In reply to Jones Beene's message of Wed, 13 May 2009 07:32:15 -0700: Hi, See also my previous post http://www.mail-archive.com/vortex-l%40eskimo.com/msg31710.html.
>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 > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
