RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

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]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Eric Walker]

On Sat, Jul 4, 2015 at 5:46 PM, 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]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills - Mathcad - table.pdf

[mixent]

In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Sun, 05 Jul 2015 13:38:34 +1000:
Hi,

BTW, I would guess that Hydrinos in this size category may not last long, as
they would probably undergo nuclear reactions fairly readily (unless well
separated from other matter), thus the spectral line seen is probably from
freshly made Hydrinos. IOW this may not be a dark matter signal after all.

However, on the upside, it may explain LENR quite nicely. ;)

>In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 4 Jul 2015 19:47:40 -0700:
>Hi Jones,
>[snip]
>
>Ok, I found the reason. It lies in the disproportionation reactions.
>
>If you start with a mixture of p = 16 & p = 4, you get:- (16^2)/2 + 4 = 132.
>(Formula derivation available on request).
>
>Note that water molecules are an m=3 catalyst, so interstellar water molecules
>reacting with Hydrogen atoms will create p = 4 hydrinos in a single reaction.
>This provides a relatively large population of p = 4 hydrinos.
>
>p = 16 is special because the Hydrinohydride for p = 16, has the highest 
>binding
>energy for the second electron (70 eV), so obviously this hydride is going to 
>be
>the most stable, which means that as hydrinos shrink, they will tend to get
>stuck at this level, and thus p=16 hydrinos will accumulate (as the hydride).
>This provides a large population of p = 16 hydrinos.
>
>When members of both populations mix, you get p=132 hydrinos.
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 4 Jul 2015 19:47:40 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]

Ok, I found the reason. It lies in the disproportionation reactions.

If you start with a mixture of p = 16 & p = 4, you get:- (16^2)/2 + 4 = 132.
(Formula derivation available on request).

Note that water molecules are an m=3 catalyst, so interstellar water molecules
reacting with Hydrogen atoms will create p = 4 hydrinos in a single reaction.
This provides a relatively large population of p = 4 hydrinos.

p = 16 is special because the Hydrinohydride for p = 16, has the highest binding
energy for the second electron (70 eV), so obviously this hydride is going to be
the most stable, which means that as hydrinos shrink, they will tend to get
stuck at this level, and thus p=16 hydrinos will accumulate (as the hydride).
This provides a large population of p = 16 hydrinos.

When members of both populations mix, you get p=132 hydrinos.

>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>
>> Guessing that the observed value might match a different transition, I
>created a little table for p = 120-136 ...As you can see, p=132->133 is a
>good match 
>
>Interesting. Nothing obvious pops up at first glance - as to why this
>132/133 level would be favored for dark matter. However, reading up on x-ray
>spectra in this energy range, there is almost nothing else in physics known
>to have much relevance. 
>
>So we can relegate this datum into the archive and maybe something pops up
>in a few months or years ...
>
>
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

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

[Jones Beene]

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

> Guessing that the observed value might match a different transition, I
created a little table for p = 120-136 ...As you can see, p=132->133 is a
good match 

Interesting. Nothing obvious pops up at first glance - as to why this
132/133 level would be favored for dark matter. However, reading up on x-ray
spectra in this energy range, there is almost nothing else in physics known
to have much relevance. 

So we can relegate this datum into the archive and maybe something pops up
in a few months or years ...

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 4 Jul 2015 16:54:51 -0700:
Hi Jones,

Actually it should be 13.598, rather than 13.6, and for a transition from 136 to
137 a catalyst with m=1 is required, which absorbs 27.2 eV first, so the actual
amount remaining to be emitted as a photon would be 3658 eV.

Guessing that the observed value might match a different transition, I created a
little table (attached) for p = 120-136 (i.e. transitions from 120->121;
121->122; 122->123 etc.). As you can see, p=132->133 is a good match for the
value you supply.
(Formula is (2p-3)*13.598. This takes into account the 27.2 eV for the
catalyst.) BTW a catalyst of 27.2 eV could comprise two hydrogen atoms, in a
three particle collision. Perhaps not so rare as you might think, if a fast
Hydrino were to impact a Hydrogen molecule, splitting the molecule into two
atoms, which then catalyze the shrinkage reaction while still in the proximity
of the Hydrino.

>Robin,
>
>Yes this Rydberg calculation is close, but probably not close enough. Red
>shift could change that assessment and make it exact.
>
>As you know, Mills addressed this issue years ago (that dark matter is
>composed of hydrinos) and he concocted a formula that unfortunately provides
>a value which is also close, but not even as exact as this one. I do not
>have that reference handy but it is in the archives. Mills should have
>waited to see the exact observed value - as now he looks a bit foolish.
>
>3.55 keV to 3.56 keV is the dark matter signal which is seen from satellites
>in earth orbit and is verified by dozens of cosmologists and Universities
>nowadays. Any theory that explains dark matter should be able to account for
>this exact value.
>
>Since 95% of observable matter is hydrogen, it is a good bet that dark
>matter is hydrogen in another form - but of course, it could be something
>else entirely and there are a few candidates but none are as convincing as
>dense hydrogen. 
>
>-Original Message-
>From: mix...@bigpond.com 
>In reply to  Jones Beene's message:
>Hi,
>
>For Mills, the difference between any two adjacent states is (2p-1)*13.6 eV
>where p is the smaller of the two numbers.
>
>Thus the difference between 136 & 137 would be:
>
>((2*136)-1)*13.6 eV = 3686 eV.
>
>Regards,
>
>Robin van Spaandonk
>
>http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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


Mathcad - table.pdf
Description: Binary data

RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

Robin,

Yes this Rydberg calculation is close, but probably not close enough. Red
shift could change that assessment and make it exact.

As you know, Mills addressed this issue years ago (that dark matter is
composed of hydrinos) and he concocted a formula that unfortunately provides
a value which is also close, but not even as exact as this one. I do not
have that reference handy but it is in the archives. Mills should have
waited to see the exact observed value - as now he looks a bit foolish.

3.55 keV to 3.56 keV is the dark matter signal which is seen from satellites
in earth orbit and is verified by dozens of cosmologists and Universities
nowadays. Any theory that explains dark matter should be able to account for
this exact value.

Since 95% of observable matter is hydrogen, it is a good bet that dark
matter is hydrogen in another form - but of course, it could be something
else entirely and there are a few candidates but none are as convincing as
dense hydrogen. 

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 
In reply to  Jones Beene's message:
Hi,

For Mills, the difference between any two adjacent states is (2p-1)*13.6 eV
where p is the smaller of the two numbers.

Thus the difference between 136 & 137 would be:

((2*136)-1)*13.6 eV = 3686 eV.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Sat, 4 Jul 2015 15:46:57 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]

For Mills, the difference between any two adjacent states is (2p-1)*13.6 eV
where p is the smaller of the two numbers.

Thus the difference between 136 & 137 would be:

((2*136)-1)*13.6 eV = 3686 eV.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

Bob,

 

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. Robin has mentioned his value around 
255207+eV but that is almost certainly wrong if FQHE is the correct criterion. 
The principal series of such fractions in FQHE are 1/3, 2/5, 3/7, 2/3, 3/5, 
3/7… but not ½. 

 

This large value is a net release of all the steps, however, and does not 
represent the end state vis-à-vis adjoining levels which can be in real time. 
That is what I am after – the end value which can cycle as an ongoing emission. 
The end state cannot be the full mass-energy of the electron, but could be 
related to the fractions which are seen in the FQHE. With dark matter, the 
lowest stable orbit is assumed to have been reached sometime in the distant 
past, billions of years ago (for most of the mass of dark matter).

 

What is seen now – in literally hundreds of galaxies, so it assumed to be dark 
matter, is the widespread signal at 3.65 KeV. THIS IS FACT, not theory.

 

Everything else is open to interpretation, but evidence is quite strong that 
this is the signature of dark matter. This signal – in the context of Mills 
hydrino can be attributed to the cycling between two of the lower states – for 
instance, when a gravity wave passes through a cloud of dark matter. Although 
there is lots dark matter, it is assumed to be the form of a relatively diffuse 
cloud.

 

 

From: Bob Higgins 

 

However, Maly & Vavra, and Naudts predict the lowest DDL state as giving up 510 
keV to be reached, not 3.56 keV.  That is 2 orders of magnitude lower energy 
for their DDL solution than what you are describing.  Where has all the energy 
gone in this calculation?

 

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

Robin, for the record, can we list the smallest theoretical state of hydrogen 
redundancy for your model, Mills' model, DDL, and Arbab's model … in terms of 
mass-energy.

We can start with the most literal case, where there are 136 Hydrino energy 
levels below 1/1 (1/2 - 1/137), and the ionization energy required is a whole 
integer multiple of 27.2 eV, where the integer is 2...137. In this case, 27.2 
eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 

1) 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 

2) DDL observed (as dark matter) 3.56 keV

3)

4)

Etc.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 

In reply to  Jones Beene's message:

Hi,

>On vortex, many different variations exist on the theme of f/H or 

>"dense hydrogen clusters" (even as being identical to dark matter).

> 

>These are different from Mills' theory to varying degrees, despite 

>similarities. Miley, Hora, Lawandy and Meulenberg have delved in with 

>insight and Robin has another version, closer to Mills.

> 

>Here is something that has not been mentioned before - AFAIK. "The 

>Fractional Hydrogen Atom: A Paradigm for Astrophysical Phenomena" Author- I.

>Arbab  Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of 

>Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan.

His "protonium" is actually very close to the smallest state in my model.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

 

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

[mixent]

In reply to  Roarty, Francis X's message of Sat, 4 Jul 2015 11:57:36 +:
Hi Fran,
[snip]
>Robin said [snip] This is perhaps because it's the electron the shrinks, while 
>the assumption is
>made that the proton is constant.
>This would result in a p value for the maximum energy release in my model of 
>119
>and a matching energy of 102 keV. [/snip]
>
>Robin... and what value if both electron and proton shrink like near C 
>hydrogen ejected from the corona or Naudts theory of relativistic hydrogen? 
>Fran

This is your pet theory, why don't you work it out yourself?  You understand it
better than I do. :)
[snip]
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Bob Higgins]

However, Maly & Vavra, and Naudts predict the lowest DDL state as giving up
510 keV to be reached, not 3.56 keV.  That is 2 orders of magnitude lower
energy for their DDL solution than what you are describing.  Where has all
the energy gone in this calculation?

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 5:52 PM, Jones Beene  wrote:

>  Robin, for the record, can we list the smallest theoretical state of
> hydrogen redundancy for your model, Mills' model, DDL, and Arbab's model …
> in terms of mass-energy.
>
> We can start with the most literal case, where there are 136 Hydrino
> energy levels below 1/1 (1/2 - 1/137), and the ionization energy required
> is a whole integer multiple of 27.2 eV, where the integer is 2...137. In
> this case, 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV.
>
> 1) 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV.
>
> 2) DDL observed (as dark matter) 3.56 keV
>
> 3)
>
> 4)
>
> Etc.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: mix...@bigpond.com
>
> In reply to  Jones Beene's message:
>
> Hi,
>
> >On vortex, many different variations exist on the theme of f/H or
>
> >"dense hydrogen clusters" (even as being identical to dark matter).
>
> >
>
> >These are different from Mills' theory to varying degrees, despite
>
> >similarities. Miley, Hora, Lawandy and Meulenberg have delved in with
>
> >insight and Robin has another version, closer to Mills.
>
> >
>
> >Here is something that has not been mentioned before - AFAIK. "The
>
> >Fractional Hydrogen Atom: A Paradigm for Astrophysical Phenomena" Author-
> I.
>
> >Arbab  Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of
>
> >Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan.
>
> His "protonium" is actually very close to the smallest state in my model.
>
> Regards,
>
> Robin van Spaandonk
>
> http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
>
>

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

[Roarty, Francis X]

Robin said [snip] This is perhaps because it's the electron the shrinks, while 
the assumption is
made that the proton is constant.
This would result in a p value for the maximum energy release in my model of 119
and a matching energy of 102 keV. [/snip]

Robin... and what value if both electron and proton shrink like near C hydrogen 
ejected from the corona or Naudts theory of relativistic hydrogen? 
Fran

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com [mailto:mix...@bigpond.com] 
Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 2:39 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: EXTERNAL: Re: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:52:31 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>Robin, for the record, can we list the smallest theoretical state of
>hydrogen redundancy for your model, Mills' model, DDL, and Arbab's model .
>in terms of mass-energy.
>
>We can start with the most literal case, where there are 136 Hydrino energy
>levels below 1/1 (1/2 - 1/137), and the ionization energy required is a
>whole integer multiple of 27.2 eV, where the integer is 2...137. In this
>case, 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 
>
I don't think this is quite what you think it is. 

This is almost how the size of the energy hole is calculated that triggers
shrinkage from the ground state, except that the value of the integer is off by
one. I.e. to go from the ground state to 137 in one step would require an energy
hole of 27.2 x (137 - 1) = 3698.7 eV. However the total energy released in going
to that state from the ground state is (137^2 * 13.6) - 13.6 = 255207.264 eV
(almost half an electron mass BTW). The ionization energy from this state would
be the same except that the 13.6 is not subtracted because the end state is
complete ionization not the ground state from which we started to shrink. IOW
the ionization energy would be 255220.862 eV. 

For IRH, I'm not sure what it is, and I don't think even the proponents know
exactly, though I could be wrong about that. If one makes the assumption that
the proton circles around a stationary electron, and uses the same formula that
one would use to calculate the Bohr orbit, but with proton mass substituted for
electron mass, then one gets a value of about 25000 eV.

For Arbab's model one gets a value of 255000eV i.e. half an electron mass
equivalent when n=alpha. (Neutron star). This is essentially the same value
Mills gets for a TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere). The difference is in the
radius, i.e. for Mills' TSO the radius is the fine structure constant (alpha) x
ground state radius, whereas for Arbab, the radius is equal to the classical
electron radius, i.e. alpha _squared_ times ground state radius, thus alpha
times Mills TSO. This is a direct consequence of Mills assuming that trapped
photons create pseudo charge increasing the electric field of the nucleus.

BTW, I want to thank you for posing the question, because it made me examine my
own model more closely. I noticed that only when the weighting factor is 1 (i.e.
all the mass loss comes from the electron), does it result in a radius equal to
the classical electron radius when n=alpha (same as Arbab). I think 1 is
probably the correct value for the weighting factor that I was always uncertain
about.
This is perhaps because it's the electron the shrinks, while the assumption is
made that the proton is constant.
This would result in a p value for the maximum energy release in my model of 119
and a matching energy of 102 keV.

Don't know much about DDL, however Google supplied 
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
a.o. which is interesting and also refers to:

J. Maly and J. Va'vra, Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II, Fusion
Technology, Vol. 27, January 1995.

>1) 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 
>2) DDL observed (as dark matter) 3.56 keV
>3)
>4)
>Etc.
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:52:31 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>Robin, for the record, can we list the smallest theoretical state of
>hydrogen redundancy for your model, Mills' model, DDL, and Arbab's model .
>in terms of mass-energy.
>
>We can start with the most literal case, where there are 136 Hydrino energy
>levels below 1/1 (1/2 - 1/137), and the ionization energy required is a
>whole integer multiple of 27.2 eV, where the integer is 2...137. In this
>case, 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 
>
I don't think this is quite what you think it is. 

This is almost how the size of the energy hole is calculated that triggers
shrinkage from the ground state, except that the value of the integer is off by
one. I.e. to go from the ground state to 137 in one step would require an energy
hole of 27.2 x (137 - 1) = 3698.7 eV. However the total energy released in going
to that state from the ground state is (137^2 * 13.6) - 13.6 = 255207.264 eV
(almost half an electron mass BTW). The ionization energy from this state would
be the same except that the 13.6 is not subtracted because the end state is
complete ionization not the ground state from which we started to shrink. IOW
the ionization energy would be 255220.862 eV. 

For IRH, I'm not sure what it is, and I don't think even the proponents know
exactly, though I could be wrong about that. If one makes the assumption that
the proton circles around a stationary electron, and uses the same formula that
one would use to calculate the Bohr orbit, but with proton mass substituted for
electron mass, then one gets a value of about 25000 eV.

For Arbab's model one gets a value of 255000eV i.e. half an electron mass
equivalent when n=alpha. (Neutron star). This is essentially the same value
Mills gets for a TSO (Transition State Orbitsphere). The difference is in the
radius, i.e. for Mills' TSO the radius is the fine structure constant (alpha) x
ground state radius, whereas for Arbab, the radius is equal to the classical
electron radius, i.e. alpha _squared_ times ground state radius, thus alpha
times Mills TSO. This is a direct consequence of Mills assuming that trapped
photons create pseudo charge increasing the electric field of the nucleus.

BTW, I want to thank you for posing the question, because it made me examine my
own model more closely. I noticed that only when the weighting factor is 1 (i.e.
all the mass loss comes from the electron), does it result in a radius equal to
the classical electron radius when n=alpha (same as Arbab). I think 1 is
probably the correct value for the weighting factor that I was always uncertain
about.
This is perhaps because it's the electron the shrinks, while the assumption is
made that the proton is constant.
This would result in a p value for the maximum energy release in my model of 119
and a matching energy of 102 keV.

Don't know much about DDL, however Google supplied 
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
a.o. which is interesting and also refers to:

J. Maly and J. Va’vra, Electron Transitions on Deep Dirac Levels II, Fusion
Technology, Vol. 27, January 1995.

>1) 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 
>2) DDL observed (as dark matter) 3.56 keV
>3)
>4)
>Etc.
>
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

RE: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[Jones Beene]

Robin, for the record, can we list the smallest theoretical state of
hydrogen redundancy for your model, Mills' model, DDL, and Arbab's model .
in terms of mass-energy.

We can start with the most literal case, where there are 136 Hydrino energy
levels below 1/1 (1/2 - 1/137), and the ionization energy required is a
whole integer multiple of 27.2 eV, where the integer is 2...137. In this
case, 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 

1) 27.2 eV x 137 = 3726.4 eV. 
2) DDL observed (as dark matter) 3.56 keV
3)
4)
Etc.

-Original Message-
From: mix...@bigpond.com 
In reply to  Jones Beene's message:
Hi,
>On vortex, many different variations exist on the theme of f/H or 
>"dense hydrogen clusters" (even as being identical to dark matter).
>
>These are different from Mills' theory to varying degrees, despite 
>similarities. Miley, Hora, Lawandy and Meulenberg have delved in with 
>insight and Robin has another version, closer to Mills.
>
>Here is something that has not been mentioned before - AFAIK. "The 
>Fractional Hydrogen Atom: A Paradigm for Astrophysical Phenomena" Author-
I.
>Arbab  Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of 
>Khartoum, Khartoum, Sudan.

His "protonium" is actually very close to the smallest state in my model.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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

Re: [Vo]:Fractional Hydrogen without Mills

[mixent]

In reply to  Jones Beene's message of Fri, 3 Jul 2015 11:40:35 -0700:
Hi,
[snip]
>On vortex, many different variations exist on the theme of f/H or "dense
>hydrogen clusters" (even as being identical to dark matter). 
>
>These are different from Mills' theory to varying degrees, despite
>similarities. Miley, Hora, Lawandy and Meulenberg have delved in with
>insight and Robin has another version, closer to Mills. 
>
>Here is something that has not been mentioned before - AFAIK. "The
>Fractional Hydrogen Atom: A Paradigm for Astrophysical Phenomena" Author- I.
>Arbab  Department of Physics, Faculty of Science, University of Khartoum,
>Khartoum, Sudan.

His "protonium" is actually very close to the smallest state in my model.

Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

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