“The upper output rate boundary occurs when all the effort available for tool making and
maintenance is fully committed to maintaining the tools already in use; no further effort is
available to make more.”
Take this part here frank which I think is the meat of what you are trying and failing to say in your paper.
In a proper economics rooted in real empirically defined and testable units of Value/Utility what this would say is.
Where the Energy cost of Energy exceeds the Net Energy Surplus no further production surplus can accrue.
Dr Tim Morgan Explains Energy Cost of Energy here.
Vaclav Smil covers the lower bounds of production dealing in calorific value of human labour
paraphrase here on my blog
Calculating the net energy cost of human labor
There is no universally accepted way to express the energy cost of human
labor, and calculating the net energy cost is perhaps the best choice: it is a
person’s energy consumption above the existential need that would have to be
satisfied even if no work were done. This approach debits human labor with
its actual incremental energy cost. Total energy expenditure is a product of
basal (or resting) metabolic rate and physical activity level (TEE = BMR × PAL),
and the incremental energy cost will obviously be the difference between TEE
and BMR. The BMR of an adult man weighing 70 kg would be about 7.5 MJ/d,
and for a 60 kg woman it would be about 5.5 MJ/day. If we assume that hard
work will raise the daily energy requirement by about 30%, then the net
energy cost would be about 2.2 MJ/day for men and 1.7 MJ/day for women,
and hence I will use 2 MJ/day in all approximate calculations of net daily.
Frank, my main thing is sound modelling and FFT analysis so the maths is meat and drink to me I find Climate models extremely limited as they too are trying to prove they are right without looking at all the available evidence.
I think your paper is Naive, thats only my opinion but applied maths and engineering has to stand up to test in the field, what Tetlock says about experts
Incompleteness, boundary conditions or Limits.
IF. 0 = True , IF. 1 = False, IF. REF= 1:10 otherwise GO TO Menu?
( See Bull Shit Derrida) http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/05/on-bullshit-ad-hominem-election-2017.html
“Of course it’s funny, but not out loud!”
A CLASSIFYING ALGEBRA FOR BOUNDARY CONDITIONS J¨urgen Fuchs X DESY Notkestraße 85, D – 22603 Hamburg Christoph Schweigert CERN CH – 1211 Gen`eve 23
(MetaPhysics ?)Or (Physics?).
Abstract We introduce a finite-dimensional algebra that controls the possible boundary conditions of a conformal field theory. For theories that are obtained by modding out a Z2 symmetry (corresponding to a so-called Dodd-type, or half-integer spin simple current, modular invariant), this classifying algebra contains the fusion algebra of the untwisted sector as a subalgebra. Proper treatment of fields in the twisted sector, so-called fixed points, leads to structures that are intriguingly close to the ones implied by modular invariance for conformal field theories on closed orientable surfaces. CERN-TH/97-215 August 1997
Timoshenko beam with uncertainty on the boundary conditions
Thiago G. RittoI; Rubens SampaioII; Edson CataldoIII
Ithiagoritto@gmail.com IIEmeritus Member, ABCM, firstname.lastname@example.org, Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro – PUC-Rio, Mechanical Engineering Department, 22453-900 Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil IIIecataldo@im.uff.br, Fluminense Federal University – UFF, Applied Mathematics Department, Graduate Program in Telecommunications Engineering, 24020-140 Niterói, RJ, Brazil