Recently, an experimenter asked for the identity of the best "fit" in the periodic table for the catalytic "energy hole" at 2Ry = 27.2 eV based on CQM theory. I dug up an unanswered post from the HSG days. It may need revision.
Anyone who reads the BLP experiments can recite the 'usual suspects' in
Column one and two of the Table. But to be honest, I do not know the "very
best" candidate of all, if the criterion is to be as close as possible at
27.2 using the broadest of Mills rules of engagement. Does anyone out there
know for sure? (note: there are very close fits at 54.4 eV (4Ry) and above,
but it is obvious that a lower value fit would be more useful in practice,
since lower temperature devices could be designed.
Molybdenum ions are a good fit at 27.13 which is off by only .07 eV and this
for the Mo(2+) ion, and it on the low side. It seems a bit logical, using
the "hole" analogy, that you want to err on the high side of 27.2 eV, but
maybe not - since the hydrogen target carries some momentum on its own.
Excuse the overly simplistic wording but it would take pages to try to frame
this situation more accurately, since electron orbitals are a very complex
subject, which Mills glosses over. This is all from an older hard bound
edition of his theory.
Potassium is perhaps the most mentioned candidate in the papers, but the
first two IP electrons are at 4.34 and 31.63 eV. What this means
essentially is that the hole only appears when the K(2+) ion takes back the
least energetic of the two electrons lost - the difference being 27.29 eV or
.09 on the high side. That variance does not seem extremely close, really -
and the way it materializes is convoluted - yet it is the most often used
catalyst. This is one of the many reasons that skeptic love to berate
Randell Mills.
Strontium is interesting, as it turns up in several important papers, but
since the first 3 electrons go at 5.69, 11.03, and 42.89 eV there is no
obvious fit at all. This is why Mills skeptics are fond of saying that by
manipulating all of the permutations - at least half of the periodic table
can be made to fit into the loose parameters. Maybe so, but for the sake of
argument, we should still try to identify the best candidates. After all, RM
is supposed to be "America's Newton." :-)
In the case of Strontium one needs to imagine that the first two electrons
can operate as a functional unit at 16.72 total IP - which when subtracted
from the 3rd displaced electron gives a very close fit of 26.17 or a fit of
.03 EV lower (42.89-16.72= 26.17)- and so far it would seem Strontium is the
closest fit of any element.
However, to get this "best fit" energy hole to appear in actual practice,
one must assume (or engineer) something like the scenario where the 3
electrons are lost, and the slowest two electrons come back quickly, well
before the most strongly bound - leaving the "hole" open for a few
picoseconds... or alternatively radiation knocks an inner electron out, and
hydrogen gets in before the Augur cascade can complete. Again, please excuse
the overly simplistic wording (or add better wording) as no one has been
able to pin RM down to all the many miracles which are possible. The top
four so far
Variance from 2Ry = 27.2 eV
1) Strontium .03
2) Molybdenum .07
3) Potassium .09
4) Rubidium .09
BTW - palladium is 27.77 eV
One final point being that Strontium, being the best apparent fit, if we
allow for the convoluted modality - would seem to be a particularly good
catalyst to use with a persistent source of radiation above ~43 eV - or
equivalent.
Hmm ... what is "equivalent"? Well, the fact that Casimir cavities should
be resonant for UV wavelengths in this range - is possibly not coincidental,
especially when Raney type nickel is being used, and that may be where
geometry comes into play.
This opens the possibility of a limited "UV chain reaction" (in the sense of
Dicke-Preparata superradiance) when downshifted UV can be pumped back up by
cavity-QED effects to a higher level in situ.
IOW ultraviolet is easily absorbed and 'downshifted' and thus cannot sustain
any kind of limited chain reaction - unless there is an inherent way to
immediately 'upshift' it in the reactor itself. This is a bit more refined
explanation than the claim that a Casimir cavity alone will substitute for
an energy hole, as defined by RM.
All of the above is prefaced by "if you buy into Mills' theory" of course
...
Jones
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
