WMD , Cold Fusion, Chernobyl, Monopoles, Torsion Radiation?

Jack Sarfatti

From:	Jack Sarfatti
Subject:	WMD , Cold Fusion, Chernobyl, Monopoles, Torsion Radiation?
Date:	Sun, 23 Jan 2005 01:40:30 GMT

On Jan 22, 2005, at 5:08 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

On Jan 20, 2005, at 3:42 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Jack, see:

http://www.iccf11.org/images/abstracts.pdf

from recent cold fusion conference.

OK Thanks. Obviously lots of activity in cold fusion.

On Jan 20, 2005, at 3:26 PM, Gary S. Bekkum wrote:

Hi Jack,

Apparently Chernobyl is thought to have been evidence for a monopole?

Strikes me as crackpot, but I could be wrong.

Schwinger-Dirac string

g ~ nhc/e, n = 0, 1, 2 ...

g = magnetic monopole charge

Note that

e^2/hc = 1/137

Therefore,

hc/e ~ 137e

Thus, the elementary magnetic monopole charge is 137e - this is enormous!

Two Coulombs i.e. 10^19 e separated by a meter repel with a force of a
million tons.

It's at least 137 million tons for similar clumps of monopoles.

Then there will be a electron-monopole interaction. Schwinger did all
that years ago. Brush up on your Schwinger, start doing it now ...

"According Russian and French scientists (2), the Chernobyl nuclear
plant explosion was caused by “the impact of a strong magnetic field”
(monopole). Such fields, acting on the beta-radioactive fission
products, inside the reaction core, decreases the rates of decay of
these products. This, in turn, increases the rate of emission of delayed
neutrons. Delayed neutrons play an essential role in the control of the
reactor. The authors think that “the official explanation of the
accident does not seem to be satisfactory.” They suspect that the new
(monopole) explanation is deliberately suppressed because a large number
of existing reactors would have to be closed to prevent similar
accidents...."

My instinct is against this. But this is not my field. Take my opinion
on this at this time with a grain of radioactive salt. ;-)

Please see below ...

Role of magnetic monopoles, etc.

Ludwik Kowalski (November 15, 2004)
Department of Mathematical Sciences
Montclair State University, Upper Montclair, NJ, 07043

At the last international cold fusion conference in Marseilles (ICCF11,
November 2004) I was exposed to new aspect of cold fusion -- magnetic
monopoles. Several papers, both theoretical and experimental, were
devoted to that topic. I will not comment on these papers because I know
very little about magnetic monopoles (1). But one thing is clear --
explaining one mystery in terms of another mystery is not very
convincing. As stated by one cold fusion researcher (in a private
conversation) this approach is just the opposite from what is widely
known as Occam's razor approach.

Yes, this would be my guess as well.

According Russian and French scientists (2), the Chernobyl nuclear plant
explosion was caused by “the impact of a strong magnetic field”
(monopole). Such fields, acting on the beta-radioactive fission
products, inside the reaction core, decreases the rates of decay of
these products. This, in turn, increases the rate of emission of delayed
neutrons. Delayed neutrons play an essential role in the control of the
reactor. The authors think that “the official explanation of the
accident does not seem to be satisfactory.” They suspect that the new
(monopole) explanation is deliberately suppressed because a large number
of existing reactors would have to be closed to prevent similar accidents.

Likewise, according Russian and French scientists (3), the explosion of
the French ammonium nitrate plant near Toulouse might have been caused
by a magnetic monopole. That 9/21/2001 explosion killed 31 people and
resulted in 2500 injuries. The authors state that “in the near
neighborhood of magnetic monopoles the magnetic field is in the range of
100,000 teslas.” The role of magnetic monopoles in cold fusion was also
discussed by a theoretical physicist from Japan (4,5). Another
theoretical consideration, related to the above hypotheses (accidents in
chernobyl and in Toulouse) was Russian scientists (6,7). The authors
show that atomic nuclei can be stable in neutral atoms and instable
(K-capture decay) in fully ionized atoms.

Another paper belonging to the category “new to me” was presented by a
scientist from Belarus (8). The author thinks that familiar reactions of
fusion and fission are ‘neutrino-driven.”

This last idea makes more sense to me if the relevant neutrino has a
rest mass ~ 0.1 ev and they are trapped in 10 nanometer molecular cages.

This claim is said to be supported by the experimentally observed
correlation between the radioactive decay rates and solar activity. The
effect of chemical environment on decay rates also illustrates this
point of view. The author informs us that the rates of decay of 137Cs,
produced in the Chernobyl accident, were observed to be reduced very
considerably in the fallout samples. He also informs us that the
“so-called torsion radiation” was observed triggering nuclear
transmutations.

There goes that torsion radiation again! Maybe. We will see soon.

References:
1) G. Lochak, “Wave equation for a magnetic monopole.” Paper presented
at ICCF11.
2) D.V. Filipov, G. Lochak, A. A. Rukhadze and L.I. Urutskoev, “On the
possible magnetic mechanism of shortening the runaway of RBMK-1000
reactor at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.” Paper presented at ICCF11.
3) H. Lehn, L. Urutskoev and P. Stoljarov; “Interaction of magnetic
monopoles on polar molecules having a structural instability.” Paper
presented at ICCf11.
4) T. Sawada, “A brief review of the magnetic monopole and the charge
quantization condition.” Paper presented at ICCF11.
5) T. Sawada, “Origin of the sporadic nature of the cold fusion and the
way to avoid it.” Paper presented at ICCF11.
6) D. V. Filipov, A. A. Rukhadze and L.I. Urutskoev; “Effect of atomic
electrons on nuclear stability and radioactive decay.” Paper presented
at ICCF11
7) L.I. Urutskoev; “Low-energy nuclear reactions and the Lochak
monopole.” Paper presented at ICCF11.
8) V. Filimonov, “Neutrino-driven nuclear reactions of cold fusion and
transmutation.” Paper presented at ICCF11.

On Jan 22, 2005, at 4:30 PM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc
On Jan 22, 2005, at 3:00 PM, Tony Smith wrote:

Jack, you say
"... I rather like my new idea of massive neutrino ... trapped inside a
molecular cage to act as a catalyst trigger for chemical energy cold
fusion, i.e. ... neutrino rest mass ~ 0.1 ev. ...".

How does your 0.1 eV neutrino act as a catalyst?

Easy - neutrino-catalyzed weak interactions with the quarks. Idea is
there is resonance at ~ 0.1 ev and the massive neutrino is trapped
inside the molecular cage for a long time even room temperature thermal
fluctuations can be large enough much of the time to trigger a nuclear
reaction - this is all intuitive of course at this point. This picture
just flashed on me from reading Paul Werbos's "What about neutrinos?" I
could be wrong. But it smells right and when I have time I will properly
investigate it. Meantime I hope others do so - even if they shoot it down.

Perhaps by its wave function being large enough to overlap two protons
adsorbed into the Palladium lattice, creating an entangled state
proton-neutrino-proton within which the two protons fuse to form a
deuteron and a positron and an antineutrino
producing a deuteron-neutrino-antineutrino-positron system which would
quickly decay due to annihilation of the neutrino and antineutrino.
Then, the positron would be annihilated by one of the two electrons
(corresponding to the two protons) adsorbed into the Palladium.

I don't know off hand. Keep working on it.

In such a model, what are the limits on the neutrino mass, i.e., why do
you set it at 0.1 eV ?

That seems to be the order of magnitude of the reported data?

Must the upper limit be low enough that the neutrino wave function
spreads out spatially enough to engulf the two protons ? What are your
calculations for that value ?

Calculations? I never said I did any. It's just an instant flash of
inspiration at this moment.

Is the lower limit set by requiring enough mass to gravitationally bind
the neutrino at room temperature kinetic energy within the Palladium
lattice ? What are your calculations for that value ?

Gravity binding? I was just thinking standard electro-weak gauge theory.
Of course strong gravity from zero point energy inside the hollow
molecular cage might play a role.

i.e. Guv + /\(zero point energy)guv = 0

I am thinking of electro-weak reactions with the nuclei making the wall
of the cage.

Why does such a catalysis does not work in just any sufficiently dense
concentration of protons ? Is there some reason that a Palladium lattice
would contain bound neutrinos but other equally dense concentrations of
protons would not bind them?

Well it seems obvious to my intuition that cages of the size of h/mc m ~
rest mass of neutrino would be needed? I have not done any serious work
on this yet. Just a subconscious hunch from hanging around Hans Bethe
and the other Los Alamos weaponeers back at Cornell in late 50's and
early 60's. I have a bunch of Schwinger papers and will try to look at
them. Meantime work on it.