In reply to Jones Beene's message of Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:55:14 -0700: Hi, [snip] >OK, I >agree that that is a minor difference, effectively, since the two are >themselves connected, but there are many catalytic hole with my version that >are NOT there in Mills, most particularly with lithium, which BLP has never >claimed as catalytic (whereas Arie de Geuss did claim it, for different >reasons).
I believe Mills has claimed that Li is a catalyst according to :- Li + 82.0297 eV -> Li++ + 2 e- 82 eV is close to 81.6 eV, for an "m" value of 3. (Actually 0.4 eV is a rather large gap, so this would probably only work well at high temperatures - perhaps as might occur in a micro plasma sphere - or with an electrolytic assist, available in an electrolysis cell?) Furthermore, the third ionization potential is 122.451 eV, so 2 Li++ ions in concert would have a total ionization energy of 244.902 eV which is 9 times 27.2 eV, thus an "m" value of 9. Furthermore as I have previously pointed out several times, Li has an x-ray absorption line at 54.75 eV which is reasonably close to 54.4 for m = 2. (If it will absorb x-rays, then it should equally well absorb energy from another source, at the same energy level). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
