Frederick Sparber asks, > If the magnetic field of the electron repels the proton field or balances the 8.0e-8 newton attractive electrostatic force between the electron and proton, how can you get a fractional orbit electron?
Because the magnetic field "alone" is not what balances (neutralizes) the attractive force of the nucleus? That is a little too glib. But if one assumes that the magnetic field alone, or as expressed in spin or a centrifugal component, is enough from the start, then yes one will end up using certain assumptions which do indeed "make" it seem to balance out ;-) And certainly the magnetic field does some of the job. According to Mills and I think he is correct on this one point, there is also a "gluon-like" particle within the orbit which mediates the attractive force, somewhat as in the nucleus. But I do understand that Fred's version of string theory doesn't recognize the need for a gluon either. We are free to disagree on that. According to Mills, this "mediator" particle is a photon in multiples of 27.2 (13.6) eV, but one does not have to accept that either. Because it, whatever "it" is, it appears instanly and almost magicly when an electron is being caputred by a free proton... to me this means that it comes directly from Dirac's sea. But that is way beyond anything in CQM. Which is a good thing. This so-called photon may not even be a photon at all, but instead may consist of pairs of particles, perhaps they are even paired "light leptons" of mass/energy about 3.4 eV (which in the absence of the normal electron will mutually anhilate to give, firstly the 6.8 eV bonding energy of Ps and then in higher multiples, all the other common emissions of hydrogen. 3.4 eV is very tightly woven into alpha. It is a bit ironic that FS came up with the more general "light lepton" notion, but has now abandoned it entirely in his string theory. Then again, maybe he is correct. He is certainly correct in saying that is difficult - OK impossible to get "shrinkage" below some high level, and perhaps that is the first level. If that is the case, then once a hydrino is formed, it will either 1) Stay immobilized as a hydride in the catalyst where it is formed, or 2) Reinflate to normal endothemically, or 3) Collapse all at once with no added input Mills doesn't believe in 2 and 3, but again, it is certainly logical that anyone can accept his fine experimental work while acknowledging that he got some of the theory wrong. Admittely I am a comparative loggerhead in nuclear theory compared to Mills or Fred, so this version may be only an aethetically pleasing hypothesis that pays homage to Dirac -nevertheless the idea of numerous pairs of 3.4 eV light-leptons operated as mediators is compelling for other reasons that transcend mathematics. And, as to the mathematics, the two perspectives do not jibe with each other anyway, so pending that day.... let's test all the options. Plus, unlike Mills, many of us fence-straddlers, Fred included are more than willing to change opinions within microseconds of "seeing the light", so to speak. Having invested an inordinate amount of time with his book, which though inspired with many glimpses of the truth (like the notion of the captured particle), to me it seems to be the most brilliant failed-effort of recent time. OTOH, his experimental results are as solid or better than anything in the LENR world. That is despite a partially flawed theory, and despite his stubborness not to use deuterium, and despite his stubborness not to acknowledge other hypotheses. Basically, his experimental work is better than anything in LENR because he has the had the financial resources to do it right. Jones
