Georges Lochak’s Monopole (Axil Axil)

The following post has been submitted by Axil Axil

A UDH swarm

tracks from Fig. 1 are correlated as a group but cannot all be overlaid on top of each other. These tracks appear to be correlated, yet twisted or acted upon by some central force. The tracks were digitized in a vector graphics editor and shown in Fig. 2.

Measurements taken at successive common points of corresponding tracks indicate a swarm of identical particles each going through coordinated abrupt transitions at each vertex or kink. The field influence on corresponding track segments are geometric centers.

  • sam

    Does anyone have an opinion on this
    It does not make any sense regarding the e-cat. Sigma is some kind of quality of the measurements, data distribution or similar….but what measurements? What physical parameter is Rossi talking about when he mentions sigma….temperature, COP, output distribution? Someone must know. So my questions is which data is he talking about when sigma is mentioned.

  • Axil Axil

    In the light of the Chernobyl reactor disaster, and the insights that we can glean from it, the best LENR reactor design, IMHO, is a LENR molten salt LENR fission reactor.

    In professional nuclear engineering, it is well understood that fission produces 100 times more energy per reaction mare or less than fusion, but fission produces relatively few neutrons to keep the reaction going. On the other hand, fusion is weak at producing energy but generates neutrons by the boatload.

    If an abundant source of muons is available, the lack of neutron production that drives the fission reaction is not a concern anymore. A single muon will produce 200 MeV per muon fission reaction vs. 3 MeV for fusion.

    So a muon fission reactor is very rich and efficient in energy production and a muon fusion reactor is energy poor. So a muon fission reactor is the way to go because it is about 100 times more energetic than of fusion reactor at producing energy per muon.

    For example, if the QuarkX produces as many muons as I think that it does, It will require only a few QaurkX reactors inside the core of a molten fluoride salt based thorium reactor to produce a ton of high quality heat energy.

    Rossi said that 20 watts of electric power is produced by his old 100 watt QUARK reactors

    Assuming a low voltage of 1 volt, 20 watts means 20 coulombs of electrons are produced a second. If one muon decays to one electron not counting muon escape from the QuarkX, then (20) (6.25 x 10^18 electrons) or about 10^20 of muons per second is produced by 100 watts of QuarkX power production. This assumes that most of the atoms in the molten salt blanket are thorium atoms.

    That much neutron flux would support a 100 megawatt nuclear reactor on a single reaction per muon basis. But Muons might generate 150 fission and/or fusion reactions per muon. Just a few QuarkX reactors can push out a lot of power and also confine muons inside the reactor thereby utilizing muon production at high efficiency.

    The capture rate for a negative muon is 10 million times greater for a heavy element like thorium as compared to hydrogen. That says that a LENR reaction involving thorium is 10,000,000 times more likely to be successful as a LENR reaction involving hydrogen.

    • sam

      Link does not work.
      Interesting comment.

    • TVulgaris

      Given the number of runaway reactions relative to the few successful LENR fusion schema developed, and the 7 orders of magnitude difference in capture, how is control effected in the thorium reactor, then?

      • Axil Axil

        If the muon producing core is driven by laser irradiation of Ultra dense hydrogen as has been deminstated by Holmlid, control of the muon thorium reactor is through turning the laser off and on based on the temperature of the molten salt.

  • Axil Axil

    Let me help, what bothers you?

  • Axil Axil

    Something happened to the original post above so I am repeating it in its entity below.

    Low-energy nuclear reactions and the leptonic monopole

    Georges Lochak, Leonid Urutskoev

    When Leonid Urutskoev, a top nuclear scientist in Russia was asked to analyze the Chernobyl reactor disaster, he came to the conclusion that the official reason put forth for its cause was wrong. He suspected that the disaster was produced by a number of electrical explosions in a nearby generator.

    See for background:

    To prove his theory, he came up with a new type of experiment using electrically exploding arcs in titanium foil. He found that the residue from the pure titanium foil explosion contained new elements, elements produced by transmutation. But he also found that dissolved uranium salts in the water that surrounded the titanium foil explosion channel was found to fission because of the detection of the fission element byproducts produced by the explosion.

    This implied that the explosion of the titanium foil had an effect at two separate locations, first, inside the titanium foil itself and second outside of the explosion channel at a considerable distance from the explosion.

    Urutskoev asked around the Russian nuclear community and found that other than neutrons, the only thing that could produce fission in uranium was muons. But U235 did not fission as expected, U238 fissioned as the even isotope reaction rule in LENR dictate.

    The LENR reaction sent out something that produced the reaction at a distance from the primary zone of causation (Nuclear active environment – NAE) that caused even isotopes of uranium to fission.

    Next, Urutskoev placed the titanium ash on a photographic emulsion (film) and spotted charged particles coming out of that ash that behaved like magnetic monopoles.

    What this all means is that the LENR reaction is a complex multi-faceted reaction consisting of many stages and causations.

    In detail, the NAE produces nuclear reactions but it also produces particles that can exist independently once created and can produce nuclear reaction remote n space and time from the NAE.

    From the reference above:

    “Here are some conclusions based on the presented experimental data

    1. The particle which left the trace in the nuclear emulsion is charged, as nuclear emulsions are insensitive to neutrons.

    2. The particle cannot have electric charge, as otherwise it could not be able to pass through two meters of atmospheric air and two layers of black paper.

    3. The particle does not have high energy, as no delta-electrons are observed.

    4. The mechanism of the interaction between the particle and the photosensitive layer is not clear. Assuming the Coulomb mechanism, the absorbed energy estimated using the darkening area equals around 1 GeV.

    5. The radiation is of nuclear origin; it interacts with magnetic fields.

    This calls for a discussion of Lochak’s magnetic monopole. Lochak created his theory 20 years before our experiments [9 – 12], that is, before those results for understanding and explaining of which we are now attempting to use it. It should be emphasized that this is a good omen for a theory. It is always suspicious when the theories are created specially to explain an experimental observation. They are like the circles drawn on a target after a shoot has been made.”

    To supplement with some knowledge that we have acquired from other research:

    The Surface Plasmon Polariton: an analog monopole produces a monopole magnetic field. The SPP is naturally found on the surface of metal including metallic nanoparticles. The SPP a boson is coherent and will readily form Bose condensates.

    The Ultra dense hydrogen nanoparticle is coherent and formed under high pressure conditions or via catalysts.

    The UDH as a superconductor will allow SPP formation on its surface spin wave.

    Once created, the UDH can persist indefinitely on its own and travel in swarms of coherent particles that will share in the nuclear energy (fusion and fission) that the swarm will generate via entangled muon generated outreach.

    A UDH swarm

    tracks from Fig. 1 are correlated as a group but cannot all be overlaid on top of each other. These tracks appear to be correlated, yet twisted or acted upon by some central force. The tracks were digitized in a vector graphics editor and shown in Fig. 2.

    Measurements taken at successive common points of corresponding tracks indicate a swarm of identical particles each going through coordinated abrupt transitions at each vertex or kink. The field influence on corresponding track segments are geometric centers.

  • Axil Axil

    Joseph Fine
    February 12, 2017 at 9:34 PM
    Dear Andrea Rossi,

    Are you familiar with the leptonic Magnetic Monopole concept of Georges Lochak, (Fondation Louis De Broglie Paris, France)?

    I must apologize to you because you are quite busy with your QuarkX validation work and your extensive legal efforts in Florida.

    Nevertheless, I found the article about the effect of the Lochak ‘Monopole’ on atoms to be quite unusual (presuming it to be true) and something you or Professor Norman Cook may have encountered while studying LENR theories, the Reverse Mossbauer Effect et cetera.

    Do you think reports of Titanium 48 (or other isotopes) disappearance/transmutation are credible and do you have to take the existence of such an exotic particle seriously to protect against power excursions or overheating?

    It should be relatively easy to verify or deny the existence of this particle and its possible effects. In view of the fact that it may have contributed to the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986 (despite official accident reports), it may be of some importance.

    Curious regards,

    Joseph Fine

    Andrea Rossi
    February 13, 2017 at 6:29 AM
    Dr Joseph Fine:
    I was not informed of this issue, but it is interesting.
    I am not able to comment, because I do not know about the work of Georger Lochak. As far as I know, magnetic monopoles are barred by the rules of Physics.
    Warm Regards,
    Rossi is wrong…

    First of all, Paul Dirac’s theory of the electron presupposes the existence of the monopole

    “The quantum theory of magnetic charge started with a paper by the physicist Paul A.M. Dirac in 1931.[10] In this paper, Dirac showed that if any magnetic monopoles exist in the universe, then all electric charge in the universe must be quantized (Dirac quantization condition).[11] The electric charge is, in fact, quantized, which is consistent with (but does not prove) the existence of monopoles.[11]
    Since Dirac’s paper, several systematic monopole searches have been performed. Experiments in 1975[12] and 1982[13] produced candidate events that were initially interpreted as monopoles, but are now regarded as inconclusive.[14] Therefore, it remains an open question whether monopoles exist. Further advances in theoretical particle physics, particularly developments in grand unified theories and quantum gravity, have led to more compelling arguments (detailed below) that monopoles do exist. Joseph Polchinski, a string-theorist, described the existence of monopoles as “one of the safest bets that one can make about physics not yet seen”.[15] These theories are not necessarily inconsistent with the experimental evidence. In some theoretical models, magnetic monopoles are unlikely to be observed, because they are too massive to be created in particle accelerators (see below), and also too rare in the Universe to enter a particle detector with much probability.[15]”

    There are quasiparticles in condensed matter that are ANALOG monopoles. They are not a new elementary particle, but rather are an emergent phenomenon in systems of everyday particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, photons); in other words, they are quasi-particles. These are compound particles that act in the way that theory predicts that monopoles should act. Ultra dense hydrogen is one of those quasiparticles, but there are others like the wiel monopole.

  • Axil Axil

    There may be no fundamental monopole particle, but in condensed matter there are many quasiparticles that produce monopole flux lines.

    The polariton is one of them. The name I use is surface plasmon polaritons(SPP)

    See this thread for a series of descriptive posts that cover this subject.

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.