Robin >Prediction: "intrinsic angular momentum" is itself related to charge >somehow, and also to the LST quasi-particle, and all will be resolved >once these three issues are integrated [the three are "intrinsic angular >momentum", charge, and the quasi-particle and the resolution will >explain an apparently chargeless component of the solar wind which has >mass near 1GeV, and "looks" more like a stable neutron than anything >else. That particle is the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride.
RvS: Hydrino-hydride carries a negative charge. Hello. Did you get caught in the Oz vortex? or was the wording not sufficiently lucid (the likely problem) <g> This particle - the solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride is neutral. The particle in question (revised particle from Mills' erroneous assumption) is the PQP2 (proton-quasi-particle sub2) which is a solar-derived non-Millsian hydrino-hydride in this hypothesis. It is hypothetical, like the (erroneous) Hydrino hydride, and consists of a proton strongly bound to two quasi-particle-electrons, of the L.S.T. variety, and has zero overall charge, since the fractional negative (expressed) charges of the two QPs are balanced by the proton's positive. That is what makes it a non-Millsian hydrino-hydride. It is neutral. What I am saying (hypothesizing), in effect, is that Mills got it wrong - at least insofar as the solar (natural) variety of this species is concerned. Perhaps he knows of an earthly manifestation which is charged negatively, but there is no evidence of that in any published experiment AFIK. For the moment, at least, this lack of evidence for a charged variety allows me to affirm with some smugness, that he got it wrong. J.
