Bob, there is only one physical radius for the proton, the charge radius.
Frank’s value is way off since he has always confused Compton wavelength with a physical dimension. Sure, we can recognize duality here, but if you want something to be based on a “speed” or quantum velocity less than c, as he does, then you must use the physical dimension not the equivalent wavelength. It’s really not that complicated: the Compton wavelength of a particle is equivalent to the wavelength of a photon whose mass-energy is the same as the rest-mass energy of the particle - which as you can see in the case of the proton - cannot be identical to the protons physical radius. That photon wave always travels at c, which is not the value which Frank has invented. I am not saying that Frank’s value has no relevance to some phenomenon, but he has never been able to demonstrate that AFAIK. The extent of the strong force is immaterial. Jones From: Bob Cook Jones-- I think the item I just copied regarding the Woods-Saxon potential indicates for Hydrogen, Z=1, that Frank is closer to the listed radius of 1.23 fm than you are at your .866 fm. I think your radius is a "rms charge radius". You and Frank may be talking about different dimensions of a nucleus. Yours clearly only applies to a single proton as I understand it and is not a radius associated with the extent of the strong nuclear force. Correct me if I am wrong. Bob Cook ----- Original Message ----- From: Jones Beene <mailto:jone...@pacbell.net> To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 12:04 PM Subject: RE: [Vo]:1995- CETI 1kW reacto claim . fraud or not? Sorry Frank, but you are just as wrong now as you were then. http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?rp|search_for=proton+radius ----- Original Message ----- From: Frank Znidarsic <mailto:fznidar...@aol.com> There were those that stated that my analysis was wrong because the wrong numbers came out of it. Our Jones Beene was one of them. He said the radius of a nucleon was .866 fm not 1.36 fm. They bashed me badly
