I realize Axil has been harping on Rydberg matter for months. Inverted Rydberg matter sounds even more interesting to me. Miley states that once the D(-1) inverted state is created in voids it may reside permanently. I also wonder what happens if it resides in a void and that void closes/compresses on it when heated and with electrical stimulation creating further collapse.
I wonder at what point its ultrahigh density is able to blueshift particle waves around it such that the extremely high local energies along with its gravitational pull are able to strip atoms apart that are nearby. At this point it might also take on all of the quantum mechanical properties I have been discussing. Also, if this "inverted matter" hangs around in nature and is reactive it cannot be very good for biological organisms. http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/STAFF/VISITING_FELLOWS&PROFESSORS/pdf/MileyClusterRydbLPBsing.pdf Rydberg Matter is a long-lived form of matter, and the lowest possible excitation level D(1) or H(1) exists more or less permanently in the experiments (Badiei et al 2009). The clusters are not formed transiently. There is no indication that the phase D(-1) is not formed almost permanently. In the experiments both forms D(1) and D(-1) were observed simultaneously. The experiments indicate that the material changes rapidly with almost no energy difference states D(1) and D(-1). On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, ChemE Stewart wrote: > You are describing a horny gremlin... > > On Tuesday, August 21, 2012, Jojo Jaro wrote: > >> ** >> Gang, There has been a lot of discussion about various LENR results >> lately. In these discussions, I think a consensus is building up that the >> key to successful LENR is topology. >> >> There has been flurry of discussions about ICCF papers that we keep on >> forgetting that ICCF results like Celani's are the old ways. Even if >> Celani perfects his technology, it would still be a far cry from beng >> commercializable. >> >> I say we take it a notch further. I say we moved from LENR (FP, Celani) >> to LENR+ (Rossi) to LENR2 (Carbon nanostructures). I say we move from Pd >> and Nickel lattice to a topology that can be easily engineered and >> created. With new capability to engineer a specific topology, we can >> create topologies of various sizes and experiment on them. >> >> I am talking about carbon nanotubes to be exact. Oxidized Carbon >> nanotubes (Carbon Nanohorns) to be specific. >> >> Let me elaborate. >> >> Recent studies indicate that vertically aligned CNTs can be created in a >> straightforward and repeatable process. The diameters of these CNTs can be >> adjusted by adjusting catalyst deposition rates (Hence particle size), >> catalyst kind and many other experimental conditions. SWNTs from 0.4 nm up >> to 100 nm MWNTs can be easily synthesized on various substrates like >> Nickel, steel and stainless steel. CNT heights up to 7 mm has been >> achieved. (That's right, 7 millimeters, not micrometers) The tops of such >> CNT forest can then be "chopped off" by high temperature oxidation in air >> or some mild acid. With that, we are left with a mat of CNTs with open >> tops of various sizes. These open Carbon nanohorns would have a variety of >> void sizes ranging from 0.4 nm to maybe 50 nm. With a plurarity of void >> sizes, one void ought to be the perfect size for LENR Such mats are ideal >> topologies to hunt for the size of the ideal NAE structure. >> >> We then pump an electrostatic field on the tips of these CNTs to allow >> for charge accumulation and field emission on the tips. The huge Charge >> accumulation would provide an environment where the Coulomb Barrier is >> screened. Any H+ ion who happens to drift by this huge charge environment >> would be greatly at risk of being fused with a similarly screened ion. The >> open voids of the Carbon nanohorns would further enhance such effects. >> This is of course the envronment we are aiming for based on our current >> understanding of how LENR proceeds. >> >> When we achieve LENR/Cold fusion on such a void, it would then be a >> matter of narrowing the search for the best void size to improve efficiency >> and output. And Carbon Nanohorns enable us to do this with known and >> repeatable processess to engineer these voids of specific sizes. Carbon >> nanohorns give us this unprecedented capability that metal lattice can not >> afford. Metal lattice cracks and voids can not be easily engineered and >> are quite susceptible to metal diffusion, metal migration, sintering and >> melting. This complicates the search. Carbon nanohorn voids are >> chemically and thermally stable lending itself to more repeatable >> experiments. And the nice thing about this, is that all the parameters are >> adjustable - such as void size, CNT height, electrostatic field strength, >> ion concentration via pressure adjustments, temps etc. Such environments >> affords us a good platform to hunt for the right voids. >> >> Axil contends that Ed Storms introduced this idea of topology as key, but >> I say, he also recognized the huge potential of Carbon Nanotubes as >> possible NAEs. >> >> I say we move past LENR and even LENR+ and concentrate on hunting for the >> right topology using Carbon Nanohorn mats. >> >> >> Jojo >> >> >> PS. In the spirit of scientific openness that gave us "gremlins" and >> "Chameleons", I dub this new idea of mine as the "Horny Theory of LENR" >> >> >> >
