Here's the abstract: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VND-4VP66CS-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=ec9093be8b72a328c121a8092c95ac67
http://snipurl.com/hy1j9 On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > Check out Slashdot - or the SciNews feeds today– big story with no details: > Ultra Dense Deuterium > > It is said to be much denser than metallic deuterium, where the bond > distance would be 153 pm (1.53 angstroms) or 2.9 times the Bohr radius of > the atom. Even metallic hydrogen has a density of approximately 0.6 kg / > dm3. (0.6 grams/cc or 0.6 times as dense as water- so yet it would float > easily) > > …yet this is said to be 100,000 times more dense. They do not even mention > bosons. Do they even appreciate what a boson is? > > One of the worst written science articles of all times – that is why no > citation is given. Don’t want to embarrass the turkeys. And these dufuss > science reporters are told that only LENR experimenters are on the fringe. > LOL > > Of course – none of them considered highly redundant (Millsean) states – > i.e. the deuterino. > > There could also a denser state exists for deuterium, which may or may not > be Millsean, and comes from Robert Carroll and others, called the inverse > quantum state. Others have called it D(-1) or the inverse of D(1). The bond > distance could be very small, equal to 0.23 angstroms. > > Why not be (if the material is not imaginary altogether) give RM some credit > - Mills has a least stuck his neck out with a thousand page tome showing > that it could conceivably be something like D(sub 1/137) then heck -- why > not give RM some credit, if you are going to do abysmal journalism anyway ? > > And catch-22 – what keeps it from fusing? D-D fusion would be expected to > take place way too easily in this material for it to be stable. > > BTW isn’t this also approximately the same concept as “degenerate matter”? > > Jones >
