Jones, do you have a copy of Lawandy's paper that you can share? Miley appears in that paper to refer to the possible existence of the UDD (which he refers to as IRH) directly from Holmlid's reports; however, Miley's clusters are formed in dislocations in a metal lattice and would have no hexagonal Rydberg precursor. Miley seems only to refer to Holmlid as a measure of possible existence of UDD clusters. Holmlid still refers back to Winterberg for possible theoretical basis for the formation of the UDD state from the hexagonal Rydberg precursor. Winterberg's theory is more of a conjecture. Basically, there is no strongly supported theory that explains how the UDD state could form or exist.
What is known to exist and be created from the described catalysts are the hexagonal Rydberg clusters which I call snowflakes due to their highly planar hexagonal structure. The support, both experimental and theoretical, for the hexagonal Rydberg clusters is strong. Winterberg is probably right that Holmlid's data have something to do with these hexagonal Rydberg clusters. But the theories of 2.3 pm UDD all hinge on the presumption that Holmlid's measured particles are due to Coulomb explosion. What if it were not a Coulomb explosion, but the result of an ejection from a cluster where the forces (perhaps magnetic) from multiple particles acted upon the single ejected particle? Then the unexplainable and unlikely 2.3 pm UDD state would not be required to explain the ejection velocities. What if the 2.3 pm "Coulombic explosion" was only from a transient approach of two D atoms and not a steady state 2.3 pm lattice? A structure that could provide a transient approach of 2.3 pm is far more plausible than a steady state 2.3 pm lattice cluster. What is the real basis for a claim of a steady state lattice spacing of 2.3 pm? On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 5:40 PM, Jones Beene <jone...@pacbell.net> wrote: > It is probably a good idea to get away from the terminology of snowflakes > and/or Rydberg matter, due to the lack of specificity in meaning. > > > > In the older paper with Miley and Hora, Holmlid called the UDD species: > “Inverted Rydberg hydrogen” or IRH indicating that there is no expansive > electron spacing, as expected in normal Rydberg matter. Thus, this species > is technically NOT Rydberg matter unless modified to express the inverted > state. To complicate things, Holmlid decided to drop the IRH terminology in > favor of UDD, although Miley apparently still uses it. > > > > L. Holmlid, H. Hora, G. Miley and X. Yang, "Ultrahigh-density deuterium of > Rydberg matter clusters for inertial confinement fusion targets". Laser and > Particle Beams 27 (2009) 529–532. > > > > The clearest paper on this subject of like-charge attraction with > dislocated electrons which are close by - could be that of Nabil Lawandy: > “Interactions of charged particles on surfaces”… yet has different > predictions > > http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/apl/95/23/10.1063/1.3270537 > > > > “Charges of the same polarity bound to a surface with a large dielectric > contrast exhibit an attractive long-range Coulomb interaction, which leads > to a two-particle bound state. Ensembles of like charges experience a > collective long-range interaction, which results in compacted structures > with interparticle separations that can be orders of magnitude smaller than > the equilibrium separation of the pair potential minimum. Simulations > indicate that ensembles of surface bound nuclei, such as D or T, exhibit > separations small enough to result in significant rates of fusion.” > > > > >
