bobcook39...@gmail.com wrote:
Jones—
You mention a dense hydrogen isomer. What do you mean? Hydrogen metal
with all nuclei having the same spin direction? Are you suggesting a
dense molecular hydrogen?
Bob,
Most of the main proponents of dense hydrogen have different viewpoints
about the physical structure and the packing of multiple units, ranging
from the most dense - probably Holmlid's conception up to the least
dense, which is metallic hydrogen (not particularly dense - would float
on water).
A cluster of dense atomic particles is technically not molecular. The
binding of individual units would be stronger with increasing density
(due to inverse square or inverse cube laws) - far more than van der
Waal/s /forces. Local magnetism could be involved. If the accumulation
of particles exists only in two dimensions, the cluster is generally
denser than a globular cluster in 3-space, and limited to fewer units.
Mills has been intentionally vague about density, claiming "dark matter"
of extreme density at times, and a dense gas at other times (but still a
gas). For Mills any one of 136 different steps is possible and
presumably all are different. But in the case of any charged particle,
such as the tresino of Mayer or Mills' hydrino-hydride, clusters of many
units of like-charge are forbidden by electrostatic considerations.
The reason Mayer has stuck a chord with many of us who have followed and
realized the flaws of Mills' theory is that Mayer's conception falls
between the extremes, and importantly - it embraces QM, rather than
shuns it, which is a huge mistake of Mills.
And lest anyone be confused on the issue of attribution, Mayer and Mills
introduced their original work at about the same time - circa 1990.
