>From my side of a recent private discussion of Holmlid ... I thought some of it would add to this topic:
>From what I have seen of Miley's work, Miley does not believe the ultra-dense form of hydrogen is something that forms on a surface or can exist in the air. He thinks it is a form that exists interstitially inside a metal or metal nanoparticle. Holmlid cites backward to Winterberg about theory for ultra-dense hydrogen. Winterberg believes the ultra-dense form is a vertical column of deuterium atoms - completely different from known RM which is planar monatomic flake-like molecules. Miley believes the ultra-dense form can exist with either H or D. Winterberg says the ultra-dense state can only form with D. Miley and Holmlid/Winterberg appear to be describing completely different animals. Interestingly, Winterberg's description sounds more like Ed Storms' linear hydroton of atoms. It is not clear how Winterberg's column-of-atoms matter is something that forms from RM. If I had to speculate, I would say that the columns form as an aligned stack of RM flakes. Then the matter switches from being a planar array of columns to being a columnar stack of flakes. Anderson/Holmlid describe D(-1) as being the lowest energy form of RM. This would imply that the snowflake form of RM, D(1) is higher energy. Wouldn't this mean that there is more potential Coulomb explosion energy from the D(1) than there is from the D(-1)? The authors keep referring to there being only a small energy barrier between D(1) and D(-1) and indicate the possibility of spontaneous change between the states. Yet they also seem to be ascribing tremendous potential energy to D(-1) [the lowest energy state] compared to D(1) [a supposed higher energy state]. I guess I don't understand the idea of Coulomb Explosion (CE). The authors describe how easy it is to remove an electron from RM (true only for a Rydberg excited atom) and then the resulting exposed ions just blow apart from Coulomb repulsion. To me this sounds pretty ridiculous. Otherwise, how could the D(1) RM be as stable as it appears to be?
