I guess one of the reasons I just don't get the Rydberg atom hypothesis, is that mainly has to do with the electron orbitals and not the nuclear state. That's my understanding at least. Perhaps Kim's paper will enlighten how the nuclei interact to show a strong interaction; one that follows E=mc^2. I have a lot of respect for Kim and he always is enlightening I suppose that I need to understand the Rydberg stuff a little more before jumping to conclusions; (for example the inverse-Rydberg atoms sound very much like hydrinos or pseudo-neutrons ).
But all that is hypothetical. The evidence so far, based on the design, is it hot and appears to be a plasma in metal. This is where a full accounting of all possible interactions would be enlightening. Then there are the reports of the 1.5 Tesla magnetic fields. I wish there was a magnetometer in the public demonstration that showed that. 1 Tesla is HUGE! Most superconducting MRI magnets only reach 1T. (5T is pretty extreme). I walked past a 1.5T MRI machine accidentally with an inkpen in my pocket. From 10ft away, the magnet was lifting the pin out of my pocket (upon which I realized I could quench the magnet, and so I left the room clutching onto my pen). If the Defkcalion reactor produces that kind of field in the small space, it might be possible, but it's another question mark. Eric, I would say you have a very good superfecta there (in horse racing thats picking 1 2 3 & 4). Primarily I think 2 and 4. 2 from low energy reactions and 4 from recoil atoms caused by 3, 2 and 1. But that is pure hot fusion. With the intervening metal lattice, that may not be the case precisely. Best Regards.. On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Eric Walker <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> 1. p+p -> p+p "reversible" fusion, along the lines of Jones's >> hypothesis. >> 2. p+e+p -> d, along the lines of Ed's hypothesis. >> 3. p+d -> 3He + Q (5.5 MeV) (my own favorite) >> 4. p+Ni -> Cu (as suggested by Rossi a long time ago, and which no >> one really likes). >> >> I'm betting on (2), somewhere beneath the surface. >> > > Typo -- I'm betting on (3). > > Eric > >
