In reply to Jones Beene's message of Fri, 30 Nov 2018 02:04:34 +0000 (UTC): Hi Jones,
The work function of most "mid weight" metals is roughly in the range of 4-6 eV. Hence my choice of 6. The logic behind this is that by giving up 27.2 eV while shrinking, Hydrogen liberates 6 electrons from the metal, costing it 27.2/6 = 4.533 eV / electron. The number of electrons has to be a whole number, thus 6 is the best fit for most metals. However there may be alloys where 5 or 7 would work too. For resonance to work, the metal work function has to be as close as possible to 27.2/n e.g. 27.2/6 = 4.533 eV. Of course, 54.4/n would work too, but then the number of electrons starts to get too large to all be ejected at the same time. (I'm guessing here.) For a NiCr alloy, the result is about 4-6 atomic % Ni & the remainder Chromium, because Cr is almost usable pure (4.5 eV). Note that this is far removed from the percentages used in Nichrome. Note also that the WF depends in many cases on which crystal plane of the metal is exposed, this would help explain why the results have been so sporadic and also why nano particles are usable, i.e. they have lots of surface area for their volume, and at least some of that surface area will have the most useful crystal plane exposed. Once the electrons have been ejected by the shrinking Hydrino, they eventually find their way back to the now positively charged metal, recombining to liberate the 27.2 eV as thermal energy. Furthermore Hydrinos that have already shrunk, can undergo further shrinkage by the same process, while shrinking even further. Eventually some of them might get small enough to undergo a nuclear reaction. This is especially true of Deuterinos, which can supply a neutron to another nucleus if they can get close enough. BTW, IIRC it was Antony Macken who first proposed that the WF was relvant. [snip] > >Robin - isn't this choice (n=6) arbitrary? > >If you can divide the 27.196 eV by any small whole number and have a fairly >large range of fit then half the periodic table... or maybe more... will be >kludged into Mills theory as a hydrino catalyst. >It is no wonder that Mills had more high level critics than supporters... > > > >From: "mix...@bigpond.com > >>https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360319918320925 > >What's the bet that the best metal has a work function of 27.196/n eV, where n >is some whole number, the smaller the better? > >Couple of examples of elements for n=6 (i.e. 4.533 eV):- Mo, Ag, Cu, Sb, W >(See >https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=2ahUKEwiE1Om7z_reAhUUY48KHRcPBhwQFjADegQIChAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpublic.wsu.edu%2F~pchemlab%2Fdocuments%2FWork-functionvalues.pdf&usg=AOvVaw12wvTBAwujb59CHaO2BHai) > > > > > Regards, Robin van Spaandonk local asymmetry = temporary success
