Re: [Vo]:'Super atoms'

[Zachary Jones]

You're quite right; it was actually rather silly of me to not mention  
the ORMUS work when I posted this.  I had emailed Barry Carter just  
before the list to see where he would weigh in on this work, though  
have yet to hear back from him.

I hadn't thought about the use of metal in terms of conduction; I had  
the sense it had more to do with the sheer number of electron energies.

I like some of Jones' observations.



Zak


On Jul 7, 2008, at 11:57 PM, Robin van Spaandonk wrote:

In reply to  Zachary Jones's message of Mon, 7 Jul 2008 19:04:01  
-0700:
Hi,
[snip]
Thought the list would be interested in this work on easily-
produceable atom clusters:

http://www.physorg.com/news134129791.html

They claim the principle is old news, but I hadn't heard of the
electron shell 'conjugation' they suggest in the article.

This may explain something else - the "whitegold" story. Purported  
among other
things to be superconducting at room temperature. Some of these  
"atoms" are
going to get pretty heavy. Also the Russian results from
http://www.proton21.com.ua/index_en.html might actually contain at  
least some
"superatom" substances (especially those they claim are far heavier  
than
Uranium). It would not be unreasonable to get such atoms when matter  
is
bombarded with high energy electrons, which could easily produce  
lots of
individual atoms that then may condense into clusters mimicking  
other elements.
Furthermore, they used metals as targets, and this current work  
seems to imply
that conductors are a prerequisite.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>