Robin > 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).
What you are saying then is that he may be employing a fairly well-known term of physics in a non-scientific way to shoehorn a result into a theory. Problem is - physicists have spent a lot of time on the imaginary particle called the "hole" and the analysis all revolves around applied electric fields to positively charged holes which can be modeled using Coulomb's law etc. When you start adding or removing non-electron specific energy (heat), the result is a less effective electrical theory since heat can be removed in very small quanta independently of electrons. Essentially there is little predictive value which I can see to the 27.2 eV in the expanded instance where heat or other energy (acceleration) can added or subtracted in order to make a "fit" (deeper hole for instance) - and this is probably why Ed thinks it is basically a hit-or-miss situation. This is probably why Mills in the previous decade never seriously considered sodium, and it also could mean that if you find a metal that forms an electron hole at say 27.8 eV (copper++ ?) which is not close enough by itself, then you might be able to manufacture a better fit by cooling the experiment - or alternatively in other cases apply acceleration to increase the sink. Matter of fact - makes one wonder if a Farnswoth Fusor, made with a copper spherical electrode, would perfom better (produce more neutrons) if it were kept at cryogenic temps. Jones
