he does give a thickness for the electron shell - it is very small, the thickness is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. The Schwarzschild radius equation applied to the mass of the electron is much smaller than the diameter of the electron shell.
I cut and pasted this from one of his pdf's - the equations are not shown in this email, but it is from page 8 of this: http://www.blacklightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/theory/theorypapers/Classical_Quantum_Mechanics_102804.pdf ============================== quoting from pdf above: The orbitsphere has zero thickness, but in order that the speed of light is a constant maximum in any frame including that of the gravitational field that propagates out as a light-wave front at particle production, it gives rise to a spacetime dilation equal to 2π times the Newtonian gravitational or Schwarzschild radius (equation deleted) according to Eqs. (178) and (202). This corresponds to a spacetime dilation of (equation deleted) Although the orbitsphere does not occupy space in the third spatial dimension, its mass discontinuity effectively "displaces" spacetime wherein the spacetime dilation can be considered a "thickness" associated with its gravitational field ============================ I have a *lot* of detail on Mill's theory at my website http://zhydrogen.com/ Jeff On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:21 PM, David Roberson <[email protected]> wrote: > I also find what appears to be a problem with the theory. Mills makes an > assumption in the very beginning of his analysis that the electron orbit > sphere must be of zero thickness with no radial component if it is to exist > without radiation of electromagnetic waves. This is not true and can > easily be demonstrated in an experiment. You can construct any three > dimensional wire configuration you like containing the 2 dimensional > surface that Mills assumes as well as any sections which head into and out > of the third dimension he rejects. The only constraint is that the current > flowing through this total structure does not change the charge > distribution with time. > > The net result of a system that I am describing is a DC current flowing > through the structure. It does not require any restriction upon its loop > path, contrary to what Mills assumes. Perhaps he should go back to his > original equations and see how this relaxed requirement impacts his model. > There may be implications for the behavior of the hydrino orbitals that he > predicts. It is refreshing to review how he is able to apply classical > theory to the atomic realm and I would love to see quantum theory replaced > with a more deterministic model. That is a long shot. > > Dave > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Axil Axil <[email protected]> > To: vortex-l <[email protected]> > Sent: Fri, Jan 17, 2014 10:33 am > Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: BLP's announcement > > It seems to me that there is a fundamental contradiction in the Mills > theory. This theory is purported to be a universally applied theory of the > atom, but it requires the mediation of a catalyst to appear. > The requirement for a catalyst adds consideration of the chemically based > mediation of other electrons associated with the catalyst to affect the > quantum mechanical behavior of the atom in question. > > The mills hydrino theory is purported to be an atomic theory, but it is > really a condensed matter theory. In other words, the Mills theory cannot > rightfully describe the behavior of a standalone atom in terms of orbits of > its electrons. > Furthermore, the mathematical description of hydrino atom's behavior never > includes the interactions of neighboring electrons and their influence on > the hydrino atom. > In the explanation of his theory to the best of my understanding, Mills > never mentions how the actions and influences of the electrons that are in > the environment of the hydrino atom effect or cause the hydrino atom > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 3:42 PM, JeffD <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I have a website that goes into the details of BLP's theory: >> >> http://zhydrogen.com >> >> I have one PDF (near the top of the home page and shown below) that I >> made that shows interesting calculations dealing with the hydrogen atom - >> and is one of the reasons that I believe Mills's theory is correct. >> >> http://zhydrogen.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/BLP-e-energy.pdf >> >> I still believe in BLP even though I tried to replicate their CIHT >> device last year without success (this is the non-plasma, non-MHD >> version). >> >> http://zhydrogen.com/?page_id=620 >> >> Jeff >> >> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 10:37:50 AM UTC-5, [email protected] wrote: >>> >>> This, this time seems to be remarkable progress- >>> if true: >>> >>> http://www.financialpost.com/markets/news/BlackLight+Power+ >>> Announces+Game+Changing+Achievement+Generation+ >>> Millions/9384649/story.html >>> >>> Let's see- Mike Carrell remained BLP's faithful supporter. >>> Not LENR, but energy >>> >>> Peter >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Peter Gluck >>> Cluj, Romania >>> http://egooutpeters.blogspot.com >>> >> > -- Jeff Driscoll 617-290-1998
