Jones,
Mill's also promotes that fractional hydrogen can be self catalyzing -
I think there is a mechanism where fractional molecules can migrate between
different Casimir geometries but still maintain the same fractional state at
which they formed, This is the same posit I have named previously to discount
the energy necessary to disassociate said fractional molecules to the point of
over unity. My point is that the covalent bond of a fractional gas molecule
tries to lock the molecules to the initial fractional values that the atoms
possessed when the molecule formed - stated simply fractional atoms translate
freely with changes in Casimir geometry while fractional molecules oppose the
change and will disassociate such as we see when h2 gas is pushed through a Pd
membrane. Therefore you can have molecules [targets] and atoms colliding that
are in different inertial frames and as Mill's suggested a wild mix of
different fractional values which should include candidates for your 27.2 ev
hole.
I know everyone thinks I am too far out there suggesting relativistic
effects due to Casimir geometry but I am becoming even further convinced that
"suppression" is the poor man's handle on time dilation. Unlike the Beta
formula that needs adjust the ratio of V^2/C^2 there is no Pythagorean
relationship / penalty with suppression, instead we are directly adjusting the
time axis when we vary the vacuum energy density with Casimir boundaries.
Regards
Fran
_____________________________________________
From: Jones Beene [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2011 5:11 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: [Vo]:Best Catalytic Fit?
Correction.
Value for strontium is wrong. Thanks Rob.
Looks like Moly is the best.
I am wondering about how Mills would account for alloys. If the two elements
can average their IP somehow, then it might be possible to nail the value
closely.
Variance from 2Ry = 27.2 eV
1) Molybdenum .07
2) Potassium .09
3) Rubidium .09
BTW - palladium is 27.77 eV
