You're welcome, Frank. I am aware that the value of the proton radius is questionable, for example
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/Proton.html the two values listed are 0.805 ± 0.011 and 0.862 ± 0.012 femtometers. So there is some wiggle room for theory, but 1.4 seems like too big a stretch from the known experimental evidence. See this for example. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9712347 which is a pretty good summation of work up to that date. Anyway, with these base figures I get a capacity for the proton of ~.96 x 10^-25 Farads. While I don't know how this all fits into your theory, it might prove more profitable to just toss out preconceived notions, find the most accurate measured values, and play with those. As I said, there's some wiggle room with the proton, but not much more than .1 femtometers. I rather like the direction Fred was going with this, although I would disagree that the impedence of the electron is the space impedence. I'd be happy to bat this around, but it seems like this list is still immersed in the kinds of discussion that drove me away last year. If you or anyone else has read this far, and you want to discuss these issues or others relating to the new energy scene, do contact me privately, I run a list for just this purpose. No requirements for joining other than the ability to think rationally and post without (too much ) axe grinding...*grin* Hope this helps. K. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 10:18 PM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: RE: [Vo]: 1.568 x 10 -25 Farads Thank you Keith, I made a mistake in calling the classical radius of the proton and the maximum radius of the proton by the same number. One is actually twice the other. My work required the radius of the proton 1.4 fermi meters. Do you have any ideas of why this is? Frank Znidarsic
