Electricity
Rainer Huck of ISUS has, for quite some time, been promoting the idea that "voltage" is the ratio between the number of charged and uncharged electrons in a conductor. I looked into that idea when he originally presented it to me at the ISUS Conference in 1996, but have never come up with an explanation, nor validation of it, with Larson's RS.
Phil and I were talking today and he brought up Rainer's ideas again, so I took a look at it with the electron concepts of RS2, since we do have a slightly different electron model than Larson. Here is what I found out:
First, an understanding of how legacy science views "positive" and "negative" charges in electric current, and how Larson labeled them:
... On this basis, the term "positive" would always refer to a time displacement (low speed), and the term "negative" wouild always refer to a space displacement (high speed). ... For present purposes, therefore, current usage will be followed, and the charges on positive elements [time displacements] will be designated as positive. This means that the significance of the terms "positive" and "negative" with respect to rotation is reversed in application to charge.... To avoid the possibility of confusion, the terms "positive" and "negative" will be accompanied by asterisks when used in the reverse manner [the manner legacy science uses them].
Larson's electron is constructed upon a material rotational base (time displacement), with an associated spatial rotation. The charge on this combination thus takes place in time, and is makes the electron "negative*". Larson does not have a "positive" charge, as postulated by legacy science.
In RS2, the electron is actually a cosmic positron with a spatial displacement, giving it the appearance of a positive* particle. Being cosmic, it appears as ENERGY, t/s, which is interpreted as a charge, though does not act like charge since there is no rotational vibration associated with it. Hence, uncharged electrons do not repel each other.
When the uncharged electron acquires a charge, the charge is temporal, making it a negative*, charged particle; static electricity.
The conclusion here is fairly obvious: RS2 has BOTH positive (uncharged) and negative (charged) electrons. Since "voltage" is the difference between negative and positive potentials (quantities of electrons), Rainer was EXACTLY correct... what we measure as voltage is the difference between charged (-) and uncharged (+) electrons in a conductor.
This has some other wide-ranging implications. Basic electronics talks of "electrons" and "holes" that move in opposite directions in a conductor, which forms the basis of our electronic theory. RS2 now has TWO particles that actually DO that, the uncharged electron (cosmic positron, a "hole" in space), and the charged electron (the common, negative charge). This brings the RS2 electronic theory MUCH closer to what is observed than Larson's original idea of electric current, and should make a connection between RS2 and legacy theory much simpler.
As a consequence, it should also be noted that the uncharged electrons will flow in the opposite direction of charged electrons in a conductor; the "current" of the uncharged electrons being proportional to the cross-section, and the "charge" of the charged electrons being proportional to the circumference of the conductor.
RS2 is still in agreement with Larson in regards to the uncharged electron being the carrier of electric current, but it does change some of his conclusions regarding inductance and capacitance, which I will address in a separate topic.
So Kudos to Rainer for spotting this so long ago. RS2 proves he was right, all along, and he has just opened up a far more comprehensive electronic theory for the RS.
davelook
Tue, 07/31/2007 - 22:50
Permalink
Electricity
Here's an interesting paper showing that Quantized VOLTAGE, not resistance, is the basic of the Quantum Hall Effect...
http://nvl.nist.gov/pub/nistpubs/jres/101/2/j2cage.pdf
I hope somebody can translate the voltage into natural terms.
bperet
Wed, 08/01/2007 - 02:08
Permalink
Electricity
It is an interesting paper. One might also want to look at the Wikipedia entry for the quantum Hall effect. What I find particularly interesting is the "fractional" quantum Hall Effect, where conductance is based on a fraction composed of two counting numbers (2/7, 1/3, 3/5).
In the "displacement" discussion, we found in RS2 that the displacement, which Larson always calculated as the aspect of speed minus one (1/4 = displacement of 4-1 = 3), is actually the DIFFERENCE between the spatial and temporal magnitudes (1/4 = 4-1 = 3, or 2/7 = 7-2 = 5 (Larson has no notation for fractions such as 2/7... one aspect must be unity). The usefulness of this method of calculating displacement becomes apparent when electrons need to have a higher speed, aka "energy". The electron, 0-0-(1) has speeds of [ 1/1 - 1/1 - 2/1 ]. In RS2, other values are also allowed: [ 1/1 - 1/1 - 54/53 ] (since 54-53 still equals (1), giving the appearance of 0-0-(1) but having additional energy.
These fractional quantum numbers in the Hall effect seem to be indicative of the scalar electron speed, not the electron displacement. Still need to do some more research, but I thought I'd mention it since it is an interesting correlation.
Voltage is Electro-Motive Force (EMF), and has units of force, t/s2.
In RS2, the electron is the cosmic positron, C 0-0-(1). It resides in the SPACE region (not the TIME region), of 1/s. When an electron captures a photon (t/s), the linear vibration of the photon imparts a rotational vibration to the electron, creating a "charge". In natural units: 1/s (electron) x t/s (photon) = t/s2 (force = EMF = Voltage).
davelook
Wed, 08/01/2007 - 18:06
Permalink
Electricity
This paper seems to back that up...
http://juwel.fz-juelich.de:8080/dspace/bitstream/2128/2069/1/19406.pdf
The quantum DC voltage steps are a function the the freq. irradiating the junction, and the Josephson constant, 2e/h, 4.836 X 10^14 Hz/V.
In ST terms, this is freq / Hz/V => 1/t x t^2/s^2, => t/s^2 (voltage).
bperet
Thu, 08/02/2007 - 16:31
Permalink
Electricity
If Larson is correct, I think we will find that EVERYTHING exhibits quantum behavior if you look hard enough... voltage, current, and even resistance because they are all composed of discrete units of motion. It is good to have supporting evidence.
There is a lot of evidence that the charged electron is an electron+photon, particularly when you get into radio applications.
There are a number of difficulties with Larson's "current" model in this area. Conventional application says that the RF is emitted from an antenna because of the electrons jumping orbital states in the conduction band and emitting photons. The RS, however, has NO orbital electrons, as the electrons pass through the nucleus, not around it, so there is no way to generate radio waves from the system.
The electron+photon combination is basically static electricity, which does NOT move through the atoms as an uncharged electron does (not being a unit of space), but along the skin of the conductor--the basic for antenna design. To transmit the radio wave, all the electron has to do is to lose the attached photon, which is emitted at the speed of light, and returns the electron to the uncharged state, which can then be carried back into the circuit as electric current.
I think the key is an understanding of Planck's constant. I'll do a separate topic on that.
Horace
Fri, 08/03/2007 - 20:31
Permalink
Electricity
Wouldn't a radioactive antenna skin make it easier for the charged electrons to shed the photons?
Another question that begs an answer is "Why does the frequency of the released photons mirror the frequency of the RF electric current?"
bperet
Sat, 08/04/2007 - 16:13
Permalink
Electricity
Can't see how that would help--a charged electron is not longer a rotating unit of space, so it is moving through the space of the wire, not the time (atoms). Radiation is emitted from the breakup of the nucleus (the atomic rotations), so it would free electric current (uncharged), not the charged electrons, and the beta radiation would probably just introduce static into the emission.
Was there something specific you were thinking of with this idea?
Conventional electronics measures the movement of charges in a conductor, not electrons (being unaware of the uncharged electron altogether), so there is a good possibility that what they are measuring is the frequency of the charge, not the electric current itself.
I am just starting to collect data on AC to see what is actually going on at an atomic level with resonant circuits and transients. It may not be as conventional electronics describes it.
As I've posted elsewhere, I suspect that the positive electric charges are not the depletion of orbital electrons (since there aren't any in the RS), but the presence of uncharged electrons in the nucleus, and the negative charges are the charged electrons moving within the space of the conductor; the ratio between the two giving the potential difference, as Rainer Huck suggested.
Semiconductor data seems to indicate that "holes" and "electrons" will pair up, which is hard to do if the 'hole' isn't something physical, and I think the phenomenon is probably more predominant than the literature states. What that means in RS terms is that we are dealing with bi-rotating electrons (localized in time, non-local in space since the RS2 electron is cosmic), in which one electron captures a photon, acquiring a charge--but still connected. This would explain the numeric correspondence between "holes" and "electrons" in electrostatic experiments.
As a precedent for electron pairing, look at the free gases, such as H2, O2, N2... all paired up, rather than remaining as ions. And what could be more "ionic" than an electron?
davelook
Thu, 11/29/2007 - 12:54
Permalink
Fine Stucture Constant really IS 1/128!
Th following might be old news to you guys (the article is from 1997), but while I knew "high energy" experiments got values closer to 1/128, I hadn't ever read THIS!
From http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/pdfs/data/1997/151-06/15106-12.pdf...
From their data, the researchers obtained a value of the fine structure constant, a number
that characterizes the inherent strength of the electromagnetic force. As expected theoretically,
the newly obtained value of 1/128.5 is significantly larger than the 1/137 observed for a fully
screened electron.
“Ours is a clean measurement of the electromagnetic effect,” Koltick says. In higher-energy
experiments at other accelerators, the effect is swamped by additional factors, including the
strong force, which holds neutrons and protons together in an atomic nucleus and binds
quarks into protons and neutrons. Those factors make it difficult to distinguish the relative
contributions of the nuclear and electromagnetic forces.
bperet
Sat, 12/01/2007 - 12:12
Permalink
Re: Fine Stucture Constant really IS 1/128!
What I believe is going on here is this: the fine structure constant appears to be the degrees of freedom of the electron. Conventional science DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the "uncharged" electron which is defined in the RS. Consider:
Rotational degrees of freedom: two "magnetic" at 22 DOF each x one "electric" at 23 DOF = 4 x 4 x 8 = 128 DOF.
Vibrational degrees of freedom (the photon), being a birotation with each aspect having 3 DOF = 3 x 3 = 9 DOF.
In RS2, the charged electron is the uncharged electron with a captured photon. Therefore:
Uncharged electron DOF = 128.
Charged electron DOF = 128 + 9 = 137.
It appears that their experimental setup has just stripped the charge off the electron, and they have, in fact, discovered the uncharged electron.
Horace
Sat, 12/01/2007 - 19:29
Permalink
Electricity
Neat explanation!
They stipped the charge by colliding electrons and positrons head on at 57.77Ge.
Uncharged electrons should not repel anymore.
Although I wonder how can they detect uncharged electrons in vacuum, and how can the uncharged electron survive outside of matter without reaquiring the charge.
Regards,
Horace
bperet
Mon, 12/03/2007 - 15:15
Permalink
Electricity
The uncharged electron, having a free dimension previously occupied by the charge, is carried by the progression of the natural reference system and thus behaves just like a photon--right down to the wave/particle duality. It would be carried at the speed of light until it collided with the detector, transforming into electric current similar to a photoelectric effect, directly entering the conduction band (the normal photoelectric effect is for the photon to kick a valence electron into the conduction band).
Since the uncharged electron and photon behave the same, neither can collide with each other as both are being carried at different absolute positions in the natural reference system, so a charge (a photon) cannot be imparted on the electron until the electron enters the "time" of matter and is captured.
davelook
Tue, 12/11/2007 - 22:38
Permalink
Electricity
Ok, for about a week now I have been reading all I can about something fascinating called the "random walk", which I'm sure you guys are familiar with.
Anyway, as I've been reading QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter, it's keeps nagging me that his "path integrals" are really random walks in time. I've also been reading about how all the different forms of Quantum Physics (Matrix Mechanics, Schroedinger Wave Eq, Dirac Eq, and the latest, Feynman's "Path Integrals", are all really different forms of Diffusion equations, which is how Einstein proved in 1905 that atoms really exist (Physicists in 1905 thought matter was continuous) by explaining Brownian Motion and collisions between atoms and molecules.
See link for excellent discussion...
http://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/Goodies/Einstein_stat_1905/index.html
So I've had this thought in my mind for awhile that what we interpret as "straight line" motion of light is just the result of averaging all possible random walks. In fact, Feynman talks about how c is really an average when you examine it closely.
I've also been thinking that if space and time are reciprocal, maybe they are reciprocal within a SINGLE unit of motion. If motion ALWAYS exists, could it be that a point in space is the endpoint of a harmonic oscillation, and that as the motion gets going it "spreads" the spatial location out to infinity, which is when it becomes precisely point-located in time? When the oscillation becomes a space-point, it's reappeared at an entirely NEW random point one unit away. Think of a pendulum, with a definite space-point correspnding to the Potential energy portion, and the all-Kinetic portion being a definite time-point. The 2 are mutually exclusive, (one is scalar while the other is vector), but the each take a turn during every unit of motion.
Just now I read this...
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html
Two noteworthy successes of SED are its derivation of the Planck blackbody function without assuming quantization and its suggestion that the Bohr orbit of hydrogen could arise without a quantum law. In the latter case, the ground state electron is assumed to emit Larmor radiation which causes it to spiral inward, but this does not lead to collapse of the orbit because the electron also absorbs zero-point energy. The calculation of the absorption was done by Boyer and later by Puthoff by treating the electron as undergoing harmonic oscillation rather than true motion in a Coulomb potential. This is a weakness in the analysis but nonetheless it is striking that the Larmor emission and harmonic-oscillator-type absorption prove to be in balance exactly at the Bohr radius. The fact that the orbital angular momentum is zero in the quantum ground state is mirrored in the SED orbiting-electron interpretation by random changes in the orbital plane (due to the zero-point fluctuations) yielding a time averaged zero net angular momentum.
Recent simulations by Cole have successfully modeled the electron motion in the Coulomb potential of a hydrogen atom and have thereby replicated the electron probability density predicted by the Schroedinger wave function. In the SED case, the electron in a Coulomb field is jostled by its emission and absorption to a range of radial distances which reproduce the Schroedinger probability. This is an intriguing extension of the earlier result, but problems still remain such as the need to cut off the particle-field interactions to avoid autoionization, i.e. a single very high frequency, hence very energetic, zero-point fluctuation could free the electron.
The representation of the zero-point field as an ensemble of plane waves each with an energy of precisely 1/2 hf in all possible directions and random phases was modified in 1995 by Ibison and Haisch. They added a parameter having a random distribution of energies with 1/2 hf as the mean, thereby yielding a closer formal correspondence with the quantum behaviour.
ZITTERBEWEGUNG
Schroedinger was apparently the first to note that solving the Dirac equation for the motion of the electron resulted in a necessary component that could be interpreted as random, speed-of-light fluctuations of a point-like particle. He dubbed this motion ''zitterbewegung'' (German for ''jitter motion''). In SED theory, the phenomenon of zitterbewegung is caused by the electromagnetic zero-point fluctuations.
Several things are interesting about zitterbewegung. First, since the fluctuations occur at the speed of light, then at this level the electron would have to be massless, mass arising at some higher level of motion. Secondly, the fluctuations smear out the average position over a volume the Compton radius in size, which suggests a physical interpretation of the wave function and the associated probability density. (Scattering experiments indicate that the electron is far smaller than its Compton size, indeed point-like for all we know.) Thirdly, simulations that have recently been done show that if such a massless, fluctuating point particle is accelerated in an electric field, the zitterbewegung acquires a helical motion suggestive of spin. The possible association of zitterbewegung with spin has been made by a number of authors over the years such as Barut and Zanghi, Hestenes, Huang, Weisskopf, etc.
Zitterbewegung thus suggests possibly deep connections between zero-point energy and the mass-energy relationship of matter and with the quantum properties of particles.
davelook
Fri, 12/28/2007 - 22:49
Permalink
Electricity
This might be interesting. I was reading about the Rydberg Constant, and how expressing things in 1/wavelength (X2 for unit space) made it easier to deduce the spectral formula. Realizing inverse space has the dim of power, I wondered if my idea of forces being actually the resultant of random 3D motion is a type force (t/s^2). In electrical terms, P=I*E (or in mechanical, it's P=F*v). Of course, Volts and Force are both t/s^2. Since we know that v (or I) is "c", what would the pure dimensionless ratio indicate the force as? I thought it could be be some number distantly related to sqrt3, since we are talking about 3D scalar motion (something like the unit cube, but more just the probabilities of completely random (scalar?) motion, where 3 randomly oriented of units of motion AVERAGE OUT as a velocity of sqrt3(space)/3(time), or 3/3^2, or simply s/t^2. The SPEED is 1 to 1, but the VELOCITY is reduced when doing a random walk.
Low and behold, my heart actually skipped a beat, because (Rinf*2)/c= .073208856, and (sqrt3)-1 = 0.732050808
0.732050808 / .073208856 = 1.0000515821E-01
I think the "minus 1" has to do with the fact that the "initial unit" has equal probability of "outward or inward", and so you can't rightly count it. The subsequent "jumps" also have the same probability, but because they are built off existing motion, they become essentially 2 more right turns, covering all 3 dimensions (on average).
I have no idea why it's reduced by a factor of .1, tho.
This might be what Bundy is looking for with his focus on the unit cube.
Because of this, I discovered this little gem...
Take the sqrt of the Josephson constant (4.8359789100E+14 s^2/t^2), = 2.1990859260E+07, and compare it to the reciprocal of unit space, 2.1947463137E+07
2.1990859260E+07 / 2.1947463137E+07 = 1.00197727
That means sqrt(2e/h) ~ Rinf*2
bperet
Sat, 12/29/2007 - 11:52
Permalink
Electricity
Per Larson, (Neglected Facts of Science, p. 13), "force" is a property of motion, not anything independent, so technically it would be a distributed motion, not a random one (difference being that a distributed motion has equal probabilities in all orientations, whereas random does not).
If you were talking about 3D scalar motion, the factor would be the cube root, not the square root of 3, since the scalar dimensions are independent of each other and have no geometry ("magnitudes" cannot have orientation; "unit cubes" are a spatial coordinate concept, not a scalar one).
Based on the dimensions of your equations, it is more likely that you are dealing with 1D scalar motion that is distributed into 3 coordinate dimensions (the other 2 scalar dimensions being unity). This fits with the electrical applications, as electrons have motion in only 1 scalar dimension.
I assume you understand that "power" (1/s) is just the counterspatial measure of "space" (s/1). This has certain implications:
So your equation is:
(Rinf * 2) / c = (sqrt(3) - 1) / 10
Which, IMHO, is a bit too precise to be ignored.
In my opinion...
The "minus 1" is the conversion from "motion" to "displacement," since all our scientific measurements are made based on displacements, not actual speeds or energy. The 0-0-(1) of the electron is a displacement, the actual speed of the electron being 1/1-1/1-2/1.
For the "sqrt(3)"... counterspace, as viewed from space, is scale variant, in other words, trying to measure it like trying to measure something in a hall of mirrors, because the measurement is a summation of an infinite series of reducing scales--each reflection is composed of smaller reflections. This results in counterspatial measurements returning irrational numbers, usually some type of series expansion. The sqrt(3) is such a number:
sqrt(3) = 1 + 2/(2+2/(2+2/(2+...)))
(You might find Archimedes` constant PI and the Square Root of 3 to be somewhat interesting).
From the expansion, you can see that sqrt(3) is a scale variant sequence, which starts with unity (progression) + a reflected displacement s=(2/(2+s))... In an approximation, it could be written 1 + 2/s (and we know that 2/s is the wavelength of space--wavelength being a "discrete unit" of counterspace, per the "Forces and Force Fields" discussion).
I am puzzled by this, also. Based on the position in the equation, and the fact that it is unitless, it is acting like a probability distribution, which I would have expected to be 8 (23), not 10. Don't know where the extra 2 degrees of freedom could come from, but I will investigate.
In summary, the implication is that the Rydberg constant is actually a measurement of the power of the progression of the natural reference system. Being that Planck's constant is the momentum of the progression, what I think we are starting to see is that all the "natural constants" are just ways to view the effects of the progression on the dimensions of extension space.
[/davelook
Mon, 01/14/2008 - 22:51
Permalink
Energy levels & Principal Quantum Number "n"
Even if you knew nothing about Planck's constant, but only knew Larson Time and Larson Space, you can derive the principal energy levels of atoms (with only 1 electron left).
This page gives typical levels for H and He http://cas.sdss.org/dr6/en/proj/advanced/spectraltypes/energylevels.asp
The following formula works for every level listed...
(((Z*Snat)^2)/(n*Tnat))/n
e.g. for Hydrogen Z=1, n=3:
((1*4.556335253E-08)^2 / (3*1.519829846E-16)) /3 = 1.51 eV
for Helium Z=2, n=5:
((2*4.556335253E-08)^2 / (5*1.519829846E-16)) /5 = 2.185 eV
It works for lithium, too.
davelook
Tue, 01/15/2008 - 10:24
Permalink
Electricity
OK, the simplified formula is:
(Z*Snat)^2 / ( n* sqrt-Tnat )^2 = eV (n1 = 13.6 for Hydrogen)
Which sort of proves this idea I've had for awhile that the REAL unit of time is the sqrt of T_nat.
This is all based on random (scalar) walk statistics.
Volts=t/s^2 or eV is really photon momentum (SqrtT)^2/Snat^2 = t^2/s^2.
Normally the sqrt of T is hidden from view.
I think having to square time might have something to do with "spin".
This also explains why the shortest measured time is in the E-24 range. 1.232813792E-008^3 = 1.873667195E-024 sec, which is a number that pops up in the amazing Dirac Equation paper http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart1.pdf & part 2... http://openseti.org/Docs/HotsonPart2.pdf
bperet
Tue, 01/15/2008 - 10:32
Permalink
Re: Energy levels & Principal Quantum Number "n&quo
I do believe you've got something. I ran a quick PHP for a few elements:
Which results in:
The only problem area I have found so far is that it only works for singly-ionized atoms (a single electron), so it works for Hydrogen, Helium (singly ionized) and Lithium.
bperet
Tue, 01/15/2008 - 10:53
Permalink
Electricity
"Real" as in the sense of "Observed"? Recall that in the time region, "s" is replaced by 1/t, making motion within the time region: s/t = (1/t)/t = 1/t2. To bring that effect across the unit boundary, it would make sense that to get "t" from "t2", one would have to take the square root.
What I find particularly interesting is that your equation infers that the "electric motion" being measured is NOT part of atomic rotation, but distinct from it, since if it were part of the atomic rotation the interaction would be 't', not sqr(t). That would mean that there ARE "orbital" electrons in the atomic system being measured by quantum numbers (I say "orbital" but it is more accurate to say "captured" electrons).
Excellent observation! Makes perfect sense in RS2, since voltage is a measurement of the charged electron, and the "charge" on the electron is a PHOTON.
Great work, Dave!
davelook
Fri, 01/25/2008 - 17:36
Permalink
Electricity
Here's another example, this time quantizing heat flow...
http://www.kschwabresearch.com/files/publications/information_on_heat-newsviews-nautre-2006.pdf
By the way, Plank's constant (in eV) is just the Hartree energy 27.211 eV (or 2 X Rydberg energy), multiplied by Larson time.
Have you guys seen this video of frictionless motion thru space? Check out toward the end, where they show the He superfluid fountain...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Z6UJbwxBZI
RMohan
Fri, 01/25/2008 - 21:36
Permalink
J.W. Dunne
Folks on the list might really be provoked
and excited to read The Serial Universe
by J.W. Dunne.
Perfectly balanced on the triple edge of
science, philosophy, and experience, it
arrives at some of the same conclusions
as Larson, and comes up with a fascinating
argument for why the 'wave/particle' duality
is in our measurements and not in reality
outside of our measurements.
I wish I knew if Larson and Dunne had heard
of each other...there are similarities....
davelook
Thu, 06/19/2008 - 21:43
Permalink
Re: J.W. Dunne
It can be downloaded here... http://www.archive.org/details/serialuniverse032783mbp
RMohan
Fri, 06/20/2008 - 10:41
Permalink
J.W. Dunne
The Serial Universe is an excellent read.
Thin book. (But then again, so is "The Case Against the Nuclear Atom".)
Read slowly.
--- On Thu, 6/19/08, davelook (email removed) wrote:
davelook
Wed, 07/09/2008 - 11:05
Permalink
Re: Fine Stucture Constant really IS 1/128!
From my post over at ISUS about Ionization Potentials, it looks like you need to take the SQRT of ratios to really compare them, at least for energy (or mass, freq, since there is always a linear conversion factor: c^2 for mass, h for freq.).
Taking the SQRT of mp/me, you get 42.85, which is 128.55/3. Not sure what that means, but that's quite a coincidence.
davelook
Wed, 12/03/2008 - 21:27
Permalink
Electricity
For awhile I thought that there was no way to get from Larson energy (as simply the reciprocal of c) to SI energy, without Larson's arbitrary "conversion" factor detailed in BPM.
We know that Planck's Constant over a "time period" gives energy, E=hf=h/t.
Since we also know that k*e2/r gives (potential) energy, how do we prove that k*e2 is a time period, which would make energy t/s?
Let's see what we get when we put it under Planck's Constant (h-bar, actually): 1.0545716 E-34 / 2.307077 E-28 = 4.571029 E-07
1/c = 3.335640952 E-09 (Larson's Natural energy unit)
3.335640952 E-09 / 4.571029 E-07 = 0.00729735253 (the fine structure constant!)
Now, this is really just a reformulation of the units which define the FSC, but it shows clearly that Larson was definitely right about energy being t/s!
It also shows that k*e2 is a real time period, much smaller than Larson time.