Jones Beene wrote: > > > The temporary removal (shift) of 3 electrons from iron results in > an energy "hole" of 54.7 eV which is a bit larger than the ideal > 54.4 eV, but should accomplish the double-level shrinkage with the > hydronium ion being the donor, in an ion exchange. > CRC "bible" gives Mn +++ Z = 25 51.2 eV, Fe +++ Z = 26 54.8 eV, Co +++ Z = 27 51.3 eV, Ni +++ Z = 28 54.9 eV. All allow the proton (H+) to be well shielded from the repulsive field of their nuclei by 21 to 24 electrons as it picks up the IV "resonant" ionization level electron regardless of whether or not they need be ionized first if the proton is diffusing into the cloud with a coulomb repulsive force limit Fes = k*q * Zq/r^2, where separation distance (r) is quite close for the group.
Same game for higher Z atoms like Palladium (Z = 46), but not favorable for Titanium (Z = 22) other lower Z atoms (K, Ar, O, or He) etc. > > > Looking at my Oxford (Elmsley) reference - surprise, surpise --- > it turns out that the 3+ ion of Fe is highly favored in acid > soultions of carbon and nitrogen - to the extent the only a third > of a volt is required. to bump it from the natrual 2+ state. But > all of this only explains what is going on - hit-or-miss in the > present BG or JC, both of which are using stainless electrodes > with an effective charge potential in that fractional volt range. > The required acidity, BTW may be inherent in using fresh water on > stainless when CO2 and dissolved nitrogen are there - as the Ni > gives us that instant hydronium. > > IOW the original Mills wet-cell appears to be a mish-mash where > the K, which is a base, was working *against* the favored acid > process on the electrodes but is catalytic in its own right. Maybe > that redox inefficiency is why the origianl process was not > commercial. > It might be "catalytic" if it pushes the H+ around. OTOH, the electron clouds around molecules containing low Z atoms could change the rules a many-body problem Like the water in the liquid state. > > As for "how to" make the process more robust, we need an 'in situ' > source for the first step of shrinkage and preferably located > within the same few nanometers of the electrode surface where the > hydronium ion is formed... > Inherent in the J Cell? > > Now comes the "photolithography" mentioned in the subject heading > ... here is something of an unplanned three-way "connection" for > James Burke, when you combine the story below with the findings > about nanopore filtration, mentioned recently - and the > "stainless" electrode process above. > http://www.eetimes.com/news/semi/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=189400846 > Sharpen Ock's razor, Jones. :-) > > The $64 question is: will filtered-water (electrolyzed > 'on-the-fly' through stainless nanopores) which comes out of the > "fuel" injector, be loaded with enough hydrinos (and metastable > charge) in the process - especially by adding the extra fractional > volt, to explode in an ICE? > Many cars putatively running on the cell are fuel injected. Fred > > > Jones >
