OK, I have studied your paper some more and hopefully my comments here will also answer some of Edwin's questions above. You have quite an accomplishment to get the circular motion by utilizing synchrotron radiation. But I don't think simple circular motion does the trick as you mention after your eq. (28) you must postulate a "neutrino like object" to get back to spin 1/2 from spin 1. But I notice in your field patterns of Fig. 9 that you could have spin 1/2 from that and that they are similar to what Schonfeld and Wilde was proposing in my ref. 4.
I have in the past preferred something more like the Hubius Helix by Hu but now I am leaning more towards a 3-sphere geometry to explain spin 1/2 (in fact, I had the idea for the Hubius Helix at the same time or before Hu published his paper but I didn't publish anything about it; only my particle physics tutor knows about it). But I haven't quite figured out the 3-sphere geometry for fermions yet.
Now, I am not totally clear about charge distribution in your model. I think you are retaining the charge to be point-like or is the charge distributed around the "ring"? How charge is developed is something Edwin asked about above and is also something I didn't talk about in my essay. It is a very difficult concept as you can see by my heuristic model we would have to use mass to explain charge. But possibly charge can be explained by current x time and not have to use mass specifically. The problem really is how to explain charge in a more fundamental way. Of course quantum theory shuffles it to a probability so no real explanation there. For my model, I would have to use the current involved via all the virtual pair interactions somehow. If the zitterbewegung frequency is true, then we maybe have something like 124 amperes of current to account for at the zitterbewegung amplitude of lambda_C/2pi!
We can see from the fine structure constant equation that e = sqrt(alpha hbar c) in CGS units but what physics is that short hand for? Now we can do something like this,
hbar c/lambda_C^4 = e^2/(alpha lambda_C^4),
and have equal energy densities on both sides with no mass involved to try to explain charge. But we still would have to have an explanation for alpha. The fact that we have 4 length dimensions here leads me to believe the solution involves the geometry of a 3-sphere and that alpha is involved somehow in that geometrical solution. Studying Joy Christian's model for "Disproof of Bell's Theorem", I learned a little bit about Hopf Fibration and the torsion involved with that. I suspect that charge (and alpha) is involved with the "twisting motion" of a 3-shere model. So that is what I will be working on to see if I can obtain a better physical model of charge and an explanation of alpha. For now, they have to remain a mystery.
For another picture of the "pressure" type model, you can see this paper by Puthoff. Of course he takes it to the zero point limit but I think utilizing his idea with the 3-shere geometry I can maybe get the pressure model to be more rigorous at a limit somewhere near lambda_C/2pi.