In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:34:47 -0700 (PDT): Hi Jones, [snip] >Robin > > >> I think you misunderstand. > >The energy required to break NaH into atoms is 1.98 eV. >The energy required to then ionize the Na to Na+ is 5.1391 eV. >The energy required to then ionize the Na+ to Na++ is 47.286 eV. >---------------------------------------------------------------- >Total 54.405 eV > >which is an excellent match for an m=2 energy hole. > > > >I understand all that, but the 1.98 eV is the problem ! > >... and its inclusion is irrelevant, almost a fraud. It has no business being >considered, since it does not relate to the ionization potential and the hole >itself - as it is the obvious "shoehorn" which unrelated to the electrons >which DO make up the hole (at least they do in their absence).
Ah, perhaps this is the clue. 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). IOW something capable of resonantly absorbing a multiple of 27.2 eV. Used in that sense, NaH clearly fits the bill. The 1.98 eV is energy that was released when the NaH was formed from atoms, hence needs to be "returned" in order to break the molecule apart. > >I cannot agree in any remote way that an "energy hole" is created by this >additional invention. Where would it end? you could add in all sorts of >extraneous stuff to try to balance the books ..and indeed he sometimes does, as long as it results in a net energy hole of 27.2 eV. >... and even if it were arguably relevant, he has not even addressed the >larger issue of how the atomic hydrogen manages to remains non-ionized in >close proximity to the 52+ eV which removes all of the 3 electrons from the >sodium. That would be a modern day miracle in itself. Actually only 2 electrons. I made a mistake in my first email. The atomic Hydrogen doesn't exist, and hence isn't in "proximity" to anything. The molecule simply decomposes directly into the final bits. (Alternatively a single H atom approaching an NaH molecule undergoes shrinkage while supplying the energy required to break up the molecule and doubly ionize the Na. In this scenario, some of the remaining 54.4 eV may indeed directly ionize the H from the molecule, though that is going to be indistinguishable from H ionized by kinetic energy elsewhere in the cell.) Both mechanisms would have the same result, and hence could be operating concurrently and indistinguishably. The second would require the Ni to create H atoms, and both mechanisms require it, along with the NaOH, to produce NaH. > >This is not even wrong, as they say. I am rather amazed that you have bought >into it, if you really have. It's no more outrageous than K losing three electrons while acting as a catalyst. (Mind you, it's (probably) not harmonically resonant in the tuning fork sense, but it is energetically resonant, where perhaps a virtual photon plays an intermediary role). Regards, Robin van Spaandonk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
