Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Roarty, Francis X]

My bad - I thought your closed form geometry equals a wavelength that matches 
our plane and persists in our plane as a physical manifestation like a canoe 
stuck in the waterfall whereas all other virtual particles form the ether 
medium and just  flow thru - their rate of flow establishing the isotropy. My 
fringe theory is that you don't need near C spatial displacement to create 
relativistic inertial frames - that extreme Casimir suppression can make a near 
C differential thru "equivalent" negative acceleration using a gravity warp 
instead of a gravity well - the nature of the Casimir formula making the area 
effected very small but trumping the local isotropy normally ruled by square 
law and doing so with geometry instead of rocket fuel. I think catalytic action 
is a very mild dynamic form of these negative inertial frames, and like 
satellites circling the earth the relativistic portion is almost negligible. 
When the relativistic portion starts to increase to where the suppression of 
vacuum wavelengths inside the cavity compared to macro isotropy outside 
approaches the same differential as a stationary spacecraft in free space 
relative to another sitting at the bottom of a large gravity well is when I 
think anomalous heat and radioactive half lives occur. Geometric suppression 
slows the ether like an umbrella requiring no energy instead of the normal 
analogy of a car racing thru a rainstorm to increase the pressure on the 
windshield. I don't think anyone would argue free energy if a machine could be 
loaded without gravity and then be moved without energy to a gravity well to 
extract the potential energy of the load BUT you would obviously be supplying 
the energy by moving it between frames. In Casimir suppression you have a 
tapestry of negative frames at one scale but you still have random motion of 
gas law at the local scale that does the moving for you. You still need a 
"machine" to extract energy from the frame changes - to make a gainful 
reversible reaction that is loaded in one frame and harvested in another. 
Fran

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 10:33 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:19:39 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>I agree.. closed form being a canoe stuck in the waterfall of our 3D plane all 
>the rest is the medium of time passing thru it.

Not exactly what I had in mind. :) What I meant by "closed form" was a geometric
closed form, like a circle, a sphere, a toroid etc. (or some combination of
these).

>Fran
>
>IMO, all energy is motion in the substance of the vacuum. When that motion
>occurs in a closed form, the result is a particle. This was also Fred Sparber's
>point of view if a IIRC. I think he was right.
>[snip]
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 
> http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?esme
> It is linear - lower mass means proportionately lower charge

> I think you are drawing a line through a single point here. Each particle
type has it's own mass to charge ratio. Otherwise, protons and electrons
would share the same mass (since the magnitude of the charge on both is the
same - though the sign is different.)

Yes and no. Of course the identical ratio will not apply across the range of
elementary particles, yet all electrons (but not all leptons) will share the
same ratio of mass-to-charge - indicating that if lighter electrons exist,
they will have less charge (and vice-versa) ... that is my reading of it.

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:55:17 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>Here is the electron mass-to-charge ratio
>
> 
>
>http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?esme
>
> 
>
>It is linear – lower mass means proportionately lower charge

I think you are drawing a line through a single point here. Each particle type
has it's own mass to charge ratio. Otherwise, protons and electrons would share
the same mass (since the magnitude of the charge on both is the same - though
the sign is different.)

>
> 
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio
>
> 
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Tue, 7 Jul 2015 00:19:39 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>
>I agree.. closed form being a canoe stuck in the waterfall of our 3D plane all 
>the rest is the medium of time passing thru it.

Not exactly what I had in mind. :) What I meant by "closed form" was a geometric
closed form, like a circle, a sphere, a toroid etc. (or some combination of
these).

>Fran
>
>IMO, all energy is motion in the substance of the vacuum. When that motion
>occurs in a closed form, the result is a particle. This was also Fred Sparber's
>point of view if a IIRC. I think he was right.
>[snip]
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Roarty, Francis X]

I agree.. closed form being a canoe stuck in the waterfall of our 3D plane all 
the rest is the medium of time passing thru it.
Fran

IMO, all energy is motion in the substance of the vacuum. When that motion
occurs in a closed form, the result is a particle. This was also Fred Sparber's
point of view if a IIRC. I think he was right.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Roarty, Francis X]

Bob,
   I don’t agree with [snip] Second, in the DDL state the electron 
is moving at relativistic speeds and has a mass increase due to this, so 
perhaps it could afford to shed mass energy. [/snip] IMHO relativistic hydrogen 
in a lattice is a function of Casimir suppression and the entire atom is 
“contracted” and appears accelerated from our perspective. I think the mass 
increase is valid especially for collisions between atoms in different inertial 
frames which becomes more and more plausible at the inverse cube of geometry 
separation to the point fractional atoms can fit between stationary geometry 
much smaller than it’s own stationary radius [TARTUS like] – the suppression of 
longer vacuum wavelengths is equivalent to negative acceleration = makes us 
look like the near C paradox twin such that tritium atoms would have their half 
lives reduced from our perspective. I do agree coupling increases in the DDL 
state but I think any molecules that form in a DDL state will be broken or at 
least have their diassociation threshold discounted as random motion pudhes 
them into different DDL regions.. my pet theory remains that it is the tapestry 
of DCE changing space time in opposition / causing breaches to the isotropy 
that is energizing the system.
Fran


From: Bob Higgins [mailto:rj.bob.higg...@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 4:50 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

Well, one thought is that in an H atom in ground state, the electron is moving 
slowly (relatively) and is fairly loosely coupled to the proton as a system.  
Once in a DDL state, the electron is immensely coupled to the proton - this 
coupling will cause a big effect on the system eigenvalues.

Second, in the DDL state the electron is moving at relativistic speeds and has 
a mass increase due to this, so perhaps it could afford to shed mass energy.

Third, I thought I remember that Hotson said that the true energy of the 
electron was more like 16 MeV when its spin energy was considered.  If true, 
loss of the 0.51 MeV would still be a small fraction of its total energy.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jones Beene 
mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>> wrote:
Bob,

If the mass deficit comes from the proton – no problem. But how can the two be 
considered to be a single system with shared mass-energy? The electron is known 
to have fractional charge as a group effect, but not as a charge-less particle. 
There is always a fractional charge, even in FQHE.

I do not think that the electron can give up 510 keV – almost its entire 
mass-energy, and still retain negative charge or even an identity. The 
mass-to-charge ratio is a physical quantity which is widely used in the 
electrodynamics and charge varies linearly according to mass AFAIK.

From: Bob Higgins

Jones, you are the first to discuss the variable mass of the proton.  The Vavra 
and Maly solution (which agrees with Naudts) is for the proton/electron system. 
There is nothing that says that all of that energy must come from the electron. 
 Why couldn't it come from the energy of the system as a whole, which includes 
the proton and its spin and fields?.

Jones Beene wrote:
What’s left to call an electron?
Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear.
Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?
I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”
From: Bob Cook
Jones and Eric-
  Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect,...”
I  would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark matter 
at  the following link:
http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1304.0833&ei=VHeXVba1CMLGmAX4lLyQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGeR5fkfAu6tTJInn03b1pOsvgRiw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.dGY&cad=rja

He calls it a small hydrogen that is responsible.
The reaction that creates the small hydrogen is an energetic electron and a 
proton.

I think Robin identified this paper a few days ago.

It is worth reading.

Bob Cook

From: Jones Beene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 7:12 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

Eric,

An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of Mills 
theory.

Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps. Robin 
has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on a number 
of assumptions, and it need not proceed in steps – ala Mills.

This thread started out with another theory where there was an attempt to  tie 
this reduced mass value to the FQHE, but ½ is not an acceptable whole fraction 
for that (it must be an odd fraction). However, FQHE is a 2 dimensional 
phenomenon – as is Mills Orbitsphere, so there is natural crossover (except 
Mills avoids QM).

And any f

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

Here is the electron mass-to-charge ratio

 

http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?esme

 

It is linear – lower mass means proportionately lower charge

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

I am just going from memory, but I believe the difference is that
positronium is the state of an electron and positron orbiting each other
BEFORE the 1.2 MeV is emitted.  Once the 1.2 MeV is emitted, the orbiting
pair shrink (like a hydrino) and drop out of detectability.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:45 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:49 -0600:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >According to Hotson, the positrons and electrons are never created nor
> destroyed.  Because they are both fermions, they can never occupy the same
> space at the same time and so can never annihilate each other.  Instead,
> upon combination, the electron and positron become an "epo" atom with each
> orbiting the other and become essentially invisible.  Hotson envisions that
> we exist in a sea of epos and that the epo sea is the ether.
>
> I thought an electron and positron orbiting one another was "positronium"
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium), and was most definitely
> visible.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 16:31:49 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>According to Hotson, the positrons and electrons are never created nor 
>destroyed.  Because they are both fermions, they can never occupy the same 
>space at the same time and so can never annihilate each other.  Instead, upon 
>combination, the electron and positron become an "epo" atom with each orbiting 
>the other and become essentially invisible.  Hotson envisions that we exist in 
>a sea of epos and that the epo sea is the ether.

I thought an electron and positron orbiting one another was "positronium"
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium), and was most definitely visible.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

According to Hotson, the positrons and electrons are never created nor
destroyed.  Because they are both fermions, they can never occupy the same
space at the same time and so can never annihilate each other.  Instead,
upon combination, the electron and positron become an "epo" atom with each
orbiting the other and become essentially invisible.  Hotson envisions that
we exist in a sea of epos and that the epo sea is the ether.

The 1.2 MeV doesn't create an electron positron pair, it simply liberates
(splits) them from an orbiting epo pair.  So, an epo would have 32 MeV (I
think) of total energy including its spin.  When split, each of the
positron and the electron have 16 MeV of energy including the mass energy
and spin energy.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 4:25 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:49:42 -0600:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >Third, I thought I remember that Hotson said that the true energy of the
> electron was more like 16 MeV when its spin energy was considered.  If
> true, loss of the 0.51 MeV would still be a small fraction of its total
> energy.
>
> You can't have conservation of mass-energy and create both a positron and
> an
> electron from a 1.2 MeV gamma ray if both particles also need 16 MeV of
> spin
> energy.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Higgins's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 14:49:42 -0600:
Hi,
[snip]
>Third, I thought I remember that Hotson said that the true energy of the 
>electron was more like 16 MeV when its spin energy was considered.  If true, 
>loss of the 0.51 MeV would still be a small fraction of its total energy.

You can't have conservation of mass-energy and create both a positron and an
electron from a 1.2 MeV gamma ray if both particles also need 16 MeV of spin
energy.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Mon, 6 Jul 2015 09:06:23 -0700:
Hi,
>What’s left to call an electron?


IMO, all energy is motion in the substance of the vacuum. When that motion
occurs in a closed form, the result is a particle. This was also Fred Sparber's
point of view if a IIRC. I think he was right.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

Well, one thought is that in an H atom in ground state, the electron is
moving slowly (relatively) and is fairly loosely coupled to the proton as a
system.  Once in a DDL state, the electron is immensely coupled to the
proton - this coupling will cause a big effect on the system eigenvalues.

Second, in the DDL state the electron is moving at relativistic speeds and
has a mass increase due to this, so perhaps it could afford to shed mass
energy.

Third, I thought I remember that Hotson said that the true energy of the
electron was more like 16 MeV when its spin energy was considered.  If
true, loss of the 0.51 MeV would still be a small fraction of its total
energy.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> Bob,
>
>
>
> If the mass deficit comes from the proton – no problem. But how can the
> two be considered to be a single system with shared mass-energy? The
> electron is known to have fractional charge as a group effect, but not as a
> charge-less particle. There is always a fractional charge, even in FQHE.
>
>
>
> I do not think that the electron can give up 510 keV – almost its entire
> mass-energy, and still retain negative charge or even an identity. The
> mass-to-charge ratio is a physical quantity which is widely used in the
> electrodynamics and charge varies linearly according to mass AFAIK.
>
>
>
> *From:* Bob Higgins
>
>
>
> Jones, you are the first to discuss the variable mass of the proton.  The
> Vavra and Maly solution (which agrees with Naudts) is for the
> proton/electron system. There is nothing that says that all of that energy
> must come from the electron.  Why couldn't it come from the energy of the
> system as a whole, which includes the proton and its spin and fields?.
>
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> What’s left to call an electron?
>
> Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear.
>
> Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?
>
> I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
> Jones and Eric-
>
>   Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly
> incorrect,...”
>
> I  would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark
> matter at  the following link:
>
>
> http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1304.0833&ei=VHeXVba1CMLGmAX4lLyQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGeR5fkfAu6tTJInn03b1pOsvgRiw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.dGY&cad=rja
>
>
>
> He calls it a small hydrogen that is responsible.
>
> The reaction that creates the small hydrogen is an energetic electron and
> a proton.
>
>
>
> I think Robin identified this paper a few days ago.
>
>
>
> It is worth reading.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 7:12 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of
> Mills theory.
>
>
>
> Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps.
> Robin has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on
> a number of assumptions, and it need not proceed in steps – ala Mills.
>
>
>
> This thread started out with another theory where there was an attempt to
> tie this reduced mass value to the FQHE, but ½ is not an acceptable whole
> fraction for that (it must be an odd fraction). However, FQHE is a 2
> dimensional phenomenon – as is Mills Orbitsphere, so there is natural
> crossover (except Mills avoids QM).
>
>
>
> And any fractional charge relates to mass, since there is a linear ratio.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio
>
>
>
> I suppose Mills 255 keV value makes a good case for the lowest level
> favoring the 2 electron configuration (hydrino hydride or f/H-) since it
> returns the atomic unit to an uncharged condition.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect, but there are a
> number of values in the range of several hundred keV which represent the
> total energy which can be released in 136 steps.
>
>
>
> With regard to Mills's theory specifically (not those of Maly or Vavra),
> in some promotional literature for BLP that was promulgated over the list a
> year or two ago, I recall seeing some slideware to the effect that as the
> electron reaches the innermost level, it becomes a photon.  If this
> understanding is an accurate reflection of Mills's theory, it suggests that
> the electron will have given up all of its rest mass.  There would no doubt
> be some energy left over for the residual photon, I suppose; perhaps part
> of the rest mass of the electron, or its kinetic energy?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

If the mass deficit comes from the proton – no problem. But how can the two be 
considered to be a single system with shared mass-energy? The electron is known 
to have fractional charge as a group effect, but not as a charge-less particle. 
There is always a fractional charge, even in FQHE.

 

I do not think that the electron can give up 510 keV – almost its entire 
mass-energy, and still retain negative charge or even an identity. The 
mass-to-charge ratio is a physical quantity which is widely used in the 
electrodynamics and charge varies linearly according to mass AFAIK. 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

Jones, you are the first to discuss the variable mass of the proton.  The Vavra 
and Maly solution (which agrees with Naudts) is for the proton/electron system. 
There is nothing that says that all of that energy must come from the electron. 
 Why couldn't it come from the energy of the system as a whole, which includes 
the proton and its spin and fields?.

 

Jones Beene wrote:

What’s left to call an electron?

Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear. 

Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?

I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”

From: Bob Cook 

Jones and Eric-

  Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect,...”

I  would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark matter 
at  the following link: 

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t 

 
&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1304.0833&ei=VHeXVba1CMLGmAX4lLyQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGeR5fkfAu6tTJInn03b1pOsvgRiw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.dGY&cad=rja

 

He calls it a small hydrogen that is responsible.  

The reaction that creates the small hydrogen is an energetic electron and a 
proton.

 

I think Robin identified this paper a few days ago.

 

It is worth reading.

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Jones Beene   

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 7:12 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

 

Eric,

 

An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of Mills 
theory.  

 

Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps. Robin 
has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on a number 
of assumptions, and it need not proceed in steps – ala Mills.

 

This thread started out with another theory where there was an attempt to  tie 
this reduced mass value to the FQHE, but ½ is not an acceptable whole fraction 
for that (it must be an odd fraction). However, FQHE is a 2 dimensional 
phenomenon – as is Mills Orbitsphere, so there is natural crossover (except 
Mills avoids QM).

 

And any fractional charge relates to mass, since there is a linear ratio. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio

 

I suppose Mills 255 keV value makes a good case for the lowest level favoring 
the 2 electron configuration (hydrino hydride or f/H-) since it returns the 
atomic unit to an uncharged condition.

 

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect, but there are a 
number of values in the range of several hundred keV which represent the total 
energy which can be released in 136 steps.

 

With regard to Mills's theory specifically (not those of Maly or Vavra), in 
some promotional literature for BLP that was promulgated over the list a year 
or two ago, I recall seeing some slideware to the effect that as the electron 
reaches the innermost level, it becomes a photon.  If this understanding is an 
accurate reflection of Mills's theory, it suggests that the electron will have 
given up all of its rest mass.  There would no doubt be some energy left over 
for the residual photon, I suppose; perhaps part of the rest mass of the 
electron, or its kinetic energy?

 

Eric

 

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

Jones, you are the first to discuss the variable mass of the proton.  The
Vavra and Maly solution (which agrees with Naudts) is for the
proton/electron system. There is nothing that says that all of that energy
must come from the electron.  Why couldn't it come from the energy of the
system as a whole, which includes the proton and its spin and fields?.

On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:06 AM, Jones Beene  wrote:

> What’s left to call an electron?
>
>
>
> Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear.
>
>
>
> Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?
>
>
>
> I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”
>
>
> *From:* Bob Cook
>
>
>
> Jones and Eric--
>
>
>
>   Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly
> incorrect,...”
>
>
>
> I  would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark
> matter at  the following link:
>
>
>
>
> http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1304.0833&ei=VHeXVba1CMLGmAX4lLyQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGeR5fkfAu6tTJInn03b1pOsvgRiw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.dGY&cad=rja
>
>
>
> He calls it a small hydrogen that is responsible.
>
> The reaction that creates the small hydrogen is an energetic electron and
> a proton.
>
>
>
> I think Robin identified this paper a few days ago.
>
>
>
> It is worth reading.
>
>
>
> Bob Cook
>
>
>
> *From:* Jones Beene 
>
> *Sent:* Monday, July 06, 2015 7:12 AM
>
> *To:* vortex-l@eskimo.com
>
> *Subject:* RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills
>
>
>
> Eric,
>
>
>
> An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of
> Mills theory.
>
>
>
> Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps.
> Robin has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on
> a number of assumptions, and it need not proceed in steps – ala Mills.
>
>
>
> This thread started out with another theory where there was an attempt to
> tie this reduced mass value to the FQHE, but ½ is not an acceptable whole
> fraction for that (it must be an odd fraction). However, FQHE is a 2
> dimensional phenomenon – as is Mills Orbitsphere, so there is natural
> crossover (except Mills avoids QM).
>
>
>
> And any fractional charge relates to mass, since there is a linear ratio.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio
>
>
>
> I suppose Mills 255 keV value makes a good case for the lowest level
> favoring the 2 electron configuration (hydrino hydride or f/H-) since it
> returns the atomic unit to an uncharged condition.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Walker
>
>
>
> Jones Beene wrote:
>
> The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect, but there are a
> number of values in the range of several hundred keV which represent the
> total energy which can be released in 136 steps.
>
>
>
> With regard to Mills's theory specifically (not those of Maly or Vavra),
> in some promotional literature for BLP that was promulgated over the list a
> year or two ago, I recall seeing some slideware to the effect that as the
> electron reaches the innermost level, it becomes a photon.  If this
> understanding is an accurate reflection of Mills's theory, it suggests that
> the electron will have given up all of its rest mass.  There would no doubt
> be some energy left over for the residual photon, I suppose; perhaps part
> of the rest mass of the electron, or its kinetic energy?
>
>
>
> Eric
>
>
>

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

What’s left to call an electron?

 

Certainly there is no charge, since charge and mass are linear.

 

Photons can’t be captured, so what is left over?

 

I stand by the “almost certainly incorrect,...”

 

 

 

From: Bob Cook 

 

Jones and Eric--

 

  Jones wrote: “The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect,...”

 

I  would say Vavra makes a good case for .511 Mev in his paper on dark matter 
at  the following link:

 

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t 

 
&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2F1304.0833&ei=VHeXVba1CMLGmAX4lLyQCQ&usg=AFQjCNGeR5fkfAu6tTJInn03b1pOsvgRiw&bvm=bv.96952980,d.dGY&cad=rja

 

He calls it a small hydrogen that is responsible.  

The reaction that creates the small hydrogen is an energetic electron and a 
proton.

 

I think Robin identified this paper a few days ago.

 

It is worth reading.

 

Bob Cook

 

From: Jones Beene   

Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 7:12 AM

To: vortex-l@eskimo.com 

Subject: RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

 

Eric,

 

An electron giving up its rest mass and becoming a photon is NOT part of Mills 
theory.  

 

Half the rest mass - 255 keV is in play for Mills, spread out in steps. Robin 
has a theory with a similar value. The DDL is different, depending on a number 
of assumptions, and it need not proceed in steps – ala Mills.

 

This thread started out with another theory where there was an attempt to  tie 
this reduced mass value to the FQHE, but ½ is not an acceptable whole fraction 
for that (it must be an odd fraction). However, FQHE is a 2 dimensional 
phenomenon – as is Mills Orbitsphere, so there is natural crossover (except 
Mills avoids QM).

 

And any fractional charge relates to mass, since there is a linear ratio. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-to-charge_ratio

 

I suppose Mills 255 keV value makes a good case for the lowest level favoring 
the 2 electron configuration (hydrino hydride or f/H-) since it returns the 
atomic unit to an uncharged condition.

 

 

From: Eric Walker 

 

Jones Beene wrote:

The 510 keV of Maly & Vavra is almost certainly incorrect, but there are a 
number of values in the range of several hundred keV which represent the total 
energy which can be released in 136 steps.

 

With regard to Mills's theory specifically (not those of Maly or Vavra), in 
some promotional literature for BLP that was promulgated over the list a year 
or two ago, I recall seeing some slideware to the effect that as the electron 
reaches the innermost level, it becomes a photon.  If this understanding is an 
accurate reflection of Mills's theory, it suggests that the electron will have 
given up all of its rest mass.  There would no doubt be some energy left over 
for the residual photon, I suppose; perhaps part of the rest mass of the 
electron, or its kinetic energy?

 

Eric

 

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 5 Jul 2015 22:38:39 -0400:
Hi,
[snip]
>Regardless, great effort is required to bring the H atoms in proximity to
>the catalysts in Rande's containers for the energy transferring collision
>to occur.  

Which is exactly why we are only talking about a weak x-ray line, and not an all
engulfing flood of x-radiation.


>And these catalytic atoms did not exist in the nascent universe,
>only after they had formed in the hearts of stars and the space was vast
>and cold.

Catalyst atoms, in general, existed as soon as Hydrogen atoms came on the scene.

Of course, there wasn't any water, but then you don't know that there were any
3.55 keV x-ray lines then either.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf

[Terry Blanton]

On Sun, Jul 5, 2015 at 10:28 PM,  wrote:

> In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 05 Jul 2015 21:37:24 -0400:
> Hi Terry,
> [snip]
> >I just seems improbable that all those H atoms could have had so many
> collisions to account for most of all matter.  Space is rather large I hear.
>
> I assume by "most of all matter" you are referring to "dark matter".
>
> In short, what I proposed doesn't account for all of dark matter. It
> accounts
> for a 3.55 keV x-ray line. If you read my latest posts carefully, you could
> extract that.
> Most of dark matter is probably other hydrinos that haven't shrunk that far
> (&/or perhaps thin cold plasma? - Which, BTW, might also contribute to red
> shift.)
>
> Regardless, great effort is required to bring the H atoms in proximity to
the catalysts in Rande's containers for the energy transferring collision
to occur.  And these catalytic atoms did not exist in the nascent universe,
only after they had formed in the hearts of stars and the space was vast
and cold.

I may be hand-waving but only to acknowledge signals from Rande.

Re: [Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Terry Blanton's message of Sun, 05 Jul 2015 21:37:24 -0400:
Hi Terry,
[snip]
>I just seems improbable that all those H atoms could have had so many 
>collisions to account for most of all matter.  Space is rather large I hear.

I assume by "most of all matter" you are referring to "dark matter".

In short, what I proposed doesn't account for all of dark matter. It accounts
for a 3.55 keV x-ray line. If you read my latest posts carefully, you could
extract that.
Most of dark matter is probably other hydrinos that haven't shrunk that far
(&/or perhaps thin cold plasma? - Which, BTW, might also contribute to red
shift.)
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

[Vo]:Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf

[Terry Blanton]

I just seems improbable that all those H atoms could have had so many 
collisions to account for most of all matter.  Space is rather large I hear.


Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly hugely 
mindboggingly big it is. I mean you may think it's a long way down the road to 
the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams  The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy




Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone

- Reply message -
From: mix...@bigpond.com
To: 
Subject: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf
Date: Sun, Jul 5, 2015 5:52 PM

If you think this is all a bit far fetched, perhaps you can point out the hole
in the chain of reasoning?

Re: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  Bob Cook's message of Sat, 4 Jul 2015 21:53:20 -0700:
Hi Bob,

No, I wasn't joking. I was dead serious. Mills "Suncell" (his latest and
greatest effort), is based on water as a catalyst. However the water has to be
in mono-molecular form, not vapor (dimer), nor liquid water (hydrogen bonds).
Individual water molecules are likely to be common throughout the universe,
because Hydrogen is the most common element in the universe, and Oxygen is a
byproduct of the carbon cycle in stars, which is also very common.
As for disproportionation, Mills himself claims this is common in space (see his
book).
(In disproportionation reactions one Hydrino may become ionized while acting as
the catalyst to shrink another.)

Note that this process would explain a 3.55 keV signal, but doesn't necessarily
mean that that signal represents (all) dark matter.
The only reason that it has been considered as doing so is that there were two
"loose ends" to deal with, so it was natural to "tie them together".

If you think this is all a bit far fetched, perhaps you can point out the hole
in the chain of reasoning?

>Robin--
>
>I am reluctant to think you are joking about dispropotionation reactions for 
>hydrinos and catalysis of   hydrinos and regular hydrogen  by water, but 
>that crossed my mind.  ( :
>
>Bob
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html

RE: [Vo]:Re: Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: Bob Cook
 
Robin--
> I am reluctant to think you are joking about disproportionation reactions
for 
hydrinos and catalysis of   hydrinos and regular hydrogen  by water, but 
that crossed my mind.  ( :


LOL... Randell Mills theory does strange things to the mind ...