarika family | Poona college of Arts ,Science & Commerce alumni |
Fellow of Royal Astronomical Society | 1970 births | Living people | Sunni Islam people | Kendriya
Vidyalaya alumni | Academician | Indian Sunni muslim

 User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika に関するウェブ上の情報を探す English
 User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika に関して goo 辞書で探す
 User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika に関する画像を探す English
 User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika に関するニュースを探す
 ソーシャルブックマークに追加：










注目のニュース - goo ニュース

死刑求刑の裁判員裁判で無期懲役
露大統領の国後訪問を新華社速報
会社つぶれる前に…着服容疑逮捕
海保、中国国籍のヨットマン救助
オバマ氏、中間選挙へ必死の熱弁
大島紬も…奄美で主要産業に打撃
ごはんに塩が「通」な食べ方？
CHAPTER-2
PATTERN RECOGNITION DRABRH-DANISHA ECONOMIC MODEL FOR STOCK MARKET
8
An economic model for stock market is presented as “DRABRH-DANISHA” for economic boom. The
present model is for the banking sector in the stock market as it provides with certain parameters which
allows having such boom by using this model. Directly the growth rate and the power factor are presented
as a mathematical formula for better understanding as follows along with the confinement time factor:
1
  Growth-rate

1
1  V  l 
4
 In secs
    2X  pi   gLn1 
  C h l  c  

For power of DRABRH-DANISHA
3 7
 c   c 
PDANISHA  me nC 3   
  pi
h   l pi 
   
C h =Hazarika cost holistic=2.646

First bracket term is volatility component; second bracket term is a constant non-dimensional quantity.
Wpi=wholesale price index

C=cost
w=wholesale value
l= liquidity
Ln=inflation
Vx=volatility
The analysis of the above equation in terms of interpretations provides into the insight of the utility of the
economic model. The growth rate is dependent on inflation as the inflation goes up the growth rate goes
down. Same is the case with the cost as the cost increases the growth rate decreases. Similarly the Hazarika
cost holistic also provides the stability in the growth rate, whereas the volatility, liquidity and wholesale
price index are directly related to the growth rate as these values goes up the growth rate also goes up.
The power of the stock market comes from term Hazarika cost holistic as it varies as the cubic power along
with the earlier presented models in the past. This model provides with the power which is 18.525 times the
earlier models. So that the extra thrust is provided to the stock market leading to the economic boom.
In such process the wholesale price index provides the largest hare to pull down the power of the share
market, parameter which plays the crucial role is liquidity because this also leads to the downfall of the
power of stock market. As is known that the power and thrust is necessary for the banking sector the
inverse growth rate provides with the longevity in the banking sector.
Cost is another factor which influences the thrust in the stock market as goes ten folds. The growth rate
decreases seven folds whereas the confinement time increases seven folds leading to the economic boom in
the stock market.
9
CHAPTER-3
FUZZY PATTERN ON QUARKS
It is a pioneering effort to relate the two streams i.e., fuzzy set theory of mathematics and quark theory of
physics .It is an inter displinary study, which can be used in future pattern recognition for defining and
describing with fuzzy logics. Fuzzy set, fuzzy differential equation and fuzzy differential inclusion (FDI).
A fuzzy set is defined as g: P(X) →  0,1 which assign to each crisp subset of X a number in the unit
interval  0,1 .Domain of function g is the power set P(X) is a crisp set X. Now let us define fuzzy
differential equation as follows:
x t   f  t , x t   , x a   x0 Here x is a phase space , t is time x(t) is a fuzzy valued function defined
on
dX
 f  t , X , K  , X  0   C , where C is a triangular fuzzy number.
dt
Fuzzy differential inclusion (FDI) can be defined as a set of such fuzzy number.
x t   f  t , x t   , x a   x0
x t   [ f  t , x t   ] , x a   x0 Where 0    1, x  a   x0
For second order derivative we have
x t   [kx] , k   K  where K is a Trapezoidal fuzzy number.

0
x t   [L] For
x t   [ M ] , x 0    x 
0
Where L, M are Triangular fuzzy numbers.
1
0.4 0.6 1 1.20

.4
Trapezoidal fuzzy no. K
-λ 0 λ 1-λ 1 1+λ
δ δ δ δδ δδ
Triangular
δδ fuzzy no. L Triangular fuzzy no. M
Now I shall try to correlate the above fuzzy set theory with the Quark theory by having an analogous
study , for the Pion triplet defined as fuzzy triangular number L for the I(third isospin) with the numbers (-
 
1,0,1) and pion as   ,  0 ,  
-1 0 1
Triangular fuzzy no. x
1
-π 0 π
Triangular fuzzy no. x
Quartet Kauons can be defined as trapezoidal fuzzy no. K with I (third isospin no.) as (-1,-1/2, 1, +1/2) and
0
is denoted by K  , K 0 , K , K 
-1 1/2 1/2 1
Eta meson  can be represented by trapezoidal fuzzy number K. Basic Quantum number of three
0
Quarks u, d, s ,i.e., up, down and strange is ½,-1/2,0 respectively can be again written in the triangular
fuzzy number L for I(third isospin) condition.
-1/2 0 1/2
-2/3 -1/3 0 1/3
1
Whereas the symmetries can be modeled as trapezoidal fuzzy number K (-2/3, -1/3, 0, 1/3) Y (hypercharge)
values.
Similarly, for Q values we have the three Quark model as the trapezoidal fuzzy number (-1/3, 0, 1/3, 2/3)
where Q is coordinates.
One can study similarly for the anti- quarks Y and Q values as the Y values of Quark become Q values of
the anti-quark and it we take Q value of quark it becomes Y values of anti- quark.
Baryon can be obtained as trapezoidal fuzzy number K (-1, 0, 1, 2)
-1 0 1 2
Delta can be defined as trapezoidal fuzzy number K for I (third isospin).
-3/2 -1/2 1/2 3/2

Sigma can be represented as triangular fuzzy number L (-1, 0, 1)
-1 0 1
If I go further for fuzzy pattern which are useful in plasma modeling leading to he Quark-Gluon
Plasma(QGP) and for studying Quantum chromo dynamics (QCD) which was presented by Hazarika(2003)
in National symposium on plasma science and technology, PLASMA-2003.
1
CHAPTER-4
SOLVE’V ASSUMPTION PATTERN
A. Solove’v a Russian Physicist in 1962 tried to find some similarities in certain theory of the
Jew’s Torat and the science said in the present days by using certain analogous theory which suffices the
persistent theory in Physics with arts, culture ,tradition, religion, trade and commerce , science and
astronomy in olden days. Earlier a pattern theory was presented by Christian group as “Holy Grail” in
Islam as Nikah code and so on. Presently such a pattern is known as Solove’v assumption. Here I am trying
to put forward such pattern for tokomaks (BETA machine, SST-1, ADITYA Tokomak, SINP Tokomak, or
any other tokomak with circular minor radius). The internal inductance and the poloidal beta as well as the
safety factor on-axis in IR-T1 Tokomak using Solov’ev assumption in the solution of Grad-Shafranov
equation (GSE) is solved by considering linear source functions and fixed boundary conditions. This
solution has the three quantities (plasma current I p , plasma minor radius r p and  p  l i / 2 ) that they are
as input data. The quantities are measured by Rogowski coil, Cosine and Saddle coil and array of discrete
magnetic coils, respectively in IR-T1 Tokomak. This method can be used to evaluate the plasma parameters
for other circular cross section Tokomak. In two typical discharges on IR-T1 Tokomak, we concluded that
the internal inductance at a low value is required to extend the duration of Tokomak plasma discharge.
4.1-Introduction:
In a Tokomak, external magnetic measurements have been applied to determine the important information
on plasma shapes, the safety factor, the sum of the average poloidal beta  p and half the plasma internal
inductance li / 2 , and for sufficiently elongated plasmas  p and li separately Lao et al (1985).There are
methods for extraction of plasma parameters from external magnetic measurements. Swain and Neilson
(1982) presented an efficient method to reconstruct the plasma shapes and line integrals of the boundary
poloidal magnetic field from external magnetic measurements. In their method, the plasma current
distribution is approximated by using a few filament currents. In Luxon and Brown’s approach (1982), the
plasma current is modeled using distributed sources. The non-linear Grad-Shafranov equation (GSE) is
solved repeatedly to search the best-fit current density profile by considering linear source functions and
circular fixed boundary conditions for circular cross section IR-T1 Tokomak and obtained the poloidal flux
function. This solution has the three quantities (plasma current I p , plasma minor radius r p and  p  l i / 2
) that they are as input data in the method. The quantities are measured by Rogowski coil, Cosine and
Saddle coil and array of discrete magnetic coils, respectively. Then according to the definition of the
1
internal inductance and the poloidal beta and the safety factor, we substituted the poloidal flux function that
obtained by our solution into their definitions. Finally we calculated the time evolution of the
plasma parameters for typical discharges IR-T1 Tokomak and we discussed by them on the subject of
MHD instability.
4.2-Solution of GSE using fixed boundary conditions:

In the reference Zheng et al (1996) is yielded the analytical solution of GSE using linear source function
P F
0  A1 , F  A2
 
The function F is a flux function associated with the poloidal current in the system (
F    RB   0 I pol / 2 ), and P  is the thermal pressure, A1 and A2 are constant.
This assumption obviously reduces the set of the possible toroidal current density profile shapes to
J   1 / 2 0  RA1  A2 / R  ; the shape of the current profile is essentially flat. The poloidal magnetic
flux  is obtained as in Zheng et al (1992),
A1 4 A2 2
  c1  c 2 R 2  c3 ( R 4  4 R 2 Z 2 )  c 4 ( R 2 ln( R )  Z 2 )  R  Z (1)
8 2
The equation can be used for Tokomaks that have up-down symmetric or limiter D-shape plasma cross
section. Here, we selected circular contour since IR-T1 (Vacuum camber major radius R0  45cm ,
vacuum chamber minor radius a  16 cm , triangularity   0 , and elongation   0 ) has circular cross
section.
We have the six coefficients, it is necessary to have the six equations. We assumed that the plasma
enclosed in a perfectly conducting toroidal boundary with circular cross section where the plasma pressure
vanishes at the boundary ( p ( R, Z )  ( A1 /  0 )  R, Z  boundary  0 ) Maschik (1996). So using the fixed
boundary conditions, the four equations can be obtained

A1 4
 ( Ri ,0)  c1  c2 Ri2  c3 Ri4  c4 Ri2 ln( Ri )  Ri  0 (2)
8
A1 4
 ( Ro ,0)  c1  c 2 Ro2  c3 Ro4  c 4 Ro2 ln( Ro )  Ro  0 (3)
8
 ( Rt , Z t )  c1  c 2 Rt2  c3 ( Rt4  4 Rt2 Z t2 )  c 4  Rt2 ln(Rt )  Z t2  

A1 4 A2 2
Rt  Z t  0 (4)
8 2
1
1 d ( Rt , Z t ) A
 2c 2  4c3 ( Rt2  2 Z t2 )  c 4  2 ln( Rt )  1  1 Rt2  0 (5)
R dR 2
Here the equatorial innermost and outermost points are Ri and Ro , and the coordinates of the highest point
is ( Rt , Z t ) or equivalently, the plasma major radius Rm  ( Ri  Ro ) / 2 , the plasma minor radius
rp  ( Ro  Ri ) / 2 , elongation   Z t / rp , and triangularity   ( Rm  Rt ) / 2 .

The plasma current can be clearly measured by Rogowski coil, so the plasma current can be written
2 0 I p    RA1  A2 / R  dRdZ (6)
We also selected the constraint  p  li / 2 , because the parameter can be experimentally deduced using
four discrete magnetic probes in a circular cross section Tokomak Freidelberg et al (1993) such as IR-T1
Tokomak,
(  dl ) 2   ( R, Z ) 
 l /2   2.5 A1  ( R, Z ) RdRdZ  0.5 A2  dRdZ  . (7)
( 20 I p ) 2  RdRdZ
p i
 R 
The sum of the poloidal beta and half the plasma internal inductance,   l / 2 and the plasma horizontal
p i
displacement can be measured

Fig 1. The magnetic probes position around the chamber.
rp2 
 rm  rp 
 rm    rP2   rp2 

2 2
H exp   2  1   2 ln    B 
 
 1     B   1   (8)
   
rm 
4 R0  rp
  20 I p 
rm   rm 
2 2
   
1
 p
 l / 2  1  ln
i
r
p

r I
R 0
B

 B  (9)
m 0 p
here, I p is the plasma current, rp the plasma minor radius,  p the plasma poloidal beta, li plasma
internal inductance, R0 the major radius of the vacuum vessel, H exp the plasma measured horizontal
displacement from R0 ,the toroidal and poloidal magnetic field are B = B (  0)  B (   ) ,
and B  = B (   / 2)  B (  3 / 2) .
If this solution is used for D-shaped Tokomaks,  p must be selected as constraint rather than  p  li / 2 ,
because the poloidal beta  p can be measured by diamagnetic flux in the D-shaped Tokomaks.
For the determination of plasma minor radius rp , first the plasma horizontal displacement H exp is
obtained by multipole moment method,
.Fig.2.a) Cosine coil-b) Saddle coil is installed in IR-T1 Tokomak
The plasma horizontal displacement can be deduced by the expression
r2
H multipole 
rm
V0 R (t )  V0 L (t )   rm
V0up (t )  V0 down (t )   m
 0 I p n0 k A 0 I p N k  d0 4 R0 (10)
r Cosine and Saddle radius on the surface of vacuum vessel, n turns per length of Cosine coil, A
m 0
Cosine coil cross section, N turns of Saddle coil, k and k  depend on the circuit characteristics and the
integrator that terminated Cosine and Saddle coils. d , depends on Saddle width. The V0 L (t ) and V0 R (t )
0
1
are voltage signal of left and right Cosine coils. The V0 up (t ) and V0 down (t ) are voltage signal of up and
down Saddle coils. So that the left side of equation (8) has been found by Cosine and Saddle coils–the
finding of horizontal displacement by the multipole moment method don’t require to knowing the plasma
minor radius- then the plasma minor radius rp can be found by solving nonlinear equation (8) in term of rp
. So this solution has the three parameters (plasma current I p , plasma minor radius r p and  p  l i / 2 ) that
are as input data. The parameters are measured by Rogowski coil, Cosine and Saddle coil and array of
discrete magnetic coils, respectively in IR-T1 Tokomak.
4.3-The calculation of the internal inductance and the poloidal beta and the safety factor on-axis:
The six coefficients c1 , c2 , c3 , c 4 , A1 , A2 by solving equations (2-7) can be derived by using Cramer’s
Rule as can be seen in appendix I. So the poloidal magnetic flux  is obtained by substituting the six
coefficients. According to the definition of the internal inductance Atanasui et al (2004)
(  dl ) 2  j dRdZ
li  (11)
2 0 I p2  RdRdZ
We can acquire the internal inductance with Solovev’s assumption
(  dl ) 2
li   A  (R, Z )RdRdZ  A  ( (R, Z ) / R)dRdZ 
1 2 (12)
(2 0 I p ) 2  RdRdZ
Also the poloidal beta with Solovev’s assumption can be gotten as follow Atanasui et al (2004)
(  dl ) 2
p 
(20 I p ) 2  RdRdZ
2 A  ( R, Z ) RdRdZ 
1 (13)
All the double integrals in the above written relations have to be performed over the total cross-section area
of the plasma column in the IR-T1 Tokomak.
The safety factor at any flux surface can be calculated with the known relation Wesson (2004)
F ( ) dl
q  
2  cons R 2 B R2  BZ2 (14)
Where BR and BZ are the components of the poloidal magnetic field. The line integral has to be
performed around a flux surface at any cross section. The value of the safety factor on the magnetic axis
1
q ax can be calculated as the continuous limit of the relation (14). For the determination of the magnetic
axis, we can obtain by solving nonlinear equation
d ( Raxis ,0)  A 
 2c2  c4 (1  2 ln( R))   4c3  1  R 2 0 (15)
dR  2 Raxis
The safety factor on-axis with Solovev’s assumption in IR-T1 Tokomak is
2 A2 ( Raxis ,0) dl

q ax 
2   cons
 2  2 (16)
R ( ) ( )
R Z
The line integral in the above relation has to be performed over the circular cross section of the plasma
column in the IR-T1 Tokomak with  radius. The  is deviation of the magnetic axis from the geometric
center of the vacuum chamber. So the equation 16 can be written
 2 A2 ( R axis ,0)
q ax 
2 0
2

  d / ( R0   cos  )  2c 2 ( R0   cos  )  c 3 (4( R0   cos  ) 3
 8( R0   cos  )( sin  ) 2 )  c 4 (2( R0   cos  ) log(R0   cos  ))  ( R0   cos  )  0.5 A1 ( R0   cos  ) 3  2 (17)

 ( sin  ) 2 (8c 3 ( R0   cos  )  2c 4  A2 )  2

Therefore the poloidal beta and the internal inductance and safety factor can be calculated by above
expressions with knowing the six coefficients.
We yielded a method for the calculation of the internal inductance and the poloidal beta and the safety
factor on the magnetic axis in the circular cross section Tokomaks. According to the aforementioned
definitions of the internal inductance and the poloidal beta and the safety factor on-axis, the calculated
1
2
evolution in term of time is illustrated for different discharges on the IR-T1 Tokomak in the figure 3, 4.
Figure3-thecalculated evolution in term of time the internal inductance and the poloidal beta and the safety
factor on-axis for a discharge with a flat current region on the IR-T1 Tokomak. (Courtesy: A Ahmed Radi
and Ghoranevesis).
These discharges have obtained from different initial pressures of hydrogen gas. In the two figures can be
clearly observed that the calculated internal inductance and the calculated poloidal beta and the calculated
safety factor on-axis depend on kind of discharge or plasma current. The figure 3 shows a discharge that the
plasma current has a 15ms zone of flat-top current. The calculated safety factor on-axis, the calculated
2
internal inductance and the calculated poloidal beta have the value of about 1, .5 and .5 respectively, except
the begging zone.
Figure4-the calculated evolution in term of time the internal inductance and the poloidal beta and the safety
factor on-axis for a discharge with current disruption on the IR-T1 Tokomak (Courtesy: A Ahmed Radi and
Ghoranevesis).
The figure 4 shows a discharge that the plasma current has hard disruption in the 14ms and the calculated
safety factor on-axis approach to zero in the region of 7-14ms. The calculated internal inductance and the
calculated poloidal beta approach to 0.57 and 1.5 respectively, in the ending of discharge. We know that the
safety factor on-axis is limited by saw tooth oscillations and the actual limiting value is about q ax  0.7
as given by Stacey’s book in the figure 3 the calculated safety factor on-axis has a value between 0.6 to
1.2 in the discharge time 2-32ms, so the saw tooth constrain hold in this discharge, but in the figure 4 the
calculated safety factor on-axis has a value between 1.5 to 0 in the discharge time 2-7ms and the zero value
2
in the discharge time 7-14ms. Maybe the zero value of safety factor on-axis has caused the disruption of
plasma current. This saw tooth constraint limits the allowable values of internal inductance. With
comparison the discharges in the figures 3, 4 can be understood that the internal inductance at a low value
is required to extend the duration of Tokomak plasma discharge.
References:
Lao (1985)- L.L. Lao, et al, Nuclear Fusion, .25, (1985)1611
Swain and Neilson (1982)-Swain, D.W., Neilson, G.H., Nuclear fusion 22 (1982)1015
Luxon and Brown (1982)- Luxon, J.L., Brown, B.B., Nuclear fusion 22(1982)813.
Zheng et al (1996)- S. B. Zheng, A. J. Wootton, and E. R. Solano, Phys. Plasmas 3, 1176 (1996)
Maschik (1996)-E. K. MASCHK, Plasma Physics, Vol. 15, pp. 535 – 541(1996)
Freidelberg et al (1993)- J P Freidberg, et al, Plasma. Phys. Control. Fusion 35 (1993) 1641-1648.
Atanasui et al (2004)-C. V. Atanasiu, et al Physics of Plasma Volume 11, number 7 July 2004
Mukhovatov and Shefranov(1971) Mukhovatov, V. S. And Shafranov, V.D., Nucl, fusion 11 (1971)605
Hiromasa and Suzuki(1982) Hiromasa, Ninomiya and Norio Suzuki, Japanese Journal of Applied physics,
Vol.21, No. 9 ,September, 1982 pp. 1323-1327
Lopez-Callejas (2001) - R. Lopez-Callejas. et.al .Fusion Engineering and Design 54 (2001)
21–29
Chen (1997)-Lei Chen, et al, Fusion Engineering and Design 34-35 (1997)721–724
Wesson (2004)- Wesson J 2004 Tokomaks (CLARENDON PRESS OXFORD)
Stacey (2004)- Weston M. Stacey, Fusion plasma physics, WILEY-VCH
2
CHAPTER-5
A FEW IDEAS FROM KNOT PHYSICS PATTERN
In knot physics we use a topological approach to describe particles. To do this a 4-dimensional space-time
manifold in a Minkowski 6-space is considered. From this simple assumption, we can derive many physical
results.
Something easier to imagine:

Let's begin with a simple example. Suppose we have a space-time manifold that has 1 dimension of space
and 1 dimension of time. We would embed that manifold in 4 dimensions. A constant time slice of the
space-time manifold looks like an infinitely long piece of string embedded in 3 dimensions. By taking
consecutive constant time slices, we can watch the string move around. We require that the string cannot
pass through itself. This means that a knot in the string cannot be removed. If there are multiple knots in the
string then they can move around and interact with each other. In this description, the string is like space
and the knots are like particles. This space-time manifold with 1 space dimension and 1 time dimension has
its own physics. Can a similar type of physics also apply to a space-time with more dimensions?
This is a constant time slice of a space-time manifold with 1 dimension of space and 1 dimension of time.
This constant time slice is knotted.
More like our universe:

Suppose we have a space-time manifold with n dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Is it still
possible to have knots on the space-time manifold? We can consider the constant time slices. Each constant
time slice is a n-dimensional manifold. From topology, we know that an n-dimensional manifold can have
knots if and only if it is embedded in an n+2-dimensional space. We assume that the space-time manifold
has 3 dimensions of space and 1 dimension of time. Therefore, knots in the space-time manifold require
that the manifold is embedded in a space with 3+2+1=6 dimensions.
Distinguishing time and space:

We now have a 4-dimensional manifold embedded in a 6-dimensional space. What distinguishes a "time"
direction from a "space" direction? The manifold is embedded in a 6-dimensional space and we assume that
the 6-space is Minkowski. The metric on the Minkowski 6-space is diag (1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1). The metric on
the space-time manifold comes from the metric on the Minkowski 6-space. This gives the space-time
manifold a metric which is Lorentzian almost everywhere. The directions on the space-time manifold that
have positive metric signature are time like.
2
How can this make physics?
We know that we need a space-time manifold to explain physics. Relativity describes the manifold as
Lorentzian and gravity results when the metric is not constant. The space-time manifold we describe here is
embedded in a 6-space and it does not need to be flat. When it is not flat, it has curvature. We show in the
papers that the equations of its curvature match the equations of general relativity.
But what else can we explain using just the manifold? If particles are knots on the manifold then the
properties of those knots should generate the properties of particles. Particle topology affects the manifold
geometry. We show in the papers that the affect on manifold geometry explains the observed fields.
Therefore we have an explanation of particles and fields that only assumes the space-time manifold.
Has anyone else tried this?

There is one result that discouraged further research into knots as an explanation of particles: a Lorentzian
manifold cannot change topology. If we take constant time slices of a manifold that is everywhere
Lorentzian, then those slices must always have the same topology. If the manifold cannot change topology
then there can be no knots and therefore no particles in this description. People typically assume that the
space-time manifold is everywhere Lorentzian.
So... that's the end of the story, right?
In knot physics the space-time manifold is embedded in a Minkowski 6-space. An embedded manifold is
Lorentzian if it is moving at less than light speed. If it is moving at light speed then the metric is
degenerate. The manifold must have finite energy. By relativity, if the manifold is moving then the energy
density is proportional to γ. But γ is infinite at light speed. That means that the manifold must be Lorentzian
everywhere except a set of measure zero. The metric is degenerate on the measure zero set. A degenerate
metric means the manifold can be kinked. This allows topology change.
An example :
Let's try this with an example in lower dimensions with a cylinder
to describe a space-time manifold we use a n-manifold embedded in a Minkowski space. In this example
our space-time is a 3-manifold with boundary. This picture is a space like slice of the space-time. It is a 2-
manifold with boundary; specifically, it is a cylinder.
Now rotate the cylinder in the direction of the red arrow. Every point is in motion and the blue line segment
is moving at light speed.
It can describe the manifold as "moving". It can also describe the manifold as having a shape in space and
time. The descriptions are equivalent.
This induces a relativistic length contraction along the blue line segment. The metric is degenerate at the
point where the cylinder meets the blue line.
For any speed less than light speed, the manifold is Lorentzian: we can make a change of reference frame
that puts the manifold velocity equal to zero. At light speed, there is no such frame change. At that speed
the metric is degenerate.
We can twist around that point of degeneracy. This produces a twist in the cylinder.
At the metric degeneracy the manifold tapers to a point and it can rotate freely around that point.
2
If we stop moving the manifold it returns to being Lorentzian. The metric degeneracy disappears. However,
the twist in the cylinder remains. It is now a Mobius strip.
The Mobius strip has different topology than the cylinder. This topology change is a convenient example
because it is easy to visualize. However, the Mobius strip is a manifold with boundary, unlike the space-
time manifold. Performing an analogous change on a 2-manifold without boundary makes a P 2 (a projective
plane). If the manifold has a field (like space-time) then the P 2 must be produced in pairs, like particle/anti-
particle pairs.
What happened? Relativity uses a Minkowski metric. If the manifold is always moving at less than light
speed then no topology change is possible because the Minkowksi metric makes the manifold everywhere
Lorentzian. However, that same metric allows a topology change if we allow some part of the manifold to
move at light speed.
We can use this same technique to allow topology change on the space-time manifold. For a cylinder, the
topology change can make a Mobius strip. The degenerate metric allows the manifold to "kink". Then we
can twist around that kink. For space-time, a degenerate metric also produces a kink. When we twist around
that kink, the topology change can produce a pair of twists. Each twist is a topology called S 1×P2. A S1×P2
is fermions in knot physics. In the papers we show how S 1×P2 can produce fractional spin statistics, charge,
and spin angular momentum. The correspondence between S 1×P2 and the fermions is precise. There are
three generations with particles corresponding to charged leptons, neutrinos, and quarks.
For hadrons we link multiple copies of S 1×P2. This is similar to the way that circles can be linked, but in
higher dimensions. Each S1×P2 is a quark and the linked quarks are hadrons. Linked S 1×P2 cannot be
separated, in the same way that quarks cannot be removed from their hadrons.
Linked circles embedded in 3 dimensions cannot be separated. Similarly, linked P 2 in 4 dimensions cannot
be separated. Let L be a link of multiple P2. Then S1×L is a link of multiple S1×P2 in 5 dimensions. Each
S1×P2 is a quark and the quarks cannot be separated. This corresponds to quark confinement. At close
distances the links exert no force on each other. This corresponds to asymptotic freedom. Extending this
idea produces a field equation that is quite similar to QCD.
This is only a brief introduction. The papers cover this material in greater detail as well as many other
aspects of the theory. In particular, the papers demonstrate the fields and forces, quantum field theory, and
a variety of other topics.
If you find this interesting, feel free to contact me and send this on to anyone else. (Contact info is available
in the papers.)
Knot Theory
There is of course an enormous body of work on knot invariants, the 3-manifold topology of knot
complements, connections between knot theory and statistical mechanics, etc. I am instead interested here
primarily in geometric questions arising from knot embeddings.
 Atlas of oriented knots and links, Corinne Cerf extends previous lists of all small knots and links,
to allow each component of the link to be marked by an orientation.
2
 Borromean rings don't exist. Geoff Mess relates a proof that the Borromean ring configuration (in
which three loops are tangled together but no pair is linked) can not be formed out of circles. Dan
Asimov discusses some related higher dimensional questions. Matthew Cook conjectures the
converse.
 Are Borromean links so rare? S. Javan relates the history of the links and describes various
generalizations with more than three rings. For more history and symbolism of the Borromean
rings, see Peter Cromwell's web site.
 Borromean paper clips.
 A Brunnian link. Cutting any one of five links allows the remaining four to be disconnected from
each other, so this is in some sense a generalization of the Borromean rings. However since each
pair of links crosses four times, it can't be drawn with circles.
 Colinear points on knots. Greg Kuperberg shows that a non-trivial knot or link in R 3 necessarily
has four colinear points.
 Curvature of knots. Steve Fenner proves the Fary-Milnor theorem that any smooth, simple, closed
curve in 3-space must have total curvature at least 4 pi.
 Cut-the-knot logo. With a proof of the origami-folklore that this folded-flat overhand knot forms a
regular pentagon.
 Detecting the unknot in polynomial time, C. Delman and K. Wolcott, Eastern Illinois U.
 Figure eight knot / horoball diagram . Research of A. Edmonds into the symmetries of knots,
relating them to something that looks like a packing of spheres. The MSRI Computing Group uses
another horoball diagram as their logo.
 Geometric Arts. Knots, fractals, tesselations, and op art. Formerly Quincy Kim's World of
Geometry.
 Geometry and the Imagination in Minneapolis . Notes from a workshop led by Conway, Doyle,
Gilman, and Thurston. Includes several sections on polyhedra, knots, and symmetry groups.
 Hyperbolic Knot. From Eric Weisstein's treasure trove of mathematics.
 Aaron Kellner Linear Sculpture. Art in the form of geometric tangles of metal and wood rods.
 Knot art. Keith and Fran Griffin.
 Knot pictures. Energy-minimized smooth and polygonal knots, from the ming knot evolver, Y.
Wu, U. Iowa.
 KnotPlot. Pictures of knots and links, from Robert Scharein at UBC.
 Knots on the Web, P. Suber. Includes sections on knot tying and knot art as well as knot theory.
 Mathematical imagery by Jos Leys. Knots, Escher tilings, spirals, fractals, circle inversions,
hyperbolic tilings, Penrose tilings, and more.
 Louis Bel's povray galleries: les polyhèdres réguliers, knots, and more knots.
 Maille Weaves. Different repetitive patterns formed by linked circles along a plane in space, as
used for making chain mail. Along with some linear patterns for jewelry chains.
 Mathematics in John Robinson's symbolic sculptures . Borromean rings, torus knots, fiber bundles,
and unorientable geometries.
 Meru Foundation appears to be another sacred geometry site, with animated gifs of torus knots
and other geometric visualizations and articles.
Modularity in art. Slavik Jablan explores connections between art, tiling, knotwork, and other
mathematical topics.
 Mutations and knots. Connections between knot theory and dissection of hyperbolic polyhedra.
2
 Orthogonal discrete knots. Hew Wolff asks questions about the minimum total length, or the
minimum volume of a rectangular box, needed to form different knots as three-dimensional
polygons using only integer-length axis-parallel edges.
 Penrose mandala and five-way Borromean rings.
 The Pretzel Page. Eric Sedgwick uses animated movies of twisting pretzel knots to visualize a
theorem about Heegard splittings (ways of dividing a complex topological space into two simple
pieces).
 Programming for 3d modeling, T. Longtin. Tensegrity structures, twisted torus space frames,
Moebius band gear assemblies, jigsaw puzzle polyhedra, Hilbert fractal helices, herds of turtles,
and more.
 In search of the ideal knot. Piotr Pieranski applies an iterative shrinking heuristic to find the
minimum length unit-diameter rope that can be used to tie a given knot.
 SnapPea, powerful software for computing geometric properties of knot complements and other 3-
manifolds.
 Soap films on knots. Ken Brakke, Susquehanna.

 Space Cubes plastic geometric modeling puzzle based on a rectangular Borromean link.
 Square Knots. This article by Brian Hayes for American Scientist examines how likely it is that a
random lattice polygon is knotted.
 String figure mathematics, or trivial knot theory.
 Morwen Thistlethwait, sphere packing, computational topology, symmetric knots, and giant ray-
traced floating letters.
 Trefoil knot stairs. Java animation of an Escher-like infinite stair construction, intended as a
Montreal metro station sculpture, by Guillaume LaBelle.
 Triangulating 3-dimensional polygons. This is always possible (with exponentially many Steiner
points) if the polygon is unknotted, but NP-complete if no Steiner points are allowed. The proof
uses gadgets in which quadrilaterals are stacked like Pringles to form wires. UMass Gang library
of knots, surfaces, surface deformation movies, and minimal surface meshing software.
Just for a beginning, before the knots begin to appear. Let's consider:
What is a knot? If it is in the plane, then it is not. If it is not then it is a knot.
Along with knots and nots, I am fascinated by PARADOX.
Let G be defined by the equation
Gx = F(xx).
Then
GG=F(GG).
Thus, if J=GG then J=F(J) for any F! (This is the fixed point theorem of Church and Curry in the untyped
lambda calculus). The fixed point theorem gets you very quickly to paradox. For example, let AB mean "A
is a member of B". Let Rx = not(xx). (That is, x is a member of R only if x is not a member of x.) Then RR
= not(RR). R is a member of R only if it is not a member of R! R's Self-Membership is in a state of doubt.
Now imagine a simple loop of rope. Allow that when a bit of line passes underneath another bit of line, we
shall say that the underpassing bit "belongs" to the overpassing bit. Membership by underpassage.
The simple loop is then an empty "knot set". Put a twist in the loop and it underpasses itself. The singly
twisted loop is a member of itself. Loop and twisted loop are topologically equivalent. Hence, speaking
{topo}logically, the simple loop is both a member of itself and not a member of itself. By this simple twist
of logic, the paradox becomes a phenomenon of three dimensional space.
Untwisting Russell's Paradox
2
Paradox is not all there is to knots. The problem of finding invariants of knots has led to extraordinary
connections of knot theory with many different fields. In the next few paragraphs, I will comment on some
of these connections.
Knots and State Summations
Here is a brief introduction to the subject of knots and statistical mechanics. The motivating idea is that a
physical system has many different configurations that it assumes over time. These are the "states" of the
system. Significant physical quantities are obtained by averaging over all the states of the system. By
analogy, a topological space may have a natural collection of states associated with it. Significant
topological quantities may be obtained by averaging over the states of the topological space!
We shall describe the state summation model for the bracket polynomial and its relation to the original
Jones polynomial. Given a diagram for a knot, it is possible to reduce it to a collection of Jordan curves in
the plane by "smoothing" each crossing in one of the two possible ways shown in the diagram below.
A "state" S of a link diagram is a choice of smoothing for each of its crossings.

It is of historical interest to realize that the idea of smoothing crossings in a knot diagram was used by the
designers of Celtic knots. Starting from a highly regular diagram, the designer smooths collections of
crossings to obtain the desired design. To see a demonstration of this, try the following link for celtic knot
design.
We encode the type of smoothing by labelling it "A" or "B" according as the regions that are joined are
labelled A or B. This labelling is illustrated above. The four local regions incident at a crossing are labelled
A and B with the two A's occupying vertical angles as are the two B's. In this labelling, the two A regions
are swept out when the overcrossing line is swept counterclockwise. (This convention pinpoints the
assignment of A's and B's.) Thus a state is decorated with the labels at the sites of its smoothings. We call
these labels the "vertex weights" of the state. If K is a link diagram and S is a state of that diagram, let [K|
S] denote the product of all of the vertex weights (labels A or B) for that state. Note that [K|S] depends
upon the structure of over and under crossings in the link. Let d be a third algebraic variable commuting
with A and B (A and B commute with each other). Let ||S|| denote the number of Jordan curves in the state
S. The Bracket Polynomial is defined to be the summation
[K] = SUM Over States S {[K|S]d^||S||}.
By adjusting the variables A,B and d correctly, the bracket polynomial [K] reads out deep topological
information about the link K.
The correct adjustment turns out to be B=1/A and d=-A^2 -A^(-2) where X^Y denotes X raised to the Yth
power. With this adjustment the bracket polynomial is invariant under the basically flat Reidemeister II and
III moves and multiplies by -A^3 or -A^(-3) under a type I Reidemeister move. What is a Reidemeister
move? In the next incarnation of this page, there will be a hyperlink to a discussion of the Reidemeister
moves. They are a simple set of basic moves on link diagrams that generate topological equivalence. The
unnormalized bracket polynomial is an invariant of what is called "regular isotopy."
We normalize the bracket polynomial to create a full invariant of ambient isotopy for knots and links,
denoted by f[K](A) with the formula
f[K](A) = (-A^3)^(-w(K)) [K]
where w(K) is the sum of the signs of the crossings of the oriented diagram K. The sign of a crossing is
plus one if a counterclockwise rotation of the overcrossing line puts it in parallel orientation to the
undercrossing line.
The Jones polynomial (discovered by Vaughan Jones in 1984) can be expressed in terms of the bracket
polynomial. The Jones polynomial is modelled by the bracket through the formula
V[K](t) = f[K](t^(-1/4)).
It is an open problem whether the Jones polynomial detects knots! That is we can conjecture that V[K](t)
=1 implies that K is unknotted for a knot diagram K. So far there is no counterexample to this conjecture.
2
On the other hand, there are many pairs of knots K, K' such that K and K' have the same Jones polynomial,
but K and K' are topologically distinct. One such pair is shown below. They are KT, the Kinoshita-
Terasaka knot, and C the Conway knot. C and KT are MUTANTS of one another; each can be obtained
from the other by removing a box with four strands (a "2-tangle") and replacing the box after turning it
around by 180 degrees. The KT and the C are both 11 crossing knots, with non-trivial Jones polynomial.
They can be distinguished from one another by subtler means. It is also noteworthy that KT and C are the
smallest knots with Alexander polynomial equal to one. There are many knots undetectable by the
Alexander polynomial, and no classification of them is known.
Below the picture of KT and C, you will see a twelve crossing diagram of KT. Contemplation of this
picture reveals that KT is a ribbon knot, a special form of knot that is "slice" ( i.e. it bounds a smooth disk
in the four dimensional ball). A ribbon knot bounds a disk immersed in the three sphere with so-called
"ribbon singularities". In a ribbon singularity two arcs from the disk cross transversely. One arc is in the
interior of the disk. One arc has its boundary points in the boundary of the disk. It is unknown whether
every slice knot is ribbon.
Knots...
Every one knows from experience how to create a knot. We do this all the time, often unwittingly.
Knots whose ends were glued together and their classification form the subject of a branch of Topology
known as the Knot Theory. On the left there is a picture of the Left Trefoil knot. On the right there is the
Right Trefoil knot. It's impossible to continuously (i.e. stretching and twisting but without causing
damage to either of them) deform one into another. However, it must be noted that the two knots are
topologically equivalent in the sense that there exists a topological transformation that maps one into
another. The knots are mirror reflections of each other.
In the real world, it can be argued that mirror reflections are only mental images whose existence is
entirely different from that of the objects whose reflections they are. In Mathematics, reflections are as
real as the objects themselves. Mathematically, reflections are topological transformations that could
not be carried out on the real world objects. But, as many mathematicians might remark, no
mathematical transformation could possibly apply to a real world object in the first place.
An aside
There is an unorthodox way to create a trefoil knot. Start as if creating a Moebius strip. But this time
twist one end of the strip three half turns. Now cut the resulting (one-sided) strip along the middle line.
You should get a trefoil knot. Other surfaces can be obtained by gluing and cutting a paper strip.
It's an interesting activity in a Trigonometry or Analytic Geometry classes to figure out the set of
equations that results in these pictures. I introduce an idea of what is involved on my Moebius strip .
 Martin Gardner gives a beautiful introduction into the knot topology in his Knotted
Doughnuts, W.H.Freeman and Co, 1986.
 Dr. Crypton gives a somewhat frivolous example of a topological transformation in his
Dr. Crypton and His Problems.
 R. Courant and H. Robbins mention knots in What is Mathematics? In a chapter added
to the 1996 edition, Ian Stuart expands their exposition with newer results
 S. Barr, Experiments in Topology, Dover Publications, NY, 1989. The easiest yet most
insightful introduction into Topology.
3
Topology emerged as part of Geometry which did away with metric properties of shapes - angles and
distances. For example, topologically, sphere and cube are one and the same object since one can be
transformed continuously (i.e. with neither cutting nor tearing) into another. Therefore, it's so much
more remarkable that number invariants are still used to characterize topological objects.
In the Knot Theory until 1984 the main tool to tell the knots apart was the Alexander polynomials so
named after the American mathematician J.W. Alexander. However, those did not distinguish between
the two trefoil knots. For both knots the Alexander polynomial was t 2-t+1. In 1984 a New Zealander
Vaughan Jones working on some aspects of Mathematical Physics discovered (Jones) polynomials that
later were generalized even further simultaneously and quite independently by five separate groups of
mathematicians. Known as the HOMFLY (Hoste-Ocneanu-Millett-Freyd-Lickorish-Yetter), these
polynomials in two variables give -2x2 - x4 + x2y2 for the left and -2x2 - x-4 + x-2y2 for the right trefoil
knots, respectively.
I mention these elements of the Knot Theory for two reasons. One is that with all the specialization of
tools and interests due to the growth of the body Mathematics, this science is unified in that the basic
strains permeate virtually every branch of Mathematics and this is a regular occurrence to detect links
between distinct mathematical theories.
The second reason is that there are numerous examples in the history of mathematics when an
important discovery has been made simultaneously by independent researchers as if an idea was
floating in, I do not know where - air, the World of Numbers or common consciousness - waiting to be
grasped by human minds. The end to the philosophical disscusion whether mathematics is being
invented or discovered is nowhere in sight.
In mathematics, knot theory is the area of topology that studies mathematical knots. While inspired by
knots which appear in daily life in shoelaces and rope, a mathematician's knot differs in that the ends are
joined together to prevent it from becoming undone. In precise mathematical language, a knot is an
embedding of a circle in 3-dimensional Euclidean space, R3. Two mathematical knots are equivalent if one
can be transformed into the other via a deformation of R3 upon itself (known as an ambient isotopy); these
transformations correspond to manipulations of a knotted string that do not involve cutting the string or
passing the string through itself.
Knots can be described in various ways. Given a method of description, however, there may be more than
one description that represents the same knot. For example, a common method of describing a knot is a
planar diagram called a knot diagram. Any given knot can be drawn in many different ways using a knot
diagram. Therefore, a fundamental problem in knot theory is determining when two descriptions represent
the same knot.
A complete algorithmic solution to this problem exists, which has unknown complexity. In practice, knots
are often distinguished by using a knot invariant, a "quantity" which is the same when computed from
different descriptions of a knot. Important invariants include knot polynomials, knot groups, and hyperbolic
invariants.
The original motivation for the founders of knot theory was to create a table of knots and links, which are
knots of several components entangled with each other. Over six billion knots and links have been
tabulated since the beginnings of knot theory in the 19th century.
To gain further insight, mathematicians have generalized the knot concept in several ways. Knots can be
considered in other three-dimensional spaces and objects other than circles can be used (see knot
3
(mathematics)). Higher dimensional knots are n-dimensional spheres in m-dimensional Euclidean
space.
History
Archaeologists have discovered that knot tying dates back to prehistoric times. Besides their uses such as
recording information and tying objects together, knots have interested humans for their aesthetics and
spiritual symbolism. Knots appear in various forms of Chinese artwork dating from several centuries BC
(see Chinese knotting). The endless knot appears in Tibetan Buddhism, while the Borromean rings have
made repeated appearances in different cultures, often representing strength in unity. The Celtic monks
who created the Book of Kells lavished entire pages with intricate Celtic knotwork.
Mathematical studies of knots began in the 19th century with Gauss, who defined the linking integral
(Silver 2006). In the 1860s, Lord Kelvin's theory that atoms were knots in the aether led to Peter Guthrie
Tait's creation of the first knot tables. Tabulation motivated the early knot theorists, but knot theory
eventually became part of the emerging subject of topology.
These topologists in the early part of the 20th century—Max Dehn, J. W. Alexander, and others—studied
knots from the point of view of the knot group and invariants from homology theory such as the Alexander
polynomial. This would be the main approach to knot theory until a series of breakthroughs transformed the
subject.
The first knot tabulator was Peter Guthrie Tait. In the late 1970s, William Thurston introduced hyperbolic
geometry into the study of knots with the hyperbolization theorem. Many knots were shown to be
hyperbolic knots, enabling the use of geometry in defining new, powerful knot invariants. The discovery of
the Jones polynomial by Vaughan Jones in 1984 (Sossinsky 2002, p. 71–89), and subsequent contributions
from Edward Witten, Maxim Kontsevich, and others, revealed deep connections between knot theory and
mathematical methods in statistical mechanics and quantum field theory. A plethora of knot invariants have
been invented since then, utilizing sophisticated tools such as quantum groups and Floer homology.
In the last several decades of the 20th century, scientists became interested in studying physical knots in
order to understand knotting phenomena in DNA and other polymers. Knot theory can be used to determine
if a molecule is chiral (has a "handedness") or not (Simon 1986). Tangles, strings with both ends fixed in
place, have been effectively used in studying the action of topoisomerase on DNA (Flapan 2000). Knot
theory may be crucial in the construction of quantum computers, through the model of topological quantum
computation (Collins 2006).
Knot equivalence
A knot is created by beginning with a one-dimensional line segment, wrapping it around itself arbitrarily,
and then fusing its two free ends together to form a closed loop (Adams 2004)(Sossinsky 2002). When
topologists consider knots and other entanglements such as links and braids, they consider the space
surrounding the knot as a viscous fluid. If the knot can be pushed about smoothly in the fluid, without
intersecting itself, to coincide with another knot, the two knots are considered equivalent. The idea of knot
equivalence is to give a precise definition of when two knots should be considered the same even when
positioned quite differently in space. A formal mathematical definition is that two knots are equivalent if
one can be transformed into the other via a type of deformation of R3 upon itself, known as an ambient
isotopy.
3
The basic problem of knot theory, the recognition problem, is determining the equivalence of two Knot
knots. Algorithms exist to solve this problem, with the first given by Wolfgang Haken in the late
1960s (Hass 1998). Nonetheless, these algorithms can be extremely time-consuming, and a major
issue in the theory is to understand how hard this problem really is (Hass 1998). The special case of sums tabulating
recognizing the unknot, called the unknotting problem, is of particular interest (Hoste 2005).
[edit] Knot diagrams

polynomials
A useful way to visualise and manipulate knots is to project the knot onto a plane—think of the
knot casting a shadow on the wall. A small change in the direction of projection will ensure that it
is one-to-one except at the double points, called crossings, where the "shadow" of the knot crosses itself
once transversely (Rolfsen 1976). At each crossing, to be able to recreate the original knot, the over-strand
must be distinguished from the under-strand. This is often done by creating a
break in the strand going underneath.
Reidemeister moves
In 1927, working with this diagrammatic form of knots, J.W. Alexander and G. B. Briggs, and
independently Kurt Reidemeister, demonstrated that two knot diagrams belonging to the same knot can be
related by a sequence of three kinds of moves on the diagram, shown below. These operations, now called
the Reidemeister moves, are:
I. Twist and untwist in either direction.

II. Move one strand completely over another.
III. Move a strand completely over or under a crossing.
The proof that diagrams of equivalent knots are connected by Reidemeister moves relies on an analysis of
what happens under the planar projection of the movement taking one knot to another. The movement can
be arranged so that almost all of the time the projection will be a knot diagram, except at finitely many
times when an "event" or "catastrophe" occurs, such as when more than two strands cross at a point or
multiple strands become tangent at a point. A close inspection will show that complicated events can be
eliminated, leaving only the simplest events: 1) a "kink" forming or being straightened out 2) two strands
becoming tangent at a point and passing through 3) three strands crossing at a point. These are precisely the
Reidemeister moves (Sossinsky 2002, ch. 3) (Lickorish 1997, ch. 1).
Knot invariants
A knot invariant is a "quantity" that is the same for equivalent knots (Adams 2004)(Lickorish 1997)
(Rolfsen 1976). For example, if the invariant is computed from a knot diagram, it should give the same
value for two knot diagrams representing equivalent knots. An invariant may take the same value on two
different knots, so by itself may be incapable of distinguishing all knots. An elementary invariant is
tricolorability.
3
"Classical" knot invariants include the knot group, which is the fundamental group of the knot complement,
and the Alexander polynomial, which can be computed from the Alexander invariant, a module constructed
from the infinite cyclic cover of the knot complement (Lickorish 1997)(Rolfsen 1976). In the late 20th
century, invariants such as "quantum" knot polynomials, Vassiliev invariants and hyperbolic invariants
were discovered. These aforementioned invariants are only the tip of the iceberg of modern knot theory.
Knot polynomials
A knot polynomial is a knot invariant that is a polynomial. Well-known examples include the Jones and
Alexander polynomials. A variant of the Alexander polynomial, the Alexander-Conway polynomial, is a
polynomial in the variable z with integer coefficients (Lickorish 1997).
The Alexander-Conway polynomial is actually defined in terms of links, which consist of one or more
knots entangled with each other. The concepts explained above for knots, e.g. diagrams and Reidemeister
moves, also hold for links.
Suppose there is a link diagram which is oriented, i.e. every component of the link has a preferred direction
indicated by an arrow. Also suppose L + ,L − ,L0 are oriented link diagrams resulting from changing the
diagram at a specified crossing of the diagram, as indicated in the figure:
Then the Alexander-Conway polynomial, C(z), is recursively defined according to the rules:
 C(O) = 1 (where O is any diagram of the unknot)

 C(L + ) = C(L − ) + zC(L0)
The second rule is what is often referred to as a skein relation. To check that these rules give an invariant of
an oriented link, one should determine that the polynomial does not change under the three Reidemeister
moves. Many important knot polynomials can be defined in this way.
The following is an example of a typical computation using a skein relation. It computes the Alexander-
Conway polynomial of the trefoil knot. The yellow patches indicate where the relation is applied.
C(1)=C(0) + z C(0+1)
3
gives the unknot and the Hopf link. Applying the relation to the Hopf link where indicated,
C() = C() + z C()
gives a link deformable to one with 0 crossings (it is actually the unlink of two components) and an unknot.
The unlink takes a bit of sneakiness:
C() = C()+ z C()
which implies that C(unlink of two components) = 0, since the first two polynomials are of the unknot and
thus equal.
Putting all this together will show:
C(trefoil) = 1 + z (0 + z) = 1 + z2
Since the Alexander-Conway polynomial is a knot invariant, this shows that the trefoil is not equivalent to
the unknot. So the trefoil really is "knotted".
Actually, there are two trefoil knots, called the right and left-handed trefoils, which are mirror images of
each other (take a diagram of the trefoil given above and change each crossing to the other way to get the
mirror image). These are not equivalent to each other! This was shown by Max Dehn, before the invention
of knot polynomials, using group theoretical methods (Dehn 1914). But the Alexander-Conway polynomial
of each kind of trefoil will be the same, as can be seen by going through the computation above with the
mirror image. The Jones polynomial can in fact distinguish between the left and right-handed trefoil knots
(Lickorish 1997).
Hyperbolic invariants
William Thurston proved many knots are hyperbolic knots, meaning that the knot complement, i.e. the
points of 3-space not on the knot, admit a geometric structure, in particular that of hyperbolic geometry.
The hyperbolic structure depends only on the knot so any quantity computed from the hyperbolic structure
is then a knot invariant (Adams 2004).
Geometry lets us visualize what the inside of a knot or link complement looks like by imagining light rays
as traveling along the geodesics of the geometry. An example is provided by the picture of the complement
of the Borromean rings. The inhabitant of this link complement is viewing the space from near the red
component. The balls in the picture are views of horoball neighborhoods of the link. By thickening the link
in a standard way, the horoball neighborhoods of the link components are obtained. Even though the
boundary of a neighborhood is a torus, when viewed from inside the link complement, it looks like a
sphere. Each link component shows up as infinitely many spheres (of one color) as there are infinitely
many light rays from the observer to the link component. The fundamental parallelogram (which is
indicated in the picture), tiles both vertically and horizontally and shows how to extend the pattern of
spheres infinitely.
3
This pattern, the horoball pattern, is itself a useful invariant. Other hyperbolic invariants include the shape
of the fundamental paralleogram, length of shortest geodesic, and volume. Modern knot and link tabulation
efforts have utilized these invariants effectively. Fast computers and clever methods of obtaining these
invariants make calculating these invariants, in practice, a simple task (Adams, Hildebrand & Weeks 1991).
Higher dimensions
In four dimensions, any closed loop of one-dimensional string is equivalent to an unknot. This necessary
deformation can be achieved in two steps. The first step is to "push" the loop into a three-dimensional
subspace, which is always possible, though technical to explain. The second step is changing crossings.
Suppose one strand is behind another as seen from a chosen point. Lift it into the fourth dimension, so there
is no obstacle (the front strand having no component there); then slide it forward, and drop it back, now in
front. An analogy for the plane would be lifting a string up off the surface.
Since a knot can be considered topologically a 1-dimensional sphere, the next generalization is to consider
a two dimensional sphere embedded in a four dimensional sphere. Such an embedding is unknotted if there
is a homeomorphism of the 4-sphere onto itself taking the 2-sphere to a standard "round" 2-sphere.
Suspended knots and spun knots are two typical families of such 2-sphere knots.
The mathematical technique called "general position" implies that for a given n-sphere in the m-sphere, if
m is large enough (depending on n), the sphere should be unknotted. In general, piecewise-linear n-spheres
form knots only in (n+2)-space (Zeeman 1963), although this is no longer a requirement for smoothly
knotted spheres. In fact, there are smoothly knotted 4k-1-spheres in 6k-space, e.g. there is a smoothly
knotted 3-sphere in the 6-sphere (Haefliger 1962)(Levine 1965). Thus the codimension of a smooth knot
can be arbitrarily large when not fixing the dimension of the knotted sphere; however, any smooth k-sphere
in an n-sphere with 2n-3k-3 > 0 is unknotted. The notion of a knot has further generalizations in
mathematics, see: knot (mathematics).
Adding knots
Two knots can be added by cutting both knots and joining the pairs of ends. The operation is called the
knot sum, or sometimes the connected sum or composition of two knots. This can be formally defined as
follows (Adams 2004): consider a planar projection of each knot and suppose these projections are disjoint.
Find a rectangle in the plane where one pair of opposite sides are arcs along each knot while the rest of the
rectangle is disjoint from the knots. Form a new knot by deleting the first pair of opposite sides and
adjoining the other pair of opposite sides. The resulting knot is a sum of the original knots. Depending on
how this is done, two different knots (but no more) may result. This ambiguity in the sum can be eliminated
regarding the knots as oriented, i.e. having a preferred direction of travel along the knot, and requiring the
arcs of the knots in the sum are oriented consistently with the oriented boundary of the rectangle.
The knot sum of oriented knots is commutative and associative. There is also a prime decomposition for a
knot which allows a prime or composite knot to be defined, analogous to prime and composite numbers
(Schubert 1949). For oriented knots, this decomposition is also unique. Higher dimensional knots can also
be added but there are some differences. While you cannot form the unknot in three dimensions by adding
two non-trivial knots, you can in higher dimensions, at least when one considers smooth knots in
codimension at least 3.
3
Tabulating knots
A table of prime knots up to seven crossings. The knots are labeled with Alexander–Briggs notation
Traditionally, knots have been catalogued in terms of crossing number. Knot tables generally include only
prime knots and only one entry for a knot and its mirror image (even if they are different) (Hoste,
Thistlethwaite & Weeks 1998). The number of nontrivial knots of a given crossing number increases
rapidly, making tabulation computationally difficult (Hoste 2005, p. 20). Tabulation efforts have succeeded
in enumerating over 6 billion knots and links (Hoste 2005, p. 28). The sequence of the number of prime
knots of a given crossing number, up to crossing number 16, is 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 7, 21, 49, 165, 552, 2176,
9988, 46972, 253293, 1388705... (sequence A002863 in OEIS). While exponential upper and lower bounds
for this sequence are known, it has not been proven that this sequence is strictly increasing (Adams 2004).
The first knot tables by Tait, Little, and Kirkman used knot diagrams, although Tait also used a precursor to
the Dowker notation. Different notations have been invented for knots which allow more efficient
tabulation (Hoste 2005).
The early tables attempted to list all knots of at most 10 crossings, and all alternating knots of 11 crossings
(Hoste, Thistlethwaite & Weeks 1998). The development of knot theory due to Alexander, Reidemeister,
Seifert, and others eased the task of verification and tables of knots up to and including 9 crossings were
published by Alexander–Briggs and Reidemeister in the late 1920s.
The first major verification of this work was done in the 1960s by John Horton Conway, who not only
developed a new notation but also the Alexander–Conway polynomial (Conway 1970)(Doll & Hoste 1991).
This verified the list of knots of at most 11 crossings and a new list of links up to 10 crossings. Conway
found a number of omissions but only one duplication in the Tait–Little tables; however he missed the
duplicates called the Perko pair, which would only be noticed in 1974 by Kenneth Perko (Perko 1974).
This famous error would propagate when Dale Rolfsen added a knot table in his influential text, based on
Conway's work.
In the late 1990s Hoste, Thistlethwaite, and Weeks tabulated all the knots through 16 crossings (Hoste,
Thistlethwaite & Weeks 1998). In 2003 Rankin, Flint, and Schermann, tabulated the alternating knots
through 22 crossings (Hoste 2005).
Alexander–Briggs notation
This is the most traditional notation, due to the 1927 paper of J. W. Alexander and G. Briggs and later
extended by Dale Rolfsen in his knot table. The notation simply organizes knots by their crossing number.
One writes the crossing number with a subscript to denote its order amongst all knots with that crossing
number. This order is arbitrary and so has no special significance.
Dowker notation
3
The Dowker notation, also called the Dowker–Thistlethwaite notation or code, for a knot is a finite
sequence of even integers. The numbers are generated by following the knot and marking the crossings
with consecutive integers. Since each crossing is visited twice, this creates a pairing of even integers with
odd integers. An appropriate sign is given to indicate over and undercrossing. For example, in the figure the
knot diagram has crossings labelled with the pairs (1,6) (3,−12) (5,2) (7,8) (9,−4) and (11,−10). The
Dowker notation for this labelling is the sequence: 6 −12 2 8 −4 −10. A knot diagram has more than one
possible Dowker notation, and there is a well-understood ambiguity when reconstructing a knot from a
Dowker notation.
Conway notation
Conway notation for knots and links, named after John Horton Conway, is based on the theory of tangles
(Conway 1970). The advantage of this notation is that it reflects some properties of the knot or link.
The notation describes how to construct a particular link diagram of the link. Start with a basic polyhedron,
a 4-valent connected planar graph with no digon regions. Such a polyhedron is denoted first by the number
of vertices then a number of asterisks which determine the polyhedron's position on a list of basic
polyhedron. For example, 10** denotes the second 10-vertex polyhedron on Conway's list.
Each vertex then has an algebraic tangle substituted into it (each vertex is oriented so there is no arbitrary
choice in substitution). Each such tangle has a notation consisting of numbers and + or − signs.
An example is 1*2 −3 2. The 1* denotes the only 1-vertex basic polyhedron. The 2 −3 2 is a sequence
describing the continued fraction associated to a rational tangle. One inserts this tangle at the vertex of the
basic polyhedron 1*.
A more complicated example is 8*3.1.2 0.1.1.1.1.1 Here again 8* refers to a basic polyhedron with 8
vertices. The periods separate the notation for each tangle.
Any link admits such a description, and it is clear this is a very compact notation even for very large
crossing number. There are some further shorthands usually used. The last example is usually written 8*3:2
0, where the ones are omitted and kept the number of dots excepting the dots at the end. For an algebraic
knot such as in the first example, 1* is often omitted.
Conway's pioneering paper on the subject lists up to 10-vertex basic polyhedra of which he uses to tabulate
links, which have become standard for those links. For a further listing of higher vertex polyhedra, there are
nonstandard choices available.
3
Chapter-6
Bringing the Power Source of the Stars Down to Earth
The Sun Runs on Fusion Energy Galaxies Run on Fusion Energy
Like all stars, the sun is a huge fusion reactor, This image shows hundreds of stars on the sides,
pumping out 100 million times of energy in a with a barred spiral galaxy in the center. Each star
single second as the entire population of Earth is a huge fusion reactor, pumping out 100 million
uses in a year! times of energy in a single second as the entire
3
To learn more about stars and the fusion reactions population of Earth uses in a year! And each
which power them, galaxy contains roughly 100 billion stars!
To learn more about stars and the fusion reactions

which power them,
Magnetic Fusion Energy Inertial Confinement Fusion Energy
The image above is an artistic rendering of a The image above shows the laser-driven
tokomak, a donut-shaped magnetic vacuum implosion of a small pellet of fusion fuel at the
chamber in which wispy vapors of fusion fuel are Laboratory for Laser Energetic at the University
electrified and heated to hundreds of millions of of Rochester in Rochester, New York. Many
degrees - hotter than the center of the sun! The invisible infra-red laser beams simultaneously
magnetic fields are configured to trap the converge on a tiny target, intensely heating the
superheated fusion fuel in the center of the loop, outside and squeezing the fuel into the center of
so that it can't touch the walls and cool off. At the the pellet. The inertia of the implosion traps the
high temperatures and pressures in the center, fuel for a billionth of a second at ten-million-
megawatts of fusion power can be produced. degree temperatures and densities far greater than
While not currently economically viable, solid matter. The intense heat and pressure force
magnetic confinement fusion shows promise as a the fuel to fuse, much like inside a star. These
future energy source. experiments are currently used to simulate
conditions inside stars (and hydrogen bombs), but
To learn more about fusion reactions and the scientists also hope to develop the inertial
magnetic confinement process confinement approach in creating an
economically and environmentally viable energy
source here on earth.
To learn more about fusion reactions and the

inertial confinement approach.
courtesy:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory |
4
CHAPTER-7
PATTERN OF QUAKES FOR WAVES AND INSTABILITY
A sudden tremor or movement of the earth’s crust, which originates naturally at the surface below the
surface of Earth, is commonly known as earthquakes. Pattern- wise the waves lead to such type of
instability on earth surface. In fusion device the Rayliegh –Taylor instability due to the upward movement
of density gradient leads to such fusion process as Plateau –Rayleigh instability does for earthquakes.
Earthquakes are three dimensional events, the waves move outwards from the focus, but can travel in both
horizontal and vertical direction. This produces three different characteristics and can only move through
certain layers within the earth.
Primary waves (P-wave) are very similar to sound waves .They are of high frequency, short wavelength;
longitudinal waves which can pass through solids and liquids. The ground is forced to move forwards and
backwards as it is compressed and decompressed .This produces relatively small displacements of the
ground .P-wave can be reflected and refracted, and under certain circumstances can change into secondary
or S-waves.
S-waves travel more slowly than P-waves and arrive at any given point after the P-waves. Like P-waves,
they are high frequency, short wavelength waves, but instead of being longitudinal they are transverse, they
move away from the source at speeds which they are moving. They cannot move through liquids. On the
surface of the earth, S-waves are responsible for the sideways displacement of walls and fences, leaving
them in S-shaped.
Surface waves (L-waves) named Love wave after its inventor E.R. Love, are low frequency transverse
vibrations with a long wavelength .They are created close to the epicenter and can only travel through the
outer part of the crust .They are responsible for the majority of building destructions. This is because L-
wave has a motion similar to that of waves in the sea. The ground is made to move in a circular motion,
4
causing it to rise and fall as visible waves move across the ground. Pattern of low-frequency leads to the
fusion process in tokomak or any plasma devices.
Let us have a look at the typical earthquake effects associated with various magnitudes near the epicenter
measured in Richter scale named after Charles Richter and Beno Gutenberg. This is based on logarithmic
scale (base 10).Presently seismic moment is more directly related to the physical parameters of an
earthquake, such as the dimension of the earthquake and the energy released from the earthquake.
Micro: Less than 2.0(not felt)

Very minor: 2.0-2.9(not felt)
Minor: 3.0-3.9(often felt, but doesn’t cause any damage)
Light: 4.0-4.9(Minor damage)
Moderate: 5.0-5.9(Major damage)
Strong: 6.0-6.9(can cause destruction over 100 mile area in populated areas)
Major: 7.0-7.9(serious damage over large areas)
Great: 8.0-8.9(serious damage over several hundred miles)
Rare great: 9.0 or greater (serious damage over thousands of miles)
CHAPTER-8
ALGEBRA OF DRABRH GRAY CODE PATTERN
Here Algebra is used as tool to describe the pattern of luminosity (gray code) with the use
of the set theory in double Tokomak Collider (DTC).
Bel  A1  A2  A  m( A1 )  m( A2 )  m( A3 )  m( A1  A2 )
(1)
 m( A2  A3 )  m( A3  A1 )  m( A1  A2  A3 )
is due to Dempster –Shafer theory of evidence (Shafer, 1976) in the closed interval [0,1].
Let the frame of discriminate  is the set of all elementary proposition m (  ).
The m : 2   0,1 and  m( A)  1 for all A contained  and m (  )=0.
For DTC the frame of discriminate is   (C1 , C 2 ) the power set of

 ,2  ( , C1 , C 2 , C1  C 2 ) .The mass function of two images as m1 and , m 2 and
respectively Image 1 (Im 1) mass function as m1 (C1 ), m1 (C 2 ), m1 (C1  C 2 ) and Image
2(Im 2) mass function as m2 (C1 ), m2 (C 2 ), m2 (C1  C 2 )
Such that
mi (C1 )  mi (C 2 )  mi (C1  C 2 )  1 where i=1,2 (2)
bel (C1 )  mi (C1 ) and bel (C 2 )  mi (C 2 )
bel (C1  C 2 )  mi (C1 )  mi (C 2 )  mi (C1  C 2 )  1 (3)
4
Computer based pixel luminosity (256) i.e.(0-255) over a specified gray level .Image 1
spreads over 20 190 .Here we divide the range in three parts (i) 0 to 130 range (ii) 130-
190 range (iii) 190-255 range.
Specified gray region is distributed in the region (N=N X N)
a) For pixels < 130, 1= j  i , m1 (C1 )  0, m1 (C 2 )  1, m1 (C1  C 2 )  0
and
b) For pixels >190,i=j=1, m1 (C1 )  1, m1 (C 2 )  0, m1 (C1  C 2 )  0
c) For pixels between 130 and 190, m1 (C1 )  0.49, m1 (C 2 )  0.3, m2 (C1  C 2 )  0.193
Similarly Image 2 distributed over pixels.
a) For pixels < 90, j  i  1 , m2 (C1 )  1, m2 (C 2 )  0, m2 (C1  C 2 )  0

and
b) For pixels between 90 and 135, m2 (C 2 )  0, m 2 (C1 )  0.552, m 2 (C1  C 2 )  0.498
c) For pixels between 135 and 140,

M M M  M 1
m2 (C1 )  , m2 (C 2 )  1 , m2 (C1  C 2 )  1   ,thus
N N1 N  N1
m2 (C1 )  0.01, m 2 (C 2 )  0, m 2 (C1  C 2 )  0.99
d) For pixels between140and 197, m2 (C1 )  0.03, m2 (C 2 )  0.07, m2 (C1  C 2 )  0.9
and
e) For pixels between197 and 255, m2 (C1 )  0, m2 (C 2 )  0.9, m2 (C1  C 2 )  0.7
Now using the dynamics
dM    M  
 q   sM 1     rf ( M ) (4)
dt    K  
M=density
Q= constant
  M 
 sM 1  K  à Fischer’s growth term.
  
f(M) =function of M
r= constant
Using rescaled time frame t=(s-q)t probability function is given by
dm  m 
 v  m(1  um)  r  (5)
dt 1  m 
rt  r  H t
4
rt  Fluctuation of r
H t  Statistical perturbation
  Standard deviation
Probability function is given by
  v m2 
 m  m ( v  2  u  r )  (1  2u ) 
 2 
2  um 3

P ( m)  exp( )   ( 2v  1  r   2 ) log e m
 2

3 

   2 log e (1  m ) 
 
 
(6)
For population density
 lies between 0 and 3 i.e. 0    3 .
Phase transition occurs as follows due to Glansforff -Prigogone (1971)
(4.3) 0.5à 0.854à2.83 0.46

Macro process à Micro process
Increase of 
Stability is obtained at the threshold value   2.83
References:
1. Shafer, G (1976): A mathematical theory of evidence, Princeton university press.
2. Glansddroff, P and Prigogone, I (1971): Thermodynamic theory of stability, structure
and fluctuation, Wiley, London.
4
CHAPTER-9
DRABRH CYCLONE PATTERN

STUDY
A 3-D study of fuzzy differential inclusion (FDI) is studied for obtaining the stability in
cyclone type pattern formed therein
x (t )   F ( x, y , z )

(5.23.1)
y (t )   G ( x, y, z )

(5.23.2)
z (t )   H ( x, y, z )

(5.23.3)
Where F , G, H : R  E  which can be written as
3

dy  G ( x, y, z ) 
 (5.23.4)
dx  F  x, y , z  

dz  H ( x, y, z ) 
 (5.23.5)
dx  F  x, y , z  
System will be stable on all points (x, y, z)  R 3 such that 0   H  x, y, z    and

0   G  x, y , z   and 0   F  x, y, z   

for any   0 .
If P0   x0 , y 0 , z 0  is a crisp point on the phase plane (i.e., 3-D space ) where 0

belongs to all functions then is a critical point of the system described by the crisp
differential equations
4
x (t )   x  tanh( x x   x y   x z )  x cosh( x x   x y   x z ) (5.23.6)

y (t )   y  tanh( y x   y y   y z )  y  cosh( y x   y y   y z ) (5.23.7)
z (t )   z  tanh( z x   z y   z z )  z  cosh( z x   z y   z z ) (5.23.8)
State variables  1  x (t ), y (t )  1,1  z (t ) characterize the stage s of gradient.

By using FDI it changes to
x (t )  { x  tanh( x x   x y   x z )  x  cosh( x x   x y   x z )} (5.23.9)
 
y (t )  { y tanh( y x   y y   y z )  y cosh( y x   y y   y z )} 
(5.23.10)
z (t )  { z  tanh( z x   z y   z z )  z  cosh( z x   z y   z z )} (5.23.11)
This leads to the study of the genesis of cyclone type development of tropical storm
pattern. The prevalence of favorable geographic and climatic conditions over a large
party of global during storm seasons is relatively rare phenomenon. Even when the
tropical storm is developed near about the half of all of them can not reach hurricanes
strength (intensity of T3.5) in Dovark(1984) scale .Rareness is s due to disturbing
vortex ix essential to give rise to an intense tropical storm Emanuel(1988) strong tropical
storm (Hurricane is USA ,Typhoon in China , Cyclone in India , etc).The presen6t model
idea is very simple based on .Each of the wind disturbances is due to linear wind jet
flowing parallel to the ground (flow pas t each other) give s the rotational motion as gibe
by Bhatia and Hazarika (1995).One of them is very strong (speed more 240 km/hr) and
the vortex moves with the speed of 25 km/hr acting at the radical direction o f vortex .
This flow tends to converge to a fuzzy appoint of phase space known as eye of cyclone
.For stability the vortex collapses due to the second order shear such type condition
obtained by Bhatia and Hazarika(1995).
References:
1) Bhatia, P.K. and Hazarika, A. B.R (1996): Physica Scripta 53,57
2) Dvorak, V. F (1984): NOAA Technical report NESDIS 11, Satellite application
Laboratory, Washington D.C.
3) Emanuel, K.A (1988): American Scientist 76,370

Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika's Pattern Recognition On Fusion

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika's Pattern Recognition On Fusion

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Dr.A.B.

Rajib Hazarika’s Pattern

Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika, A.E.S.

Assistant Professor, Res: “Anjena Manzil”, Kadomtola,

PREFACE ABOUT THE AUTHOR

As available on website: http://wpedia.goo.ne.jp/enwiki/User:Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib_Hazarika

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[[File:Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika & his two kids.jpg [1]

Born July 2, 1970 (age 40)

Jammu, Jammu and Kashmir, India

Home town Nagaon, Assam, India

review board of Natuaral and Applied sciences World

Spouse Helmin Begum Hazarika

JRF(UGC,NET) in Department of Mathematics and Statistics of J N Vyas University in Jodhpur. Later on

During PhD </ref> http://www.iopscience.iop.org/1402-4896/51/6/012/pdf/physcr_51_6_012.pdf

Patent & Innovation

 "Fakir(saint) and lakir(line) stops at nothing but at destination"

Awards and recognition

Dr.A.B.Rajib Hazarika got Junior Research Fellowship,Government of India

Wikimedia Commons has media related to: Drabrh/Dr.A.B.Rajib

注目のニュース - goo ニュース

PATTERN RECOGNITION DRABRH-DANISHA ECONOMIC MODEL FOR STOCK MARKET

For power of DRABRH-DANISHA

C h =Hazarika cost holistic=2.646

Wpi=wholesale price index

For second order derivative we have

x t   [kx] , k   K  where K is a Trapezoidal fuzzy number.

x t   [L] For

Where L, M are Triangular fuzzy numbers.

0.4 0.6 1 1.20

Triangular fuzzy no. x

Triangular fuzzy no. x

-2/3 -1/3 0 1/3

Baryon can be obtained as trapezoidal fuzzy number K (-1, 0, 1, 2)

-3/2 -1/2 1/2 3/2

4.2-Solution of GSE using fixed boundary conditions:

vanishes at the boundary ( p ( R, Z )  ( A1 /  0 )  R, Z  boundary  0 ) Maschik (1996). So using the fixed

boundary conditions, the four equations can be obtained

 ( Rt , Z t )  c1  c 2 Rt2  c3 ( Rt4  4 Rt2 Z t2 )  c 4  Rt2 ln(Rt )  Z t2  

is ( Rt , Z t ) or equivalently, the plasma major radius Rm  ( Ri  Ro ) / 2 , the plasma minor radius

rp  ( Ro  Ri ) / 2 , elongation   Z t / rp , and triangularity   ( Rm  Rt ) / 2 .

2 0 I p    RA1  A2 / R  dRdZ (6)

displacement can be measured

displacement from R0 ,the toroidal and poloidal magnetic field are B = B (  0)  B (   ) ,

obtained by multipole moment method,

.Fig.2.a) Cosine coil-b) Saddle coil is installed in IR-T1 Tokomak

The plasma horizontal displacement can be deduced by the expression

The safety factor on-axis with Solovev’s assumption in IR-T1 Tokomak is

2 A2 ( Raxis ,0) dl

Something easier to imagine:

More like our universe:

Distinguishing time and space:

Has anyone else tried this?

So... that's the end of the story, right?

 Soap films on knots. Ken Brakke, Susquehanna.

Untwisting Russell's Paradox

Knots and State Summations

A "state" S of a link diagram is a choice of smoothing for each of its crossings.

[edit] Knot diagrams

break in the strand going underneath.

I. Twist and untwist in either direction.

 C(O) = 1 (where O is any diagram of the unknot)

C() = C() + z C()