Monopoles and their descriptions/combination at certain eV’s By Jordan Townsend, February 18th, 2020.

+/- electrons from valence shells. This may be what makes them hard to make. Though it takes 297. kJ/mol to force the electron off of the atom maximum of hydrogen, so it’s a matter of finding the right electrical output to force these conditions. It may be a constant feed to get it to work too.

First iteration:

Made up of 15 atoms:

4^+4 Silicon Prism

Connected to a ruthenium core.
On either side are 3 Na atoms, One side being +1 each, the other Side being -1 each.

4^+4 carbon Prism.

At molecular orbital -1.39 eV 2e- you get this Positive Monopole: at the +4 carbon prism with Na assistance.

At -.99 eV 2e- you get this:

At the +4 silicon prism without Na assistance.

But if electrostatic potential is taken you get this:

The opposing negative force along it’s entirety. This is what is worrying me. That the system is malfunctioning and showing the wrong information.

If the carbons are 4^-4 you get the same build. Photos can be added to show you but they’re the same.

So let’s move on to the Negative build:


Now if you change the materials to Si prisms you get a different build.


At -1.17 eV 2e- you get with one -1 Na assistance.

At -.99 eV 2e- you get a pure Si prism.

with a weaker electrostatic potential. Still of the opposite type.

If you change one of the prisms to 4^-4 charge then the build remains the same for the same eV

If a combination of 4^-4, and 4^+4 prisms using just carbons at -1.39 eV 2e- are used you get Negative:

over the 4^+4 prism and at -1.12 eV 2e- you get this:

And with it’s electrostatic potential you get:

So that would be a dipole magnet and not of use to our builds. So my thoughts are there are combinations with the inert atom Ruthenium that works as a blocking agent of the magnetic pole to only allow one spin per one side while denying the spin of the other side depending on flow of electrons.

Knowing that they’re negative. It’ll likely flow towards the silicon since it can do both monopole types.

#but how does it over come the inert nature of the ruthenium. I would think quantum tunneling of a single atom given enough force would allow the receptive atoms to attain their electrons needed for the monopole to work.

Down below is a 10 atom version of a monopole: F5Pd5 100% Stable.

From all points forward it will be the upper bound of the eV that is used as highlighted here.

If you exchange for chlorine you get a nearly fully circular monopole.

Electrostatic potential is also positive. An improvement there.

Using Br.

Using I.

F and I between Pd gives a negative monopole, but if we add a Pd atom to the right side Pd atom we get the same shape of molecular orbital but it’s a reversed monopole.

The problem I have is that I don’t know for sure whether the Electrostatic Potential over rides the Molecular Orbital or if the Orbital can be of use if pressed in deeply enough or counteracted in some way as with the Iodine’s shape. But this is what I’ve come up with so far.

Much pleasure,
-J.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s