Fran,
Mills may be doubly wrong – if that is really what he has been claiming recently. I haven’t followed his most recent delusions. According to my understanding of the several Miley, Holmlid, Hora papers – the electron is NOT bound to the nucleus when in the inverted Rydberg state (IRH). In fact, the electron can be relatively stationary (deflated) and the proton can circulate. Lawandy also claims the electron is mirrored in an adjacent dielectric – not orbital. When the electron is not bound in a periodic motion of some kind around the nucleus, there is NO orbital. When there is no orbital there can be NO fractional orbital. Miley makes this clear. IOW – yes there are electrons in the general vicinity, which balance the electrostatic charge of protons or deuterons, but according to Miley the electrons in IRH are not located in orbitals around the protons - which includes fractional orbitals. My apology if I have misread these papers. If I had to chose which one is correct - between Miley and Mills – that is a no brainer. Jones From: Roarty, Francis X That is exactly what I was saying… Now that Mills admits the “hydrino” is actually fractional Rydberg hydrogen the term hydrino not only becomes redundant but also carries all the baggage of his previously wrong definition that caused so much controversy
