In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:25:36 -0700 (PDT): Hi, [snip] >Robin > >> When Mills talks about an "energy hole" he is *not* talking about a "missing >> electron" as in a "hole" in a semi-conductor. He simply means an energy >> "sink" or "sump" (like a hole in the ground). > >What you are saying then is that he may be employing a fairly well-known term >of physics in a non-scientific way to shoehorn a result into a theory.
I agree that the choice of term was not particularly wise, however he has been using it since the beginning, so it isn't true that he is depending upon it to shoehorn a result into a theory. > >Problem is - physicists have spent a lot of time on the imaginary particle >called the "hole" and the analysis all revolves around applied electric fields >to positively charged holes which can be modeled using Coulomb's law etc. When >you start adding or removing non-electron specific energy (heat), the result >is a less effective electrical theory since heat can be removed in very small >quanta independently of electrons. > >Essentially there is little predictive value which I can see to the 27.2 eV in >the expanded instance where heat or other energy (acceleration) can added or >subtracted in order to make a "fit" (deeper hole for instance) - and this is >probably why Ed thinks it is basically a hit-or-miss situation. Mills has from the beginning said that kinetic energy of the particles can make slight adjustments to the specific energy of a given "energy hole" in order to ensure a perfect match. IOW the resonance condition is only satisfied when a perfect match occurs, but that is never the case for any of the Mills catalysts. That's why small kinetic energy adjustments make the reaction work anyway. The fact that there is a distribution of particle energies in any substance, means that there are always a few that have just the right energy to compensate for the slight mismatch between the required energy sink size, and the actual size provided by the catalyst. > >This is probably why Mills in the previous decade never seriously considered >sodium, and it also could mean that if you find a metal that forms an electron >hole at say 27.8 eV (copper++ ?) which is not close enough by itself, then >you might be able to manufacture a better fit by cooling the experiment - or >alternatively in other cases apply acceleration to increase the sink. See above. > >Matter of fact - makes one wonder if a Farnswoth Fusor, made with a copper >spherical electrode, would perfom better (produce more neutrons) if it were >kept at cryogenic temps. I have 20.292 eV for the second ionization energy of Cu, and 36.83 eV for the third. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
