Barisic, Labbe and Friedel [45] presented a simple and strong argument for transition metals and compounds on the basis of the tight binding representation of the band-structure and of the electron-phonon coupling that N (0) < I 2 > is related simply to the cohesive energy E$_{c}$ of the metal. The argument is summarized in appendix A with the conclusion that < d $^{2}$E$_{c}$ /dR 2 > is the average of the second derivative of the change in kinetic energy of the metal as the nearest neighbor distance between two atoms R is changed leaving the others fixed; r$_{0}$ is the size of the typical metallic orbital. One may be tempted to conclude that since N (0) < I 2 > within a given class of transition metals or compounds is approximately a constant, one may simply increase λ by reducing the average lattice stiffness M < ω 2 > and thus increase T$_{c}$ . This led to the soft-phonon myth, much propagated in the 1970’s . Quite apart from the fact that the prefactor < ω > would prefer matters the other way for high T$_{c}$ , there is also another empirical rule [46, 47] followed. It is that within a given class of materials < I 2 > / ( M < ω 2 > ) is also approximately a 29 FIG. 6: Empirical Relation between experimentally deduced λ and the bare electronic density of states at the chemical potential in 3d-4d and 5d metals and their alloys. N (0) < I 2 > ≈ N (0) < d $^{2}$E$_{c}$ /dR 2 > ≈ N (0) E$_{c}$/r 2 $_{0}$. (27)