Robin - >Look at it this way - nuclear reactions do not violate conservation of >energy, which is based on valence electron reactions.
>What do nuclear reactions have to do with valence electrons? Sorry for the ambiguity. It is CoE, which has to do with valence electron. Ballotechnics indicates that orders of magnitude more energy are available from inner shells. That would clearly violate CoE if it happens naturally, which it does not normally. > Mills has no dilemma. The energy comes from reduction of potential energy between electron and proton as they get closer together. In his model, the spin angular momentum is constant. There is NO such reduction. Mills is clearly wrong on that, as all his detractors have correctly stated. Potential energy exists when a force acts upon an object that tends to restore it to a lower energy configuration, and there is no lower energy configuration than the ground state. Either he has lower spin angular momentum, or his gain does not exist (unless by ZPE). That is his dilemma. Jones
