Robert Laughlin laid out the basics of the fractional quantum Hall effect nearly 30 years ago but the implications for alternative energy have been slow to be absorbed. Ken Shoulder's EVO bears some resemblance, but other than that, fractionally charged electrons are seldom mentioned in any practical device. This is easily explainable, since the spatial context needs to be 2D, and most experimenters have not thought to actually design for less than 3 dimensions. But they could get there (2D) in one notable unintended way. On closer introspection, so to speak, I think the fractional charge effect can go hand-in-hand with a hypothetical "dynamic Casimir force" or ZPE pump. I've written a couple of posts on this in the context of "Casimir heating" and FRET, and Fran Roarty has expressed similar thinking on his blog page. Scott Smith's paper, recently cited also builds on combining asymmetry and nano-cavities for a dynamic of vectored effect. Today's version of the general nano-cavity theme, if nothing else, allows one to avoid invoking relativistic effects, if that turns out to be necessary (not saying that it is necessary). The substitute for velocity, in this hypothesis, would be diminution of the electron charge. I won't go into all of the lore of monatomic hydrogen, going back to the Langmuir, or the Mills' version of fractional hydrogen called the hydrino - except to say that there is another possibility that encompasses both of these phenomena - and it can explain other "hot hydrogen" (HH) phenomena or anomalies, so long as we limit it to two dimensions. This possibility would also suggest that a Casimir cavity is or acts 'as if' it were a two dimensional space. There are a number of papers on this second prerequisite, many of them by Calloni, but I will save that for another time. The argument is sound. According to Laughlin, electrons can form an exotic state with fractional charge in two dimensions. Unlike the putative hydrino, this seemingly odder beast is accepted by the mainstream. It has even won a Nobel. Consequently, taking this bit of insight to the next level - given that all electrons are happy to form pairs, it is suggested that HH is itself related to FQHE via paired electrons. The electron with fractional charge can be designated as an "f/e" or fractional electron; and the atom/molecule is hot-hydrogen or HH which is NOT exactly monatomic hydrogen (which has a short half-life) nor a hydrino, nor a fractional ground state, nor an ion but instead consists of a single proton and two fractional electrons which have a net charge of one (in bulk but not necessarily in every cavity), providing stability and long life in orbitals which instead of being 'shrunken' are instead 'expanded'. HH = p+2f/e. Thus HH can form in a Casimir cavity, releasing energy and perhaps is only stable there. There must be a source of free electrons (ground) so this may not work in space. The energy released is equivalent to the elemental electron charge (on average) since that much charge is "lost", but is seen in the form of UV photons and probably derives from the Dirac epo field in packets of 6.8 eV (that is my guess, with little data to support it) In Laughlin's FQHE, the denominator of electron charge is odd, so f/e's can carry one-third, one-fifth, two-thirds, two-fifths or three-fifths etc - of the normal charge. This creates an asymmetry permitting a slightly charged species in an individual site, or else asymmetric orbitals, even if the local collective area is net neutral. The practical problem for formation is that monatomic hydrogen is extremely reactive at room temperature. On the short list of materials that will allow apparently it, based on actual experiment: tungsten and nickel. The reason that nano-cavities in these two elements work is probably related to low "compreture" or virtual cryogenics (which would be a negative 8th power) but that is a subject for another time, since Grimer no longer posts here. To paraphrase another observer on the bizarre reality of FQHE: "It is very difficult to explain intuitively - it is just how nature works". . but can we allow an even more bizarre hypothesis ride on its coattails, simply because it may answer a few more questions with less baggage than the others? Jones
