Note to Joshua Patin about magnetic binding energy, the real “cold fusion”, and the gravitational potential
Experimental Cross Sections for Reactions of Heavy Ions and 208Pb, 209Bi, 238U, and 248Cm Targets, 2002 by
Joshua Barnes Patin at University of California, Berkeley, Professor Darleane C. Hoffman
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joshua-Patin
Joshua,
I was looking for people working on fusion reactions using Scandium through Zinc, and found your dissertation, then some related people and groups. Your work helps me get oriented.
If you bring two particles with magnetic moments together the 1/r^4 magnetic dipole force will dominate at “nuclear distances” over the Coulomb force. For particle-antiparticle pairs, or opposite charges, this means it must also have rotation or another degree of freedom. It “works” as a guide to fusion reactions because it is a dipole approximation to more detailed models and calculations. The Schrodinger (including nonlinear Schrodinger soliton) solutions are multipole models.
In the table of isotopes the ones that are 100% natural abundance and permanent magnetic moments are often the cost effective ones. All the “good” fusion reactions have magnetic dipole pairing. It is highly specific on polarization, energy and timing. But I am fairly certain it is “sticky” or the reactions so far would not be so common.
Electron-electron, proton-proton works. Both form superconducting fluids. In neutron stars there are large regions of superconducting proton pairs. I have been working on these since about 1981. I remember because I got a letter from Emilio Segre then about positronium spectrum and he was the antiproton guy.
Anyway, thanks for your work. When I was working for Phillips Petroleum in their Business Intelligence Group, I had to give a talk on “cold fusion” but that was that Pons Fleishman version. Your “cold fusion” is very very reasonable. I think you might want to look at it more closely and think “magnetic binding energy”.
Last week (23 Jul 2023) was the 25th Anniversary of the Internet Foundation.
The resonant or collision conditions will be very tight, in the milliElectronVolt range or smaller maybe, but possible. Mossbauer is a good guide for those levels of precision.
When a particle and antiparticle bind they have no external magnetic or Coulomb fields. They will be bosonic superfluid and likely the basis for the vacuum properties and pair production. So not boiling pairs from the vacuum, so much as exciting ones that are there as part of the gravitational potential. I was looking for the precise basis for the gravitational potential field since about 1978, when I met Joe Weber and was working on the NASA geopotential models.
Sorry to bore you with my interests. I write to keep track of where I am and what to do next.
Richard Collins, The Internet Foundation
Note: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mark-Stoyer
Jason M. Saunders I am glad you figured it out. I have been working on solar data, trying to convince groups to share in common formats, and where people do not have to spend years just learning old software to see the sun’s data in detail. I may have found someone to try a “Mr Fusion” method I worked out more than 40 years ago. It requires precision and finesse, not “bang bang”.
Under Data Links there is an option for 4096×4096 images that you can zoom in on, and also 48 hour videos. https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/data/ This is near the maximum of the solar cycle so the whole sun is boiling and popping and throwing off masses, some hit the earth’s fields and atmosphere.
