WM,
The "repulsive" Casimir effect is a misnomer, If you read
the articles carefully you will discover there is a medium used to cause
this effect. The nanomaterial is still attracted but less so than the medium
which gets between the sphere and the plate - quite literally "floating" it
above the surface on a more attractive medium. I don't recall the chemical
used but the effect should really be called "less attractive" not repulsive.
Judging from your use of terms like "photon birth rate on one side of the
plate vs the other" and other places where you have referred to vacuum
fluctuations I take it you embrace both "camps" of Casimir theory. After
much investigation I also concluded they are equivalent and even found
references to other researchers that concluded that regardless of which is
correct both models provide same results whether vacuum flux exist or not.
You also noted the 20 nm scale of Rayney Nickel pores - So far I haven't
found any one other than myself proposing that all catalytic action is based
on Casmir geometry stemming from this discovery so I don't know if I
actually found something or am simply stating the obvious. For a couple
months I thought I was the only one that noted this relationship until I
found the Haisch- Moddel patent based on Casmir cavities was filed 6 months
previous to my claim! They didn't make the connection to a Catalyst but then
they wouldn't want to make the point of any similarity to Mills yet they
make use of same environment by creating synthetic cavities. The interesting
thing that has occurred since I first made this proposal is that Peng Chen
at Cornell university discovered that catalytic action in nanotubes only
occurs at the opening and defects in nanotubes using an atomic force
microscope, This strongly suggests that it is the "change" in Casmir force
we perceive as catalytic action. Unlike a steady magnetic field the Casmir
field becomes a white water ride for hydrogen as the spacing of the plates
change producing catalytic action. Even field variations experienced by
atoms due to relative motion with the plates would be a wash from the
perspective of CoE if it not for the Asymmetrical way covalent bonds oppose
changes in the field vs the way atoms simply reshape.
Regards
Fran
