Lattice Nested Hydreno

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

THE LATTICE NESTED HYDRENO ATOMIC MODEL BASED IN ULTRA CLOSE RANGE CASIMIR EFFECTS

Arsenic Nucleus (B3 – 12CT Icosacore)

Cd116 Nucleus (B4 –1AT Rhombacore)

Conventional, Indeterminate Ad-hoc Nucleus Bohr-Rutherford Atomic Model

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A THEORY OF EVERYTHING Original Copyright © 2005 Mark Porringa, PEng

ZEROPOINT TECHTONIX Inc. Canadian Registration 1027039

Also Available in a hard copy version published by the Planetary Association for Clean Energy ISBN 978-0-919969-17-9

With due respect to the contributing thoughts of others, no part of the original creative work herein described shall be put to commercial use, reproduced or transmitted in any form without the expressed written permission of the Copyright holder. This publication constitutes an Intellectual Passport CB (IPCB) open to public scrutiny, with the intention of promoting licensed commercial applications of every sort. Licensing proposals are welcomed. Legal copies of this document can be obtained at www.lnhatom.com.

Mark Porringa

1

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. 3.

BOOK SYNOPSIS........................................................................................................... 3 PREFACE (essential reading)......................................................................................... 6 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 10 3.1 The Shallow Troubled Waters of Modern Science..................................................... 10 3.2 A Primer On Low Energy Nuclear Reactions ............................................................. 15 4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE REVISED ATOMIC MODEL....................... 18 4.1 Zero-Point Energy...................................................................................................... 18 4.2 The Casimir Effect ..................................................................................................... 19 4.3 Sonoluminescence..................................................................................................... 20 4.4 Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics .............................................................................. 21 4.5 Condensed Charge - High Density Charge Clusters ................................................. 22 4.6 Hydroxy Gas Implosion.............................................................................................. 22 4.7 Negentropy (Negative Entropy) ................................................................................ 23 5. ATOMIC THEORY RECONSIDERED .......................................................................... 26 5.1 Fractional Quantum States of Hydrogen.................................................................... 26 5.2 Refinements To The Electron/Positron Model ........................................................... 27 5.3 Refinements To The Proton and Neutron Model ....................................................... 28 5.4 Other Objections To The Bohr-Rutherford Model ...................................................... 29 6. THE NEW ATOMIC MODEL ......................................................................................... 34 6.1 An Overview Of The LNH Model................................................................................ 34 6.2 Philosophical Considerations..................................................................................... 38 7. THE DETAILED POSTULATES, PRINCIPLES & RULES ............................................ 42 7.1 Concerning The Vacuum And Its Energy:.................................................................. 42 7.2 Concerning Electrons & Positrons: ............................................................................ 45 7.3 Concerning The Nucleons: ........................................................................................ 49 7.4 Concerning The Nucleus: .......................................................................................... 52 7.5 Nuclear Reactions And Decay: .................................................................................. 59 7.6 Concerning The Atom: ............................................................................................... 62 7.7 Atomic Bonding and Chemistry:................................................................................. 65 7.8 Concerning Bulk Matter: ............................................................................................ 68 7.9 Some Astrophysical Implications ............................................................................... 70 8. BUILDING ATOMIC MODELS ...................................................................................... 72 8.1 The Modeling Process ............................................................................................... 72 8.2 Model Cataloging And Licensing ............................................................................... 74 9. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................. 75 10. CLOSING COMMENTS ................................................................................................ 77 APPENDIX A........................................................................................................................... 79 A SAMPLING OF ZIPP FUSION & FISSION REACTIONS................................................. 79 APPENDIX B........................................................................................................................... 80 A SYNOPSIS OF RADWASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES ............................................. 80 APPENDIX C .......................................................................................................................... 81 COMPARISON OF THE LNH AND BOHR – RUTHERFORD ATOMIC MODELS.............. 81 APPENDIX D .......................................................................................................................... 82 TABLE OF NUCLEAR GEOMETRY.................................................................................... 82 APPENDIX E........................................................................................................................... 83 LNH ATOMIC MODEL GALLERY ....................................................................................... 83 APPENDIX F........................................................................................................................... 84 WEINSTEIN’S POSTULATES ............................................................................................ 84 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 97

Mark Porringa

2

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

1.

BOOK SYNOPSIS

A radically new and revolutionary model of the atom is proposed to address the numerous deficiencies, errors and contradictions in the Bohr-Rutherford theory, which is irremediably inconsistent with much of chemistry and physics and a growing number of contemporary anomalies. The conventional planetary model is consequently replaced with a simple, yet very powerful concept, which incorporates the recent discovery of the Tetra-Neutron at the GANIL Accelerator and a variant of the fractional quantum states of Hydrogen, referred to as the Mills Hydrino. By way of distinction, the Lattice Nested Hydreno™ (LNH) atomic model, effectively reintegrates chemistry and nuclear physics under the same concept, providing logical, and frequently intuitive means for understanding a wide variety of nuclear and chemical phenomenon, both familiar and previously unexplained. In effect, the LNH model represents a move from an empirically based, indeterminate science, to a highly deterministic logic with a very firm and realistic connection between the structure of the atom and the observed reality of the macroscopic world of bulk matter. This is in stark contrast to the tenets of modern science that would suggest that relative chaos at the atomic and nuclear scale somehow produces order and solid structure at the macroscopic scale. As an extremely close pass on literal reality, the new atomic model allows the user to explain in a very concise and logical fashion, a vast array of unaccounted for chemical and nuclear data and observations that are presently without any fundamental understanding whatsoever. Indeed, its astounding determinism and predictive value is without precedent, accounting for meticulous details such as why Tin has 10 stable isotopes of predominately even atomic weights, and tetrahedral bonding; why Technetium doesn’t exist naturally; why Rhodium behaves as a catalyst with only one stable isotope; why metals naturally arrange their atoms in clearly defined crystal structures of generally high strength; why Uranium 235 is thermal neutron fissionable, while U238 is not; why there are no stable elements between Bi82 and Th90; the difference between thermonuclear and cold fission reactions; what really causes superconductivity, and so on, through literally thousands of unaccounted for empirical observations. The new model also handily accommodates several new classes of low energy fusion and fission reactions that have been reported in reputable publications such as Fusion Technology. One class of reaction produces visible microgram quantities of Iron, and numerous other elements from the Passive Inertial Confinement (PIC™) fusion of simple molecules and smaller atoms in a bench top, carbon arc electrolysis cell. In some cases these same reactions have been found to be reversible as Cold fission reactions yielding stable daughter products without radiation or the large release of energy that attends conventional thermonuclear reactions. These low energy induced reactions are frequently very predictable yielding determinate end products according to simple chemo-nuclear reactions such as 2 8O16 → 16S32 evidently proving that nuclei have definitive structure in contrast to the assertions of conventional thought. The theory offered to explain these anomalies invokes the well established reality of the Casimir Effect as exhibited in the peculiar properties of Sonoluminescence, Condensed Charge phenomena, Cavity Quantum Electromagnetics and the Negentropic implosion of quasi-stable hydrogen oxide (hydroxy) gas. All of these phenomena are believed to cohere the otherwise random Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) of the Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum field theory. These same concepts are incorporated into a new model of the atom with profound implications for many fields of science and engineering constituting the foundation of the Mark Porringa

3

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

much-anticipated Grand Unified Theory, neatly integrating the strong nuclear force, the weak force as well as the electromagnetic forces of the atom. A major outcome of the new model is that the Strong force is understood to be an ultra-close range Casimir Effect that literally holds the nucleus together from the outside by virtue of the continuous impelling force from the photon radiation pressure of the Zero-Point Field (ZPF) energy, estimated to be greater than 1018 kPa, rather than the conventional view of internal “glue” like bonding. Another major outcome is that the chemistry and most other properties of the atom and bulk matter are fundamentally determined by the geometric, crystalline structure of the nucleus based on a simple tetrahedral space unit and its numerous variants and extrapolations. Furthermore, it is asserted that the entire material structure of the atom is in fact a complex assembly of composite, standing wave, energy vortices, constituting spheroid force fields, sustained by a combination of harmonic resonance, interference and brute force interactions with the ubiquitous ZPE spectrum of space. In effect the ZPF sustains all matter and forces and ultimately supplies all observable forms of energy. The foundational concepts of the model are applicable to the wider scope of the physical sciences including what causes mass, gravity and inertial forces; why matter and mass are not the same thing; the real nature of so called dark matter. Indeed, the entire collection of Standard Theory from Newton to Einstein, Faraday to Maxwell is consequently being reworked within this new paradigm to arrive at a far more fundamental level of understanding, starting with the single well established concept of a highly energetic vacuum, already widely reported in Quantum Field theory and backed with solid experimental data. This move to a singular reality at the root of all inanimate physical phenomena, including gravity, constitutes the first realistic attempt at the much-anticipated Theory of Everything. This move from a superficial, empirical science to one of greater depth and determinism was facilitated in part by extricating the Engineering Work Function (W=Fd), from the body of fundamental science, and returning it to its proper status as a simple, closed system engineering tool. This one grave error has evidently curtailed progress in many areas of science and technology over the past 300 years, restricting our inquiries to a rather superficial level of understanding. As a corrective measure, a new fundamental form of energy is invoked, in addition to the widely accepted concepts of Potential (Ep) and Kinetic Energy (Ek). This new form tentatively referred to as Sustaining Energy (Es), literally maintains all the static and steady state forces of material systems through continuous interaction with the ZPE of space. This includes all systems from the fundamental particles of matter to the Universal scale. It is, for instance, recognized that a continuous input of energy is required to sustain the forces required to maintain the integrity of the atom. On the macro-scale, it is also recognized that the earth’s gravitational field requires a constant unseen input of sustaining energy in order to maintain the force required to keep the moon in its orbit, or for that matter, objects impelled to its surface. Having formally labeled and legitimized this new form of energy, a vast array of revolutionary technologies are envisioned, which utilize transient, non equilibrium interactions between matter and the seething vacuum to provide clean energy systems that require no material fuel; field effect propulsion systems, requiring no material reaction medium; and low energy induced nuclear reactions, all of which have been reported by independent labs around the world and frequently occur naturally in great abundance. Mark Porringa

4

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

A massive, scientific renaissance is consequently in the works involving an all-encompassing reformation of the entire spectrum of science. The ensuing wave of breakthrough technologies within the new field of Quantum Vacuum Engineering, set to occur on the near horizon, is bound to surprise even the most jaded Sci-fi enthusiast, providing all manner of practical solutions to a wide array of pressing Global issues, not to mention preserving our planet from the very real prospect of major environmental catastrophes.

Mark Porringa

5

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

2.

PREFACE (essential reading)

While leafing through some back issues of TIME magazine a few years ago, I came across a curious cover story suggesting that the “golden age” of science was over. The author was in fact, declaring, “science is dead” - just a few minor details to iron out, and essentially everything will be known. In a more recent offering, Steven Hawking has even been declared “the last of the red hot Nerds” in resignation to the presumed twilight years of science. While some academics would lead us to believe that they have solved all the major mysteries, nothing could be further from the truth. I would suggest in fact, that we have barely scratched the surface of what there is to be known, and much of what we think we know is in fact wrong. It is, however, a lamentable fact that modern science, now steeped in the pride of its lofty accomplishments over the last few centuries, has succumbed to a form of self-assured arrogance, a kind of know-it-all attitude that is pretty much devoid of any authentic objectivity or humble inquiring innocence. Science, confined as it is to the physical realm, certainly has its limits, but they are not to be seen on the horizon any time soon. In whimsical contrast to this know-it-all mindset, it is routinely claimed that knowledge now doubles at break neck speed every few years. Granted, the sheer volume of our information increases exponentially, but the portion that is of practical use and significance to fundamental understanding is diminishingly small. I would in fact suggest that the mass of incomprehensible scientific gobbledygook gathering dust in the halls of academia does little to advance the cause of real understanding. As knowledge increases, comprehension seems in fact to be waning, as science becomes more and more esoteric, divorced from solid logic and realistic modeling. We have in fact, hardly a first clue about a lot of things when it comes to the deeper how and why questions of what makes the Universe tick. Oh sure, we have our descriptive equations, and we can engineer things that behave predictably, more or less, but we certainly don’t understand them from a fundamental standpoint. And on top of that, there is a long and growing list of other stuff that doesn’t fit into any part of Standard theory; those numerous pesky anomalies that we too often conveniently ignore. Modern science has in many ways become hopelessly fragmented, specialized and complex, making it less and less consequential; even sterile, seriously deterring any real fundamental progress. Nobody seems to even bother with the big picture anymore, where the integration of diverse concepts can lead to surprising new discoveries and applications. And virtually no one dares question the existing, well-entrenched dogmas of science without risking a major setback in their career expedited by the high priests of modern science. Viewed collectively, these numerous issues show clear evidence that many of our cherished theories and laws are very superficial, seriously deficient and all too frequently quite wrong. From my present perspective outside the box of the existing paradigm, I would suggest that there is no area of science that would not be radically transformed by an honest reevaluation of the underlying fundamentals, tied into an objective look at the numerous anomalies that have surfaced along the way. This is long overdue, so questioning these foundational concepts now becomes a rather threatening, painful and potentially embarrassing process, which I suppose is the primary reason that it is not generally done. Those few brave souls, who venture into a closer scrutiny of such familiar territory, are too often viewed as troublemakers bent on upsetting the applecart, rather than the free thinkers that they actually are.

Mark Porringa

6

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

What is really needed in academic circles to set this sad state of affairs straight, is a fresh perspective, possibly formalized and encouraged through a multidisciplinary degree in natural or better yet preternatural philosophy; a kind of honorable heretic, with the recognized purpose of brainstorming new ideas, integrating existing ones, tearing down the idols and burning off the chaff that persists in many disciplines of science. Without such a fundamental change I would suggest that the only real hope for radical innovation is with “untainted” amateurs with their objectivity and inquiring innocence intact, or with independent, free thinking, scientists and engineers caught up with the thrill of adventure and caring not a wit for their professional reputations or towing official party lines. Personally, I find my feet placed squarely in both categories; first as professional engineer swimming against the current in the nuclear industry, and also as untainted newcomer to such intimidating subject matter as quantum mechanics and the like. Despite superficial appearances, our technology is in much the same sad state as our science. With the rare exception of the unfettered computer and electronics industry, still charging ahead on the basis of the semiconductor and integrated circuits developed over fifty years ago, most others have been bumping along the ceiling of what is achievable using conventional ideas and resources for several decades. The height of commercial aviation essentially peaked with the Concord over thirty-five years ago. Remove the innovations in electronics and the automotive industry hasn’t really changed much either, the primitive internal combustion engine still chugging along, spewing pollutants into the biosphere, essentially unchanged after a hundred years. Even the nuclear industry has been seriously stalled with fission reactors still operating on the basis of a superficial, empirically based nuclear science that is now over a half-century old. Surely there has got to be better ways to do things than we have so far imagined. Why then do we continue to boil water in order to produce electricity with such abysmal efficiency, huge technological challenges, serious social implications and insurmountable environmental issues? As it turns out, there are in fact lots of alternatives that have never been given serious consideration that could rapidly solve our present energy and environmental crises by applying simple concepts that are fundamentally no more mysterious than the “free” energy provided by solar panels or windmills. Fortunately, due in large part to the unfettered exchange of ideas over the Internet, the near future is beginning to look a lot brighter with the emergence of what Nobel Laureate T.D. Lee first referred to as Quantum Vacuum (QVac) Engineering. Based in little known and largely ignored aspects of advanced Quantum Field theory and major refinements to Maxwell’s Electromagnetics, this brand new field of engineering is tied to a more fundamental understanding of the atom and its continuous interaction with the energetic vacuum of so called “empty space” – a huge misnomer as it turns out. A growing number of radical innovators of both the scientific and technical variety are seriously challenging the natural and frustrating limitations of the existing closed system paradigm, to entertain revolutionary ideas that are blowing the lid off the boxes of convention. These self styled pioneers, working in the bold spirit and likeness of such icons as Einstein and the Wright brothers are making revolutionary advances that will soon reach the critical mass of public awareness that historically accompanies major breakthroughs and unleashes rapid technological development. Barring unforeseen events, we are about to ride the crest of a huge wave of breakthroughs that are primarily based in the realization that space is full of energy.

Mark Porringa

7

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

The ensuing quantum leap advances in science and technology could easily eclipse those that occurred much earlier in the 20th century with the electrification of society. Even the most jaded science fiction enthusiast is bound to be pleasantly surprised as we learn to engineer the energetic vacuum of space to control gravity, develop reactionless propulsion systems, new energy technologies, synthesize exotic new materials, stabilize nuclear waste and a myriad of other applications yet to be imagined. The very real practicality of all of these innovative ideas has already been clearly demonstrated, experimented with and theorized about quite extensively, despite the feeble attention it gets from the gagged, popular media. Ironing out all the theoretical details is apt to keep hundreds of major universities busy for the foreseeable future, but the fact remains, that all of this already exists, albeit in a state of infancy, generally below the horizon of public awareness. Even so called forward thinking publications such as FUTURIST magazine are way off the mark as they continue to tow the official party line of mainstream, lethargic “big” science. On the near horizon, QVac Engineered power systems will rapidly replace our dependence on fossil fuels and conventional fission reactors and could even bring about an early demise to the much touted, hydrogen economy. Field Effect (reactionless) propulsion systems will capitalize on a fundamental understanding of both gravity and inertia as the underlying preternatural fundamentals of such natural phenomena finally come to light. Gravity and inertia, both thought to be innate and immutable forces of nature will be successfully engineered to yield fantastic new technologies reminiscent of “Star Trek” fantasy. These advanced ideas will also redraw the lines of distinction between the terms matter and mass that have become hopelessly muddled in modern physics. Advances of a similar scale are also set to occur in virtually every other field of science and technology. The bottom line of all this is that a whole lot of old sacrosanct ideas are about to take a major hit, with everything from cosmology to medicine being radically transformed in what promises to be a combination of reformation and renaissance. Like it or not, these monumental changes are coming on many different fronts simultaneously, all based in the emerging realization, that space, far from being the empty void we perceive it to be, is actually full of the extremely high frequency and largely unobservable Zero-point energy of the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. It is within this sea of primordial, “dark” energy that every aspect of our material Universe appears, in fact to be rooted. Not surprisingly, this whole scientific and technological revolution will naturally gravitate toward the fundamental properties of matter and its continuous interaction with the energetic vacuum of space, which is currently not very well understood. This lack of theoretical underpinning has been a major deterrent to acceptance of such advanced concepts, since much of this looks like magic to the uninitiated. It was Arthur C. Clarke who rightly observed that any sufficiently advanced technology has the appearance of magic, but most slight-ofhand tricks are actually based in a lack of understanding by the observer. My intention in producing this conceptual treatise is that I will in some measure help dispel this vale of mystery and usher in the ensuing age of deeper understanding of the incredible Universe in which we apparently find ourselves, prime tenants. That being said, my primary focus for the remainder of this dissertation will be the intricate structure of matter with numerous conceptual side excursions into the wider scope of the physical sciences in a rather brash attempt to make such incredible things understood by the Layman. This daunting task has not been entered into lightly, culminating from almost ten years of experimentation, theoretical inquiry and extensive musing. Publication of such embryonic ideas, within such a radically new and dynamic paradigm always seems a premature exercise as new ideas and revelations constantly emerge. Mark Porringa

8

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

In light of this reality, initial publication this “magnum opus” was in the form of a dynamic ebook that will continue to be updated frequently as new ideas emerge and further refinements are added. Covering such a broad scope of foundational concepts in this first take has necessitated a staccato like writing style with an intense concentration of information - a form of ruthless data compression. The reader should certainly not expect to just breeze through this material. I suppose, I am to be criticized by stuffy academics for not pursuing the normal lines of publication, but this is just too big an idea to confine to some esoteric science journal or intimidating textbook that almost no one reads anyway. It was certainly not my intention from the outset to write a book, but in the process of recording my thoughts, a book of sorts quite naturally emerged. In any event the ensuing paradigm shifts, from the old empty space concepts, to the new energetic space, could very well cause some major hiccups on the world stage. Hopefully, with a bit of foresight and planning, these shocks to the system can be softened through a massive retrofit to existing infrastructure and technologies. Better hang on to your hats; the next few decades promise to be one very wild ride, unprecedented in human history, as we transition from a highly constrained, empirically based science, to one of precise determinism and essentially limitless potential.

Mark Porringa

9

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

3. 3.1

INTRODUCTION The Shallow Troubled Waters of Modern Science

Considering the many noteworthy achievements of science and technology over the past few centuries, it is beyond strange, even bizarre, that our fundamental understanding of things has not really advanced much in many respects, even though there remain within this body of foundational science many unanswered questions, superficial explanations and boldfaced contradictions. Having labeled and described things, often with rigorous mathematics we mistakenly think we understand them when deep down we do not. We have made the gross error of presuming that superficial labeling, descriptions and quantifying constitutes understanding, when in fact we have no real comprehension of the deeper how and why questions of a vast array of topics. Mainstream science has for instance no real clue what fundamentally causes gravity, inertia, magnetism, electricity and a whole lot of other things, that are otherwise very familiar to us, and accurately described mathematically. Science in its present, dare I say, geriatric state of development has become far too preoccupied with refining the data and tweaking existing ideas, rather than getting on with its primary business of shedding light on the many remaining mysteries of our universe, of which there is no shortage. With the recent advent of the new millennium, it seems high time to get a little introspective, and take a fresh look at a whole lot of things. Einstein himself said that we should regularly question what we think we know, to ensure that we are building on a firm foundation. As it turns out, the foundation is actually full of cracks and missing pieces that threaten to bring the whole house down. As just one case in point, Maxwell’s Electromagnetics has not been seriously challenged in over 100 years, despite all its glaring inconsistencies and obvious contradictions, not the least of which is the complete absence of any acknowledged source for the fields that continually radiate at the speed of light from all charged particles. My criticism is not really directed at our preoccupation with refining and padding our empirical data, for which we have become all too proficient. I am instead, primarily concerned with our blind acceptance of so many inconsistencies and paradoxes in the bewildering, ad hoc collection of Standard theory, and our growing tendency to rather arrogantly reject or ignore anomalous phenomena, simply because they do not fit within the preconceived notions with which we have been brainwashed since childhood. We science and engineering types would do well to humbly acknowledge that our predispositions and programming have nothing to do with real truth. The kind of free thinkers who laid the foundations of most of our modern science and technology almost a century ago seem to have become an endangered species that the entrenched scientific orthodoxy seems too often intent on suppressing into extinction. Ideally, scientists should always conduct their research from a perspective of complete objectivity, but as Halton Arp points out in his recent book, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, the reality is rather disheartening. Intellectual arrogance, closed mindedness, turf wars and outright suppression of competing ideas, appear to run rampant in the “science industry” with its focus on protecting professional reputations, securing funding and covering one’s proverbial butt, instead of going about their real business of comprehending the Universe, spearheaded by a sense of wonder and an insatiable desire to know. Scientists devoid of such attributes should do us all a favor and find something else to do. Lamentably, there are far too many passionless scientists who view their careers as just another ordinary job that racks up pensionable time. Mark Porringa

10

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Torn between solidifying theory and offering revolutionary new ideas, it is appropriate that science remains in a constant state of tension, but this is not an easy act to follow. While encouraging disciplined refinement, scientists are also called upon to explore new territory by tearing down the fallacies or breaking through the barriers of entrenched, conventional thinking. In reality however, this chameleon approach is very difficult for anyone to perform effectively, so science has come to rely too heavily on the peer review process to help weed out the nonsense and enforce rigorous analysis. However, when something really new is discovered, who are the peers? This is especially true when something is discovered or declared that appears to fly in the face of conventional thought and poses a possible threat to the established “truth” of the day, with all its vested interest and reputations at stake. On that note we have also developed the very bad habit of choosing not to believe the facts before us simply because they challenge well entrenched theories. To disregard solid facts in favor of outmoded theory is not science at all, but rather a hallmark of a poor and blind religion. There is after all, no one so blind as he who refuses to see the facts before him. At the time of the Copernican revolution the Church was appropriately branded for this form of blindness, but it is now the scientific community, where a refusal to see the facts occurs with disturbing frequency. Scientists by the droves refuse to acknowledge a growing list of anomalies because they cannot squeeze them into their superficial, flat earth perspective. A major contributing factor to this sad state of affairs was the strange decision early in the 20th century to abandon solid logic, empirical evidence and common sense, in order to embrace counter intuitive concepts such as Special Relativity, supported by dubious mathematical “proofs”. This illogical stance on fantasy has hurt the progress of science immeasurably. Relativity was probably the first high profile theory that seriously questioned our ability to truly understand the Universe in which we find ourselves. We don’t even seem to care anymore whether our theories are logical or capable of being understood in a common sense fashion. This has apparently extinguished much of our desire to know, particularly at the level of the common man, who finds science increasingly beyond his comprehension. What, after all, is the point of knowing something if fundamentally, you cannot understand it anyway? This lamentable state of resignation, to a science increasingly outside the bounds of human logic and divorced from common sense, appears to have its roots firmly in the confusion and paradoxes of 20th century science. Through the natural pendulum swing of over-correction, this has led to a widespread paranoia about questioning convention and entertaining new ideas since logic apparently doesn’t work anymore. Had we humbly maintained the objective logic, and inquiring innocence of the early pioneers, such as Newton, I would speculate that by now we would be seriously considering interstellar space flight, rather than continuing to do the “safe” thing of tweaking archaic, inefficient technologies such as the internal combustion engine and fission reactors. Given that it is now the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s revolutionary Special Relativity theory it would seem high time to take a deeper look at a whole lot of related issues. In contrast to Einstein’s esoteric ideas, Newton’s monumental theories certainly brought us a far more satisfying level of understanding. But, even Newton’s insights are still very superficial, given that the mysterious force of gravity was merely quantified empirically (and only approximately), offering very little real improvement over Kepler’s purely geometric description of orbits. Neither Newton, nor Kepler made even a feeble attempt to explain what the gravitational force is, why it is attractive or how it performs its magic. Einstein at least makes an attempt to explain it, although the adopting the concept of “curved” spaceMark Porringa

11

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

time hardly seems an appropriate move, without first exhausting more realistic and appealing options. How the sun manages to reach across “empty” space, at apparently infinite velocity, to forcefully confine all the planets in their orbits, without any apparent energy source to do all this astronomical work remains a complete mystery within Standard theory. As it turns out, realistic concepts do exist. The force of gravity does in fact have a continual source of energy, as will become plainly evident. Neither could anyone seriously contest that the earth’s gravitational field continually performs vast amounts of work on all manner of dynamic objects with no apparent energy source or dissipation apparent. From our superficial perspective, gravity clearly defies the law of conversation of energy, despite the veneer of nonsense and trickery from the misappropriated Work Function, which is routinely invoked to gloss over our incredible ignorance of all things natural. Erroneously adopted as a fundamental scientific truth, this simple “closed system” engineering tool has effectively crippled progress for the last 300 years, spanning the entire collection of Standard Theory. The outcome of such a simple, yet monumental error has been a very superficial, if not erroneous understanding of many natural phenomena including gravity, inertia, magnetism, electricity, the atom and so on ad nauseam. In a more down to earth example, you would be remiss to seriously contest that no energy is needed to push all day long on an immovable boulder, or to swing a weight around on the end of a rope, but that is exactly what is routinely declared in a myriad of nonsensical applications where the engineering work function is inappropriately invoked as a fundamental scientific truth. To declare that no energy is used, simply because motion did not occur in the direction of the applied force, is of course intuitively and logically objectionable, not to mention being quite incorrect for reasons that will become all too apparent. Strangely enough, the concept of work is also described as the dissipation of energy, while energy in turn is defined as the ability to do work. From such superficial, circular reasoning it would seem to follow in nonsensical fashion, that energy is therefore the dissipation of itself!? The same sad situation exists with electricity and magnetism. How is it, that an isolated charge or permanent magnet can provide a continuous force that can perform endless amounts of real work without any apparent energy source or dissipation detectable? We don’t even really know what an electric or magnetic field is, let alone its energy source. It should be getting quite obvious by now that the ultimate source of all of this unaccounted for energy and work is in fact the highly energetic vacuum, of not so empty space. Erroneously presumed to top out with cosmic rays at about 1022 Hz, the electromagnetic spectrum apparently extends to the incredibly high Planck frequency of 1044 Hz, supplying the energy for all the static and dynamic forces in the entire Universe, from the fundamental particles of the nucleus, to the Universal scale. The bottom line of this diatribe is that all forces require a continuous supply of energy regardless of any apparent motion. Similar problems arise with the many “black boxes” and “Alice in Wonderland” antics of Cosmology, Astrophysics, Quantum Mechanics and so on, as just a few more obvious areas begging for refinement and deeper understanding. A growing chorus of advanced Quantum Theorists such as Evans, Mills, Beardon and Sarg are calling for a return to more solid logic and determinism at the atomic level. The whimsical domain of indeterminate quantum mechanics, with all its inherent uncertainties and inconsistencies, is particularly in need of a major overhaul, if it is ever to be reconciled with the deterministic nature of the macroscopic world we know. The QM wizards are far too quick to resign themselves to “normalization” of infinite values and other bizarre practices that seem to have more in common with a Harry Mark Porringa

12

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Potter fantasy than reality. What is behind all of this stuff? If any real progress is to be made, these many deficiencies must be addressed in a bold new fashion. Indeed, it is only through a critical reevaluation and embellishment of the underlying fundamentals of science that we will find our way out of the present ad hoc confusion and move toward a deeper, deterministic science. Without belaboring the point needlessly, the cracks and deficiencies in the foundations of Standard theory are well documented and far too numerous to consider here in any great depth or detail. The key expectation of a Grand Unifying theory or Final Theory is that it will reveal an underlying concept or principle that ties together and makes sense of all of physics and chemistry with a clarity and simplicity that is very much foreign to the confusion evident within the incoherent collection of existing Standard theory. Having now begun the introspective process of coming to grips with the superficial level of our supposed knowledge, one must agree that the ultimate value of any scientific theory lies in its ability to logically account for observed phenomena and to accurately predict behavior in a highly deterministic and concise fashion. In this regard, the shortcomings and objections to the Bohr-Rutherford model of the atom and its various refinements, are both numerous, and well documented, as just one case in point. As the primary focus of our inquiry, the Bohr-Rutherford model and its modern refinements do not provide any logically satisfying explanation for the fundamental mechanism of chemical bonds, bond angles, crystal structure, allotropes, nuclear bonds and a vast array of other observations. Neither does it shed any light on the underlying structure and assembly of the various subatomic particles including the electron, positron, neutron and proton, not mention the elusive quarks and other “virtual” theoretical particles. The more elusive of these with all their “colors, flavors, ups and downs” remain highly suspect due their transitory nature and the general refusal to accept the reality of interactions between matter and the highly energetic vacuum of space. Indeed the entire macroscopic view, with all its definitive structure, apparent design and determinism appears to be at complete odds with our present understanding of the atom as a conglomeration of wildly chaotic particle motion without a definitive structure. Biased as we are by our by counter intuitive evolutionary thinking, we seem intent on somehow bringing order out of chaos instead of logically presuming that determinism and form can be extrapolated to the atom. This extreme discord between the micro and macro material reality must somehow be resolved. As it turns out resolution is actually quite simple, and most of our cherished data even remains intact. Granted, some properties of the atomic particles and phenomena are reasonably well established, accurately quantified and thoroughly labeled, but certainly not well understood from a fundamental standpoint. With each passing decade it seems we are introduced to yet another bizarre particle and its list of exotic variants described in totally abstract terms such as color, flavor, up, down and so on, providing little in the way of comprehensible insight. More recently, further doubts as to the validity of the Bohr-Rutherford model have arisen in a wide variety of anomalous nuclear reactions, which according to conventional understanding, cannot occur at all. Nevertheless, they do, and in obvious abundance, indicating that something is surely amiss in our present understanding that deserves closer scrutiny, despite our tendency to glibly dismiss such disparaging data in favor of our crumbling pet theories. One of the main problems with nuclear and particle physics is the complete reversal of the natural course of inquiry, which often starts with extremely complex math with all its Mark Porringa

13

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

assumed boundary conditions, approximations and accumulated errors giving rise to the need for a new theoretical particle such as the various flavors of neutrino to satisfy the presumptions of the math. A theory of its properties and interactions is subsequently formulated and then high tech, big science, megabuck experiments are undertaken to provide the supporting empirical evidence usually based on transient, multi-stage knock-on phenomena that are far removed from the supposed originating event, and therefore quite dubious as proof. Such a backward approach invariably fails to account for a myriad of other possible contributing factors, not the least of which is the astounding energy content of the vacuum. Granted, the microscopic nature of the observations may necessitate this reversed, indirect approach, but if used, it must be pursued with extreme vigilance to avoid being blind-sided and led down the garden path by our predispositions. In contrast, the natural course of inquiry is quite opposite, starting with repetitive observation and empirical characterization, followed by theoretical hypothesis and models with correlating mathematics all of which is tested rigorously and refined in an iterative process, eventually culminating with a realistic, precise characterization substantiated by meticulous math. This entirely logical and natural process, formalized by Francis Bacon as the Scientific Method, brings useful precision to the theory, giving it reliable predictive value in support of practical engineering applications. Mathematics certainly has its prominent place in the whole process, but it is not the ideal starting point for a new theory, and it should never be offered as final proof, devoid of underlying intelligible logic and realistic modeling. In considering the foregoing ideas, which are considerably “outside the box” of conventional thinking, one should keep in mind that historically the greatest obstruction to understanding new concepts is not ignorance, but rather the presumption of knowledge based in the existing flawed or incomplete orthodoxy. The situation at hand is very much like the Galilean-Copernican revolution where the Church, biased by its adoption of the pseudoscientific cosmology of Ptolemaic philosophy, went to great lengths to devise a bizarre scheme that would salvage the dogmatic, geocentric interpretation of the Universe. Evidence to the contrary was hotly contested and flatly rejected, without objective analysis, despite the obvious fact that the earth was indeed orbiting the sun. The shoe now appears to be solidly on the other foot, with the scientific community, in rather comical fashion committing the same infraction, zealously defending the hopelessly complex planetary atomic model in order to preserve the existing incorrect dogmas, introduced by various untouchable icons of science, including Bohr, Rutherford and others. In the Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn points out that the scientific establishment usually ridicules revolutionary discoveries, specifically because they call into question what we think we know and damage our inflated egos. Invariably, academic science tends to suppress fundamental novelties, because they are by nature a dire threat to the entrenched pet theories of the establishment, which prides itself on its firm grasp of “reality”. Historically, science has been riddled with such errors, so the existing scientific paradigm should be viewed with no less suspicion, despite its glossy exterior and notable strides over the last few centuries. To presume otherwise is tantamount to scientific prejudice and intellectual arrogance of disturbing brevity. With these precautionary thoughts in mind to help ensure the utmost level of objectivity, the theories here presented are acknowledged outright as a rather simplistic, yet brash attempt to explain these anomalies and deficiencies from a “big picture” conceptual perspective, rather than immediately delving into a meticulous analysis of all the pieces of the puzzle. Mark Porringa

14

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Given the very high degree of specialization and fragmentation of modern science, it would seem that very few practitioners bother with this integrated perspective anymore, blinded as they are by a form of intellectual tunnel vision, which fails to appreciate how their small area of study fits into the wider perspective. This reality is proving to be a very serious impediment to progress in modern science. In any event, much further work will be required by Quantum theorists, Mathematicians and the like to reach a clear, definitive understanding of the processes and theoretical concepts described. The reader will consequently find that there is a fair amount of new subject matter to be grasped, so a bit of background material is certainly in order to introduce the many new concepts involved and to guard against the entrenched errors and superficial explanations of Standard theory which can so easily sidetrack us from original thinking. Given that our focus is primarily the structure of the atom, we will begin with a brief synopsis of a wide variety of low energy nuclear phenomena that do no fit within the existing atomic model. 3.2

A Primer On Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

The heretical assertion that nuclear reactions can occur at low energies is not at all new. Indeed, the mountain of evidence that has accumulated in support of this notion is entirely compelling and can only lead to the objective conclusion that nuclear reactions at low apparent energies are simply a fact, despite the loud objections that come from the various quarters of vested interest, including the 200 year old fortified encampments of high energy physics and Lavoisier chemistry. Historically, claims of this sort date all the way back to the peers of Lavoisier himself. Vauquelin’s [1] contrary experiments were equally as rigorous as his, but would simply not be heard in the wake of Lavoisier’s heroic martyrdom at the gallows of the French revolution. Furthermore, it was the Alchemist’s often overt and lamentable connection with mystical thought that was no doubt the biggest contributing factor to the demise of this pseudoscience in the wake of the concrete materialism of the burgeoning scientific revolution. Enrico Fermi [2], one of the founding fathers of nuclear physics, also reported the anomalous fusion of heavy ice and deuterium while attempting to produce neutrons, but apparently chose not to give it the attention it evidently deserved. More recently, Nobel candidate Louis Kervran [3] provided a wide variety of compelling evidence, clearly indicating that anomalous nuclear fusion and fission reactions occur with surprising abundance, even in nature, at very low observable energies, that do not necessarily correspond with the present notion of massenergy conversion based in the mass defect of nuclear reactions. Following Kervran’s lead, George Oshawa reported the nuclear fusion of Na and O within a cold plasma vacuum tube claiming production of Potassium according to the chemo-nuclear reaction Na23 + O16 Æ K39, which in nature is evidently endothermic, and also reversible as just one example of a Cold fission reaction. The anomalous cold fission of Plutonium[4], Thorium and a variety of other heavy metals has also been reported by various reputable laboratories as the resolution of experiments steadily improves. Even Lead can apparently experience cold fission [5] resulting in trace amounts of Rhodium according to the equation Pb206 Æ 2Rh103, indicating a bilateral fission through a conjectured fractal plane through the center of the nucleus. Excess neutrons are evidently prompt converting into protons without significant radioactivity detectable. Pons and Fleischmann reopened this whole “can of worms” in 1989 with their premature and ill-fated press release, claiming deuterium fusion in an ordinary heavy water electrolytic cell Mark Porringa

15

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

employing palladium electrodes saturated with deuterium. The resulting frenzy of interest quickly subsided in the heated controversy that followed due in large part to the inherent difficulties in reproducing the effect that would only occur after a long latent period of cell operation and the glaring lack of conventional fusion indicators. Theory on the process was also very much lacking and conventional ideas could provide no basis for comprehension. Despite the official rhetoric and condescending denouncements from the various quarters of vested interest, low energy nuclear reaction experiments continue around the world, albeit with a much lower profile. Reportedly, there have been some 3,000 papers published in the peer-reviewed literature indicating all manner of anomalous nuclear phenomena. The compelling results of McKubre’s team at SRI international, is just one prominent example. Predating the Pons and Fleischmann Cold Fusion fiasco was a series of Carbon arc in water experiments first reported in 1965 by G. Oshawa [6] and independently replicated by M. Porringa [7], M. Singh [8], J. Bockris [9] and others. All parties have repeatedly observed the anomalous presence of aluminum, silicon, iron and numerous other elements when a DC arc is struck between ultra pure graphite electrodes immersed in light water. Concentrations exceeding 2000 ppm have been noted using electrodes initially containing less than 1 ppm total impurities. Two of the suspected reactions include CO Æ Si followed by 2Si Æ Fe with numerous other reactions identified on a conjectural basis, some of which are listed in Appendix A. These various “Lavoisier nightmares” are frequently accompanied by the release of excess heat based on the temperature rise of the cell compared to the electrical energy input, but in other cases, evidently not. This new class of chemo-nuclear reaction has been dubbed ZEIPPIEN fusion or more simply, ZIPP fusion. The ZEIPPIEN label is just another silly acronym that stands for Zero-Point Energy Induced Plasma Pinch of Ionized Entrained Nuclei. There is also ample evidence to assert that such reactions are frequently reversible, constituting a new class of low recoil, cold fission that yields non-radioactive, ground state daughter products, without the large release of thermal energy characteristic of conventional thermonuclear reactions. (As a veteran of the nuclear industry, I am completely aware of the highly controversial nature of such claims.) The most recent evidence from R. Taleyarkhan[10] of Oak Ridge Nuclear Laboratories indicates that deuterium fusion can also occur during the process of Sonoluminescence, providing further confirmation of the Passive Inertial Confinement model invoked for the ZIPP fusion process. ZIPP fusion shares many of the essential attributes of the Sonofusion process, including implosion of microscopic cavitation bubbles accompanied by a plasma-like discharge within a dielectric fluid, with the intended fusion fuel entrained in solution. An invited paper on the ZIPP fusion process [11] was presented before the Louis de Broglie Foundation and the Canadian Nuclear Society. The results of the ZIPP fusion experiments are however an order of magnitude more controversial than the widely replicated Sonofusion process, in that much larger nuclei participate in the anomalous reactions. The apparent fusion of such relatively large nuclei, at such low observable energies, in conjunction with the wealth of other reputable enigmas, obviously calls for some major revisions to the existing paradigm of Atomic theory. What follows is admittedly a radical departure from conventional thought on the subject of nuclear reactions, atomic theory and the entire body of Standard theory which nonetheless is well supported by mainstream ideas and experiments drawn predominantly from reputable journals. The theoretical ideas described were spawned in large part from the ground breaking Condensed Charge research of K. Shoulders [12], related investigations by H. Mark Porringa

16

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Puthoff [13]; carbon arc fusion experiments; Sonoluminesence; Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics, and the Negative Entropy combustion characteristics of quasi-stable hydroxy gas. A comprehensive review of the history of atomic theory also figured prominently in helping to assemble the details. These diverse concepts were integrated into a conceptual theory, which invokes a variety of Casimir Effects, that are in turn rooted in the now proven existence of what is referred to as the Zero-Point Energy of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. As the theoretical ideas have continued to evolve, a radically different view of atomic structure and nuclear reactions has logically culminated in the Lattice Nested Hydreno atomic model, which is in excellent agreement with observed reality. By implication, most of Standard theory is also in need of major revision and embellishment to a far more fundamental level of understanding, based in the singular concept of the ZeroPoint field, which neatly encompasses most of our existing science, albeit with a few theoretical casualties occurring along the way.

Mark Porringa

17

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

4. 4.1

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE REVISED ATOMIC MODEL Zero-Point Energy

It is a peculiar prediction of both Quantum and Stochastic field theory, that the vacuum of space, generally perceived to be an empty void, is in fact full of a random flux of predominantly longitudinal electromagnetic waves that theoretically may include all frequencies ranging up to the incredibly high Planck frequency at 1043 cycles/sec with a wave length of 10-35 m. These super high frequencies are predicted and established to a high degree by experimental results confirming the wave-particle duality expression of Louis de Broglie (λ=h/mv) and other fundamental considerations. To help put this into perspective, very little is presently known of the EM spectrum above cosmic rays at 1022 Hz, implying that virtually nothing is known about the vast range of the spectrum. Add to this the fact that the energy per photon pulse is directly proportional to the frequency and one can begin to realize the astronomical energy potential of the vacuum. This all pervasive “dark” energy of space, frequently referred to as the Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) of the Vacuum Fluctuations, is an important but frequently ignored aspect of Quantum mechanics, which must be accounted for in the math using the Lamb Shift, but is generally dismissed as an odd artifact of the theory, rather than a real phenomenon. Oddly enough, many physicists are still of the mistaken opinion that space is an empty void despite the growing mountain of evidence to the contrary. The Zero-Point Field (ZPF) of free space is normally homogeneous and isotropic, which simply means that it is everywhere essentially uniform and moving in all directions simultaneously. The term Zero-Point is derived from the fact that this energy remains as a residual background condition of the Universe even at absolute zero in a perfect vacuum where all conventional thermal radiation has been frozen out. Advanced quantum theorists such as Boyer [14] have recently entertained the idea that this stochastic bombardment of the ZPE radiation is responsible for the quantum “jitter” or Zietterbewegung motion of all atoms that persists at absolute zero were classical physics would tell us that no such motion should occur. Remarkably, when one considers the accumulated minuscule energies at all discreet frequencies, directions and polarities passing through even a small volume of space, it has been estimated that the energy density exceeds that of the nucleus of matter by no slight margin. Nobel Laureate, R. Feynman, a protégé of Einstein estimated that there is more than enough energy in a coffee cup to vaporize all the world’s oceans. Even discounting such dramatic hyperbole one is still left to wonder how we could possibly exist in this seething sea of universal energy and not even be aware of it. In answer to that, an analogy involving deep-sea fish is appropriate. Despite the rigors of surviving some seven miles down in the bone-crushing depths of the ocean, where the pressure in every living cell exceeds 13,000 psi, they experience no ill effects. The reason, of course, is that the pressure is entirely uniform and balanced. Similarly, our ability to detect the photon pressure of the ZPF radiation directly is very much restricted by the fact that it is essentially uniform, and we are totally immersed in it. Its most potent effects are confined to the sub-atomic and indeed sub-nuclear levels due to the extremely short wavelength of most of this radiation. Bulk matter being composed of mostly empty space is essentially transparent to it. Trying to take measurements of the ZPE has Mark Porringa

18

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

been likened to attempting to weigh a beaker of water while the entire lab is submerged. Furthermore, instruments capable of measurements at these incredibly high frequencies are as yet unavailable because electrons do not respond to frequencies above 1022 Hz and the predominance of non-hertzian, longitudinal waveforms with their field vectors and direction of propagation confined primarily to one linear dimension, appears to make observation in conventional 3 dimensional space very problematic. The only effective, existing method of detection requires a localized coherence of this otherwise homogeneous energy. What is meant by coherence is that the uniform and therefore unusable ZPF is persuaded by clever methods to become organized to yield net effects, which can then be detected by conventional means or used to do useful work. One well established method of cohering the random energy of the vacuum is known as the Casimir Effect, which can manifest itself in a variety of ways. The reality of the Casimir Effect is essential to the understanding of the Lattice Nested Hydreno Model of the atom, which has emerged as a direct result of the ZIPP fusion and fission experiments and a synoptic review of the history of atomic theory. 4.2

The Casimir Effect

The Casimir effect was first theorized in 1948 in a thought experiment proposed by H. B. Casimir, based in large part on Max Planck’s Quantum theory and the reality of the ZPF. He reasoned that two conductive or dielectric plates brought sufficiently close together will be forced together very slightly due to the wave-particle nature of EM radiation, which imparts a small impulse force when reflected or absorbed. The narrow space between the plates shields out the longer wavelengths of the ZPF spectrum much the way radio waves are shielded out by the body metal of a car (this is why the radio antenna is located outside). The entire ZPF spectrum continues to impinge on the outside surfaces of the plates creating an imbalanced force from the difference in radiation pressure, driving the plates together. P. Milonni [15] of Los Alamos Laboratories has recently provided a detailed interpretation of the Casimir effect in terms of this net radiation or photon pressure from the vacuum. The direct measurement of the Casimir force, Fc=π2hcA/240d4, where h is Planck’s constant, A the area of the plates and d the separation distance, has been performed on several occasions, first by Sparnaay in 1958 and most recently in 1998 by Mohideen [16]. Using an atomic force microscope, Mohideen’s measurements were found to be within 1% of Casimir’s theoretical prediction. One will note that this force increases very rapidly in proportion to the inverse of the fourth power of the distance between the plates. Decreasing the spacing by a factor of 10 increases the force by a factor of 10,000. The detectable onset occurs at a rather miniscule plate separation of roughly 1 micron. Mohideen’s measurements at a plate separation of 0.1 micron yielded a force of 10-10 Newtons corresponding to a pressure of about 1 atm or 100 kPa for the micron sized “plates” at a separation of 10-8 m. It is further conjectured that, in the extreme, atoms and indeed the nucleons themselves constitute small “plates”. A Simple extrapolation of this force down to the separation distance of bonded atoms in the range of 10-9 to 10-10 m yields an astounding Casimir pressure of 106 to 1010 kPa, providing values tantalizingly close to the ultimate strength of many metals and Young’s modulus. This would not appear to be a coincidence, providing a far more logical and intuitive mechanism for atomic and molecular bonding than currently accepted according to Mark Porringa

19

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

contemporary models invoking mysterious attractive forces of unknown origin, having no apparent energy supply. Other evidence of external pressure bonding can be found in the recent solution to a persistent contradiction in material science. It has long been known that materials such as concrete can be made to show evidence of tensile failure using a combination of purely compressive stresses. Until recently this enigma had no explanation other than an ad-hoc resignation to the observed facts. By adopting the unorthodox view that matter is held together by external radiation pressure, rather than internal glue-like attraction a solution becomes immediately evident as detailed by F. Grimer [17] et al of the British Building Institute. Extrapolating even further to the dimension of bonded nucleons generally conceded to be in the order of 10-15 m, (to be contested) yields an astronomical radiation pressure of 1030 kPa, which seems rather absurd but certainly sufficient to hold the nucleus together against the coulomb repulsion of the protons. Assuming for simplicity an interface bonding area in the order of 10-30 m2 between adjacent nucleons, yields a strong force of ~1 kN between the neutron and proton of a deuterium nucleus. Such numbers are admittedly hard to fathom, but one does get at least some sense of the potential magnitude of this force, if the Casimir Effect can be extrapolated in some form to the nuclear scale. The verified precision of the Casimir force equation would appear to substantiate this logical assertion. A more familiar example of the Casimir force can be envisioned by taking two finely finished Machinist’s gauge blocks or optical flats and placing them together. Once contact is made they can no longer be easily separated and must be rung apart with a shearing force. This phenomenon has traditionally been explained as due to air pressure being eliminated along the smooth contact surfaces but to some extent this is also a result of the initial onset of the Casimir force. The extremely close spacing of nanotechnology components also frequently exhibits this “stickage” phenomenon which can hinder the intended operation of such devices. There are in fact numerous Casimir-related observations, which further substantiate the existence of the ZPF, including the strange behavior of cavitation bubble collapse within the field of Sonoluminescence and the dramatic alteration of spontaneous emission times as observed in the field of Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics. Both of these phenomena are believed to be key factors in the ZIPP fusion process and the Lattice Nested Hydreno atomic model. 4.3

Sonoluminescence

The emerging field of Sonoluminescence deals with the production of mysterious high intensity, pico- frequency light pulses which are known to accompany the collapse of cavitation bubbles driven by ultrasonic waves in a dielectric fluid such as water. The source of these high-energy pulses, which can vaporize metal with temperatures exceeding 106 K, are not adequately explained by conventional thermodynamics. World-renowned physicist, J. Schwinger [18] of UCLA, has suggested that the effect is due to a coherence of ZPE from the active vacuum. This process of cavitation bubble collapse appears in fact to be a special case of the Casimir Effect with the water as a dielectric fluid enclosing a spherical cavity formed by the bubble. The dielectric bubble simply replaces the metal plates of Casimir’s original thought experiment. The net result of the ZPF in this case is directed radially inward, and as the bubble collapses in response to this force, more and more vacuum frequencies are excluded from the Mark Porringa

20

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

shrinking resonant micro-cavity, causing the net imbalance of radiation pressure to rapidly escalate, culminating in a high energy impact of the bubble wall as it collapses on itself. This action yields intense bursts of energy emanating from a radial, implosive coherence of the random energy of the vacuum. Research in this field has recently become mainstream with articles appearing in magazines such as Popular Science. The Sonofusion process recently reported at ORNL utilizes sonoluminescence to fuse deuterium dissolved in acetone. The familiar, but very mysterious phenomenon of cavitation, which can very quickly destroy stainless steel pump impellers, can likewise be accounted for as a minor coherence of ZPE that literally melts the metal. Cavitation damage is generally associated with water systems due to its high dielectric value, but liquid metals also present the same problems. Commercially available heating equipment, such as the Hydrosonic Pump™, utilizes the coherence of ZPE via collapse of cavitation bubbles, produced by a rapidly rotating perforated drum, inside a close fitting housing. Excess heat energy well beyond the electrical power input is routinely attained, yielding a COP approaching 1.5. Commercial installations of this device already abound, providing conclusive evidence of a heat energy yield well above that attributable to the drive motor. The excess is drawn from the local active vacuum through the cyclic input from cavitation bubble collapse occurring within the working fluid. 4.4

Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics

As implied under the subject of Sonoluminescence, microscopic cavities also appear to play a major role in many low energy induced fusion reactions and by implication are an important factor in the stability of the atom. It is for instance well established within the field of Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics (QED) that the spontaneous emission of an excited atom, once thought to be an immutable property, can be prevented from returning to its ground state by surrounding it with a microscopic metallic cavity only a few microns wide. Atoms have been sustained in an excited state for very extended periods of time because they can neither radiate, nor receive certain wavelengths from the seething vacuum flux. One theoretical basis for this invokes selective shielding from the ZPE spectrum [19]. As is the case with the Casimir effect, the longer wavelengths cannot exist inside the cavity reducing the atom’s exposure to the vacuum fluctuations. Puthoff [20] and Tewari [21] as well as others have suggested that it is the energy input from the vacuum that actually sustains the electron’s orbit. The electron, presumed to be a charged point-like particle in accelerated motion, should radiate its energy away, and collapse onto the nucleus according to basic EM theory. This obvious fact was simply ignored by Bohr, as clearly stated in his postulates, and rather blindly adopted in Quantum mechanics. Making the cavity small enough and of a very definitive size corresponding to critical wavelengths of the vacuum ZPE can also greatly reduce the spontaneous emission time and appears to be capable of actually encouraging collapse of the electron orbital of hydrogen to a fractional quantum, harmonic condition below its normal quantum ground state of 1. Ever smaller “plates” and cavities, could by extrapolation to the atomic and nuclear scale, conceivably include systems composed of individual atoms, nuclei and even sub atomic particles, implying the ability to alter other spontaneous processes of the atom. Conceivably, this could include fission, nuclear decay and all of their related radiation phenomena, not to mention shedding much light on the actual mechanisms of bonding from the molecular to the sub-nuclear level. Mark Porringa

21

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

4.5

Condensed Charge - High Density Charge Clusters

Based on the groundbreaking discoveries of Shoulders, Puthoff’s group has been studying Condensed Charge phenomenon for over 20 years. This work deals primarily with the production and behavior of what is referred to as an Electron Valudum (meaning large electron) or EV’s. Similar investigations into high-density charge clusters have also gone on in parallel in Russia at the Kirchatov Institute where the EV is known as an Ecton. An EV is a condensed cluster of electrons of approximately 1 micron in diameter, consisting of up to 1011 electrons, generally formed by high voltage discharge plasmas above a certain critical electron flux density. It is essentially a peculiar form of condensed matter implying some rather enigmatic properties of the electron. Its existence runs contrary to logic in that mutual coulomb repulsion should theoretically prevent its formation, yet it is very easy to produce, and in fact exists routinely in nature in a wide variety of electrical discharge phenomena. It is also interesting to note that during the development of the electron beam weapons of the “Star Wars” program, Engineers encountered problems with beam collapse, rather than the anticipated problem of diffusion; entirely contrary to their logical expectations, but in complete agreement with Puthoff’s prediction. Invariably, EV’s also contain a relatively small number of positive Ions that can be accelerated with the electron cluster to very high MeV energies using electrical potentials of only a few thousand volts. This process of accelerating a small number of positive ions attached to a large cluster of electrons has been shown by to be capable of delivering the extremely high kinetic energies necessary to cause fusion in a more conventional high velocity impact interaction. However, this does not appear to be the case with Passive Inertial Confinement and Sonofusion processes. The possibility also exists that the individual electrons involved in EV production are undergoing a collapse to a fractional quantum state well below their normal, ground state energy. The reported existence of fractional, harmonic states of both the electron and hydrogen (labeled the Hydrino) would seem to support this radical assertion. This thought will be pursued further in the more definitive context of the new atomic model. 4.6

Hydroxy Gas Implosion

Another very compelling evidence for Casimir effects is found in the peculiar properties of what has been referred to historically as Brown’s gas, or more recently Hydroxy gas. The very peculiar properties of this enigmatic gas appear to combine aspects of Sonoluminescence, Cavity QED and Charge Condensation in a single phenomenon. Hydroxy gas is essentially a stoichiometric mixture of Hydrogen and Oxygen originally thought to be composed of individual atoms rather than the usual diatomic forms. More recent evidence offered by G. Wiseman, coupled with other observations, would indicate that it is actually just water molecules in a quasi-stable excited state with the hydrogen bonds greatly elongated. This quasi-stable excited Hydrogen oxide molecule (as distinct from conventional water vapor) is normally produced in pulsed DC electrolysis cells developed by the likes of Yull Brown and Stanley Meyers. Brown’s gas electrolyzers were originally developed and used commercially in China since about 1945, but are virtually unknown in the West.

Mark Porringa

22

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Hydroxy gas has some very peculiar combustion characteristics, including implosion to an almost perfect vacuum when ignited in a confined space, resulting in traces of warm condensate. It also has the astounding ability to sublimate tungsten (10,000 °F) using a flame that burns strangely cool in air (266 °F) and cannot even heat water directly. The thermodynamics of combustion and heating properties make no sense from conventional closed system engineering analysis. It would appear necessary to adopt the more comprehensive, albeit discomforting view, that there are no closed systems in the Universe, as well proven from Quantum and Stochastic field theory. Hydroxy gas apparently interacts directly with the unobservable energy of the active vacuum in a variety of coherence phenomena. The implosion of Hydroxy gas appears to be yet another example of a ZPE coherence between matter and the energetic vacuum, that can exhibit energy flow in either direction, depending on the circumstances of combustion. The rapid asymmetrical collapse of the gangly, energized water molecule back to its ground state appears to involve more than a simple chemical reaction where a lower energy state is assumed releasing excess bond energy. As the excited electrons in the hydrogen atoms collapse back to their respective ground states, the radial implosion of the hydrogen nucleus from possible 10 Angstroms to within approximately 1 Angstrom of the oxygen nucleus would appear to constitute an atomic scale Casimir effect that draws a large component of the net energy yield from the vacuum, through ZPE coherence. In this case the metallic plates of the Casimir effect are replaced with the nuclei of hydrogen and oxygen. In some circumstances the collapse may even continue beyond the normal ground state to fractional quantum states well below the first orbital, temporarily forming condensed atomic hydrogen, oxygen, water and possibly even neutrons in the extreme view. Formation of condensed matter in this way would also release far more energy than expected from a typical diatomic hydrogen/oxygen flame, as is routinely observed. Conversely, the heat energy released is often much less than expected, as is the case for the low energy flame in air or attempts to heat water directly. In this case, it would appear that energy is lost to the vacuum flux, without producing the expected heat characterized by conventional closed system thermodynamic analysis. The anomalous energetics of Hydroxy gas is yet another very clear indication that closed system engineering analysis is not necessarily adequate in some cases. Although, conveniently applicable in the vast majority of circumstances, it clearly does not apply when non-equilibrium, transient states between the vacuum field and matter exist for very brief periods. During such transient states the energy flow into and out of a material system is not in equilibrium with the vacuum, giving rise to net a energy gain or loss which is not necessarily detectable using conventional instrumentation. 4.7

Negentropy (Negative Entropy)

The anomalous energetics of Hydroxy gas and a growing number of other over-unity energy systems clearly indicates that new energy sources can conceivably be engineered to utilize such transient vacuum-matter interactions to continually extract energy from the chaotic vacuum on a cyclic basis using a variety of coherence phenomena in all manner of material systems and processes. The primary reason that such systems are not already widely distributed is the general resistance to the notion of extracting energy from the apparent “nothingness” of space, seemingly contradicting the conservation of energy law. Mark Porringa

23

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

However, it should be realized that on the Universal scale (as yet unobservable) energy is certainly being conserved in keeping with the First law. ZPE coherence phenomena also appear to contradict the Second law of thermodynamics in that energy becomes organized with an attendant decrease in entropy, but again this only applies to closed systems, which in reality is never the case anyhow. A growing list of such negative entropy, coherence phenomena are said to exhibit Negentropy. These Negentropic processes are actually quite prevalent in nature, especially in living systems but also in a wide variety of more mundane circumstances. Fundamentally, matter appears to be just highly organized, low entropy energy, which by nature organizes the random energy of the vacuum giving rise to many familiar, but as yet unexplained coherence phenomena including, for instance, gravitation and inertia. Transient states of the matter vacuum interaction can theoretically be engineered to alter inertia and gravity so as to produce novel methods of Field Effect propulsion, that do not require a material reaction medium. The organized energy of matter is effectively replaced with the directly engineered, vectored coherence of the random ZPE of space. This of course plays havoc with Newton’s Third law of motion, in that momentum is not being conserved by the material system, but again, from the larger reference frame, momentum is conserved by the “virtual” mass of the immaterial ZPF. Application of such an approach would render rocket and jet propulsion systems obsolete and make interstellar space flight and anti-gravity systems a practical reality. It is no stretch of the imagination to speculate that Quantum Vacuum Physicists and QVaC Engineers will certainly develop these systems within the next decade. As a matter of habit, the vast majority of Engineers continue to focus all their attention on the most common situation, which is a steady state, dynamic equilibrium between matter and local space, which permits the engineer to assume for convenience a closed system. In reality, however, closed systems do not really exist anywhere in the Universe. Furthermore, Engineers generally prefer to avoid the unpredictable nature of system transients, applying liberal fudge factors and margins of error to avoid the difficulties of complex modeling and analysis. In contrast, QVaC engineers of the near future will seek to enhance and capitalize on the rapid cycling of non-linear transients in order to pump energy efficiently from the incoherent vacuum flux. This is already being accomplished in wide variety of devices such as the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator (MEG) of Beardon and associates. On a more familiar front, the ability of matter to organize the visible light spectrum to transmit vast amounts of visual information with respect to color, texture and shape is an obvious, though frequently overlooked manifestation of a negentropic interaction between matter and random light energy. In reality the visible light should be considered as a small portion of the ZPF spectrum. It should be emphasized that, this natural tendency of matter to organize the vacuum flux does not diminish the need of a root cause to bring the original material order out of the relative chaos of the formless vacuum. The absolute need for a previously existent, master directive is not diminished in the slightest, despite vain assertions to the contrary. The incredible complexity and order in the Universe could simply not arise from pure unguided chaos. Preliminary experiments with hydroxy gas also indicate that nuclear reactions can be induced by its anomalous, negentropic, implosion characteristics. Neutralization of radioactive Am241 within a matrix of molten metals has been reported on several occasions demonstrating close ties to the ZIPP fusion process, with the dielectric fluid replaced with Mark Porringa

24

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

molten metal. Activity reductions approaching 95 percent have been observed in less than a minute without any real attempt at optimization. The sudden reduction in radioactivity accomplished by the Hydroxy gas-MMX process is accompanied by a dramatic exothermic plasma, reminiscent of a thermite reaction. The process would appear to be yet another form of Low Recoil, non-radioactive “Cold” fission. An informal video of this process performed by the author was distributed by PACE in 1998. Plasmas in various forms and other obscure vector and scalar EM phenomena typically involving high voltage gradients, seem in fact to be an essentially universal occurrence in all forms of low energy induced nuclear reaction. Oddly enough, bio-nuclear reactions appear to be the most prolific for reasons not entirely clear, although conceptual ideas are slowly emerging in keeping with general observation that In Vivo reactions typically occur at much lower energies than the equivalent reactions of bulk process chemistry. One obvious example is the low temperature “burning” of individual hydrocarbon atoms in the metabolism of all organisms, facilitated in part by various enzymes. The formation of Hydroxy gas within the dielectric fluids of microscopic cellular organelles such as the contractile vacuoles also seems plausible. Living organisms frequently exhibit extreme voltage gradients; such as exist across the plasma membrane of all cells, so it appears that the essential requirement for production of excited water molecules is a distinct possibility. Without these voltage gradients, death has most assuredly occurred and low gradients are a clear indication of chronic disease states, such as cancer.

Mark Porringa

25

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

5.

ATOMIC THEORY RECONSIDERED

5.1 Fractional Quantum States of Hydrogen The assertion that Hydroxy gas implosion may result in sub-ground states of hydrogen finds compelling supporting evidence from the recent discovery by R. Mills [22] of a form of hydrogen with the electron in a fractional quantum orbital, well below the normal ground state of the K orbital. This discovery constitutes yet another major piece of the puzzle in formulating a revised model of the atom capable of explaining how low energy induced fusion occurs. Its fractional quantum state admittedly runs amok of some basic tenets of quantum mechanics, but the non-radiating properties of the stable orbital electron proposed by Bohr are neatly salvaged, although in a highly modified form. This compact form of hydrogen, referred to as the Hydrino, can apparently exist in many different fractional quantum states, with an electron orbital that does not radiate. The orbital electron in this case is conjectured to be a very real, composite standing EM wave, comprised of radial, spherical and time harmonic functions, which together define a spherical shell or orbitsphere with an “orbiting” charge density wave of clearly defined spacial dimensions around the proton with all of the EM and centrifugal forces in balance. This orbitsphere electron can also exist in a free state reminiscent and analogous to an ordinary balloon or soap bubble of essentially no internal substance, but possessing a relatively large, well defined and presumably flexible volume. The conventional notion of a singular point charge material particle, whirling about the nucleus is consequently discarded. This very real wave-particle electron replaces the purely statistical wave functions of conventional Quantum mechanics that evolved from the contributions of Heisenberg, Born, Schrodinger and Hund with its compounding of assumptions and apparent errors. A clearer intuitive understanding of electron-positron annihilation is another obvious application of the various standing wave vortex models proposed by the likes of Mills, Tewari and this author. The observed magnetic properties of the electron are also explained without necessarily invoking a literal “particle” spin. However, the spin quantum of atomic particles remains a useful concept, even though the fundamental understanding of it changes considerably under the new force field model. As expected the collapse of the hydrogen atom to these sub ground, fractional quantum states of the hydrino is accompanied by a very substantial release of energy, in like manner to that observed with hydroxy gas implosion. Clean energy and the production of exotic new materials utilizing the hydrino’s extremely strong bonding characteristics are two applications being actively pursued. Theory on the hydrino is based in a highly deterministic, classical version of Quantum mechanics, claimed to be wholly consistent with Maxwell’s original equations of electromagnetism. Furthermore, Mills claims concurrence with the de Broglie wave-particle duality equation, λ=h/p and many other well established universal constants and phenomena, although the uncertainty principle of Heisenburg, and its attendant theoretical ideas take a rather thorough thrashing. The possible demise of the uncertainty principle may seem a radical development, but returning quantum mechanics to a more logical, deterministic foundation ought to be regarded as a giant step toward facilitating practical applications, such as the rapid neutralization of nuclear waste. Many other applications of quantum vacuum Mark Porringa

26

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

coherence, or more appropriately QVac engineering are certainly envisioned in the near future. Myron Evans is another respected and very prolific theorist, who also advocates a return to a more deterministic form of Quantum theory based in the higher topology of O(3) Electromagnetics, which is rapidly gaining support due to the profusion of new papers on the subject. Evans claims to eliminate the glaring inconsistencies in the standard EM model that have crept in primarily as a result of Heaviside’s vector simplification of Maxwell’s original equations, that were written in the higher topology mathematics of now defunct Quaternions. Many of these contradictions and paradoxes in the Heaviside mathematics have been succinctly enumerated by Beardon in his frequent postings to the Internet and other publications. The most embarrassing of these is the total absence of any explanation of the source for the electric field energy that continually radiates from all point charges at the velocity of light. It should be obvious by now that this field actually results from the continual coherence of the random ZPE of the vacuum arising from its interaction with matter. Indeed, the manifestation of charge and matter itself appears to result from a continuous coherence phenomenon - essentially a vortex pointalization of the otherwise random energy of the vacuum. 5.2

Refinements To The Electron/Positron Model

In addition to the composite standing wave force field electron proposed by Mills, other refinements of the point mass charge model of the electron also exist. As previously mentioned, Tewari suggests that the electron and positron are composed of a standing wave spherical vortex of a massless fluid having zero viscosity. His assertion is that the nucleons are composed of a spherical lattice of these electron and positron vortices arranged in such a way so that they mutually support, rather than annihilate, each other. This logical and appealing concept is also entertained here, although along a decidedly different line of reasoning, devoid of the material Ether concept. Indeed, one can visualize several different standing wave forms that might fit the bill for a nucleon lattice structure of this nature. The familiar tornado-like vortex and a continuous ring vortex describing the shape of a toroid are two other possible options. A visualization of this latter idea is obtained by bending a “slinky” coil spring end to end, forming a toroid shape (toroidal vortex), the electric field vector forming the interior core with the magnetic field spiraling around it defining the volume of the toroidal ring. The positron would just spiral in the opposite direction. The Anu-toroid is yet another composite waveform combining the attributes of both a vortex and toroid. Possibly the best option, is a simple spherical vortex with its composite field rotating about two perpendicular axes simultaneously. Composite rotations of this nature are known to eliminate internal centrifugal forces in rotating spherical masses, levitated by a magnetic field, permitting rotation speeds approaching 500,000 rpm without significant internal stress developing. The internal forces normally expected from angular acceleration about a single axis are effectively cancelled in such two-axis rotations. This would certainly be of benefit to an electron with a tangential velocity, which is conjectured to be light speed. Taking a decidedly different tact, the electron proposed by S. Sarg [23] invokes a solid, highly rarified structure composed of a fundamental substance arranged in a very intricate Mark Porringa

27

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

double helix with several levels of material organization below the electron as described in his astounding and very comprehensive Basic Structure of Matter (BSM) theory. The BSM theory constitutes yet another version of a highly deterministic, classical form of quantum mechanics based in the view that space is filled with a highly structured lattice of super dense, extremely rarified fundamental material, reminiscent of some aspects of String theory. The BSM model is again claimed to be consistent with a wide array of unexplained phenomenon and universal constants and equations without all of the inherent uncertainties of conventional quantum mechanics. Certainly the final verdict on the electron’s structure is not in yet. The very recent assertion and supporting evidence for fractional states of the electron, referred to as Electrinos by H. Maris [24] is yet another very interesting development that fits well with Mills’ heretical claims about the Hydrino, while throwing further doubts on a fundamental tenet of Quantum theory. For the moment its theoretical implications will not be pursued, although it is not hard to envision that a free standing wave electron might be coaxed into a fractional quantum state in the manner proposed by Mills, or even split into two separate “particles” to form shorter, harmonic overtone standing waves. The structure and internals of the electron and positron have not, for the moment, been addressed in any great detail, although it should be quite clear, that the simple point charge particle model is in obvious need of refinement, and good conceptual ideas abound. Strictly as a matter of convenience and clarity, further discussion relating to the electron and positron will be confined primarily to a variant of the Mills force field orbitsphere and hydrino concepts, in recognition of their already advanced mathematically modeling, wide spread discussion and practical application. This is not, however, to be taken as an a priori acceptance of this concept, as it too appears to have its limitations due to some fundamental oversights stemming from discounted vacuum interactions. In order to maintain some necessary distinction from the Mills concept an alternative spelling will therefore be used, replacing the term Hydrino with Hydreno. This distinction also handily removes the implication that we are confining our investigation to only smaller condensed forms of low energy hydrogen. Higher energy forms of nuclear bound hydrogen or hydreno corresponding to every quantum energy state of the orbital electrons is envisioned within the new atomic model. 5.3

Refinements To The Proton and Neutron Model

Quark theory on the internal structure of the proton and neutron with all its exotic particles and virtual states is partly the brain child of incredibly complex mathematical formulae, which frequently runs amok from common sense logic and observed reality. Such formulae are also fraught with compounding errors, presumptions and boundary conditions that are frequently little more than speculation. Experimental evidence cited as proof is also dubious at best, given the indirect and extremely transitory nature of such phenomena, which typically discounts the reality of the matter-vacuum interaction from the outset. Momentarily setting aside this mass of quarky confusion with all its colors and flavors and adopting a more pragmatic approach, the nuclear emission of high energy electrons and positrons (β-/+), with accompanying changes of state of the nucleons, logically indicates that they are composed of electrons (negatrons) and positrons, in some sort of stable arrangement, such that electron/positron annihilations do not normally occur. Mark Porringa

28

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

With the various energy vortex models of the electron and positron fresh in our thoughts, it is not hard to envision how such a lattice of oppositely charged particles might exist. In fact, all of the aforementioned standing waveforms would appear capable of being arranged in a lattice, from which the nucleons could be composed of oppositely circulating, mutually supportive positrons and electrons, in a state of constructive interference of matched harmonic states. An internal nucleon structure of this form could handily account for the difference between thermonuclear hot fission and the various cold fission reactions that have been historically observed, as detailed later in our analysis. The neutron would obviously have an equal number of electrons and positrons, while the proton would be shy one electron giving it a net positive charge of one electron volt. The mass of the neutron is reported to be equivalent to 1838.7 electrons and the mass of a proton, about 1836.2 electrons. One would expect the mass defect observed for the nucleus to be even more pronounced for the internal structure of the nucleons, due to the much greater number of particles involved and higher matter density, so the slight discrepancy in the mass of the nucleons from a whole integer value is certainly to be expected. Near enough, it would appear that the neutron is composed of 919 electrons and 919 positrons with a nominal diameter of 15 “nucleon state” electrons (negatrons) based on the unit volume of a sphere with 1838 cells and the necessity for square planar bonding to provide coulomb stability. Square planar bonding would be required to maintain some space between the repulsive like charges, while providing intimate contact between attractive opposite charges. The resulting open-lattice structure would be inherently stable, permitting penetration of the sustaining energy from the active vacuum flux right to the core of its structure, from several different directions. This idea will be expanded further and illustrated under the detail postulates of the new model. The proton would logically be deficient one negatron, giving it an overall net charge of one eV, with significant localized charge asymmetry. The various Quarks are therefore conjectured to be simply fractions of this basic lattice assembly, resulting from nucleon fissions along natural cleavage planes of the square planar lattice. 5.4

Other Objections To The Bohr-Rutherford Model

Taken to its logical extreme, the existence of the Mills Hydrino would indicate that the orbital electron may be stimulated to shrink by momentarily removing its sustaining energy flow, permitting it to collapse completely onto the nucleus, combining with a proton in a peculiar bound state, forming the neutron. It was W. Harkin [25], a contemporary of Bohr, who first suggested that the neutron is simply a bound state of hydrogen in which the charge of the electron and proton are no longer individually discernable. Initially unaware of the implications for the Bohr atomic model, this was conjectured to be true from the outset of this line of inquiry. Electron capture by fusing nuclei, resulting in the conversion of excess protons to neutrons, is asserted to be a common occurrence in low energy induced ZIPP fusion reactions, and is a also central tenet of the LNH atomic model. The emission of a Beta particle, in conjunction with the conversion of a neutron to a proton, also logically supports this assertion. This seems to be yet another instance where a common sense solution was discarded in favor of an esoteric concept, in order to support an outmoded theory. Furthermore, R. Monti’s [26] comprehensive investigation of the history of atomic theory revealed that D. Borghi [27] reported the synthesis of neutrons from cold hydrogen plasma in 1958, in accordance with his hypothesis published decades earlier in Mark Porringa

29

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

the Journal of American Chemical Society. Refusing to recant of such scientific heresy, Borghi was estranged by his contemporaries, despite the compelling evidence and simple logic of his assertion that just so happened to fly in the face of the entrenched dogma of the time, which still exists today. Having repeated the heretical assertion that the neutron is just a bound state of hydrogen, or more simply the sum of a proton and electron, it becomes necessary to take a closer look at other aspects of existing atomic theory with particular emphasis on the still widely accepted Bohr-Rutherford planetary model. Aside from its undisputed accuracy in the prediction of the spectral lines of hydrogen, the Bohr-Rutherford atomic model appears to be in need of some serious rework. The most glaring objections come from chemistry since Bohr’s model is unable to account logically for chemical bonding, isomers, allotropic forms and many other properties, resulting in an artificial rift between nuclear physics and chemistry, which remains tied to a more definitive structure of the atom as advocated by Valence theorists of the likes of Thompson, Parson, Lewis and Allen, all of whom raised valid objections to the Bohr model from the outset. These largely ignored objections were succinctly enumerated by A. Crehore [28] who rightly observed that the “entire field of chemistry is not a silly thing to be light heartedly dismissed in order to embrace the Bohr atom”. Furthermore, both Crehore and Allen pointed out that the useful ideas from Bohr’s theory such as the explanation of series lines in spectra can be obtained from other models, that do not ignore for convenience, basic laws of electromagnetism, concerning the behavior and interaction of charged particles. Bohr’s insistence that the accelerated motion of electrons within the atom do not radiate is logically objectionable, unless viewed from the advanced theoretical concepts proposed by the likes of Mills and Evans. The complex EM interactions between the hundreds of “particle” electrons presumed to be orbiting large nuclei in a very complex fashion, would be hopelessly intricate, and more aptly described as a state of indeterminate chaos. Another objection is raised regarding Rutherford’s [29] calculation of the size of the nucleus, which could be off by a very wide margin, due to several invalid assumptions, including the erroneous exchange of terminology used in his analysis that permitted the “surface” of the nucleus to be considered equivalent to the “center” of the nucleus, due to its presumed point-like nature with a dimension assumed from the outset to be less than 10-14 m. If the nuclear charge is in reality dispersed over a considerably larger volume than the currently conjectured 10-42 m3, the coulomb interaction with a high velocity charged particle would be much different than Rutherford’s presumption. A larger nucleus, with a much reduced electric field intensity, would permit the high energy alpha particles used in the Gold foil experiment to come much closer to the nucleus, possibly even striking it. Rutherford also makes the mistake of presuming that the probability of large angle deflections is directly related to the thickness of the gold foil, ignoring the obvious tendency of the alpha particle to be channeled within the highly organized atomic lattice by the presence of the concentrated charge of the gold nuclei, and secondarily by the electron cloud surrounding it. The beam trajectory being normal with respect to the foil, and therefore parallel to the internal lattice structure, would effectively prevent large angle deflections beyond the first two staggered layers of the cubic close-packed crystal structure.

Mark Porringa

30

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Barring a direct hit or very close miss on a gold nucleus within these first two layers, the high energy alpha particle would simply continue on its merry way between the nuclei, effectively channeled through the entire foil, without any further prospects of high angle deflections. Only small deflections would be possible for the remainder of its travel, and these would be entirely insufficient to bump the alpha particle out of the defined channel provided by the lattice. The thickness of the foil used in the experiment is cited near enough as 10-8 m. Given the well- established atomic dimension of 10-10 m, the foil was less than 100 atoms thick, making it extremely unlikely that a single alpha particle could experience more than one large angle deflection. The proportion of large angle deflections greater than 90o was found to be only one in 20,000. Following the reasoning above, about half of these deflections happen at the surface of the foil, the remainder occurring at the staggered layer of atoms immediately below the surface of the foil of the cubic close-packed structure. In other words if the foil could have been reduced to only two layers thick the number of high angle deflections would have been essentially the same as that observed for the 100 atom thick foil. The remaining 98 atomic layers would have virtually no effect with regard to high angle scattering. Rutherford’s inclusion of a thickness factor in his probability analysis would therefore appear quite unjustified, and would by itself give rise to a 100-fold error in the size of the nucleus. Making no presumptions about the relative size of the nucleus, and the nature of the coulomb interaction, a reasonable estimate could be asserted by considering only the high angle scattering at the surface of the foil, which clearly indicates that only about 1/10,000 of the surface area is occupied by something substantial—a heavy nucleus—the remainder being mostly empty space occupied only by the orbital electron clouds. This clearly, and simply implies that the diameter of the nucleus could conceivably be roughly 1/100 of the atoms diameter. The result of this “ball park” analysis is that the nuclear radius may be about a thousand times larger than the currently conceded dimension of 10-15 m, which results in an atomic diameter in the range of 10-10 m, with a nucleus of 10-12 m; a much different view from that currently accepted. Even at 10-12 m, the absolute Casimir pressure is still a very substantial 1018 kPa - certainly adequate to hold the nucleus together against the substantially reduced coulomb repulsion of the protons. To help put this in perspective, consider a scaled up version of the hydrogen atom. Rutherford’s nucleus modeled at one cm in diameter would require an atomic diameter approaching 1 km. The nuclear dimension here proposed would reduce the atomic dimension from 1 km to 1 m, a very dramatic difference. A thousand-fold increase in the nuclear diameter, also results in a million fold reduction in the intensity of the mutual coulomb repulsion of the protons of the rarified nucleus, assuming for simplicity a radial field attenuation, according to the normal 1/r2 relation. Such a dramatic reduction greatly improves the prospects of fusion at low energies, and calls into question the present understanding of thermonuclear explosions, which are heavily reliant on the notion of an extremely intense coulomb repulsion within the nucleus. Thermal neutron absorption cross-sections cast further doubt on the notion of an extremely small nucleus. Gold 198 and Cadmium 113 for instance have cross-sections approaching 27,000 barns, which on a statistical basis, just so happens to equate to an apparent nuclear dimension of 10-12 m, again a thousand times larger than the currently accepted nuclear dimension. Furthermore Gd157 tops the list for thermal neutron capture with a whopping Mark Porringa

31

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

cross-section of 240,000 barns, yielding an apparent nuclear dimension approaching 10-11m. By comparison, the readily fissionable material U235 has a combined thermal neutron crosssection of only 700 Barns. Obviously there are some very peculiar characteristics of the nucleus that on the one hand give rise to such incredible high cross-sections while some metals, such as Zirconium appear to be essentially transparent to neutrons with cross-sections measured in millibarns. It should be apparent from the reality of the ZPF and ultra-close range Casimir effects acknowledged, that these wide variations in nuclear cross-section might be straight forwardly explained, as will be attempted later under the detailed postulates of the model. One would think that the use of high-energy neutrons instead of alpha particles in the Gold foil experiment would eliminate the need for Rutherford’s assumption that the nucleus is a non-distributed point charge. With the complexities of coulomb interactions presumably eliminated, a good approximation of the nuclear dimension might be attained using simple Newtonian collision analysis, very much analogous to the interaction between an array of regularly spaced bowling balls bombarded with a spray of billiard balls. Admittedly this is an over simplification, devoid of the very real quantum mechanical, waveparticle considerations at such small dimensions, not to mention the internal structure of the neutron, which is bound to cause some very real complications of its own, due to the spatial distribution of its constituent charged particles. The neutron at very close range does not appear to be so neutral after all, which probably explains why such an experiment is not valid or widely reported. For that matter, neutron radiography provides further doubts and questions about the minute size of the nucleus. How is it that such sharp, high contrast images can be produced when the neutron beam is only supposedly interacting with an extremely small, essentially nonexistent nucleus? One would expect the transmission losses through the target material, resulting from reflection and absorption, to be too small to produce sharp images on film. All of this discussion has for the moment discounted the very real prospect of an incident neutron being converted to a hydrino or hydrogen atom, as the surface bound electron jumps back to some higher quantum state, in response to the forces and energy of interactions in the target material. This seems especially likely in respect to hydrogenous materials, which despite their small nuclei, are known to provide very effective shielding for neutrons. The presence of a high concentration of hydrogen atoms would presumably organize the local vacuum flux to provide a strong background signal for the production of hydrogen from neutrons, which just so happens to be the normal decay route for neutrons. Along this line of reasoning it should again be emphasized that matter always organizes the energy of the vacuum in much the same way that diffused white light from the sun is organized by bulk matter to create complex images of form, color and texture. Organization of the quantum vacuum energy is however primarily accomplished by the sub-atomic and sub-nuclear structure of matter apparently expressing itself as the inertial and gravitational properties of the atomic assembly, as well as other phenomena. Without a doubt, there is a lengthy list of anomalies, not too mention familiar phenomena that cannot be adequately explained by existing theory including, for instance: atomic and nuclear bonding, isotopic distributions (or lack thereof), missing elements (Tc, Pm), crystal structure, bond angles, allotropes, isomers and so on ad nauseam. Mark Porringa

32

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Why is it that no stable isotopes exist for elements having an odd number of neutrons and protons? Why is it that only one stable form exists for over 25 elements while others have up to 10 stable isotopes? What is behind the enigmatic chemistry of Nitrogen? Why does the hot fission of Uranium result in unequal fission fragments? How does cold fission frequently occur without radioactivity or the release of the vast amounts of energy characteristic of thermonuclear reactions? Why is it that no one seems even to bother anymore with such fundamental questions? Have we become so intellectually smug with our meager, superficial understanding of things that we are content with merely labeling and cataloging all this empirical knowledge, without pursuing a fundamental, deterministic understanding of what is behind it? Again, it bears repeating, that the real value of any scientific model lies in its ability to account for observations and to predict behavior in a logical, deterministic fashion that closely approaches the fundamental reality. Modern science with its penchant for invoking mind boggling mathematics as proof in itself, often embraces ideas that are very much contrary to common sense logic and realistic modeling, evidently afraid to admit that the Universe is not some “cosmic crap shoot” after all. Taken collectively, these numerous objections to the Bohr/Rutherford model clearly indicate that conventional atomic theory is way out of whack with reality and needs a major upgrade, if not a total rebuild from the ground up. A good place to start would be a fresh look at some of the history of the atom, which has been thoroughly researched and succinctly reported recently by R. Monti. A high point of this riveting, historical synopsis is the Alpha Extended model originally proposed by W. Harkin [30]. Resurrected and embellished by Monti, the Alpha extended model provides some interesting theoretical framework for a more complete understanding of low energy induced fusion and fission reactions, both of which have been clearly demonstrated to occur with surprising abundance in a wide variety of low energy systems.

Mark Porringa

33

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

6. 6.1

THE NEW ATOMIC MODEL An Overview Of The Lattice Nested Hydreno Model

Having now cast a long shadow of doubt on existing notions of the atom, it is high time to begin rebuilding a revised model that is much closer to the observed macroscopic reality. Adopting a variant of the Mills Hydrino concept, (relabeled the Hydreno for distinction) combined with further refinements of the Alpha Extended model of Harkin and Monti, and the recent discovery of the “impossible” tetraneutron [31] yields a simple, yet revolutionary concept as illustrated in Figure 1a showing an isolated graphite atom. This particular nuclear-based allotrope of carbon is composed of three bonded tetrahedral alpha groups arranged in the tightest packing possible, which provides good separation of the protons to minimize coulomb repulsion. Figure 1a: Isolated Graphite Atom

Fig 1b: Trigonal Bonded Graphite

Fig 1c: Diamond / Amorph Carbon

The neutrons shown in white are thereby arranged in a central plane composed of square planar bonds separating the protons. Neutrons are here again presumed to be composed of the sum of a proton and electron with overall neutral charge. It should be noted that nothing is to be construed regarding the relative size of the nucleons or their internal structure and charge distribution, only the geometric relationships are for the moment being considered. In this view of the atom all of the electrons including those responsible for bonding remain directly associated with a particular proton on the surface of the nucleus. The electrons do not orbit the entire nucleus. This proton-electron group is represented by the black hydrenos in different quantum energy states shown in the illustration. For simplicity and clarity only two different hydreno energy states corresponding to the K and L orbital are illustrated. In larger atoms, several other intermediate harmonic (quantized) energy levels are presumed to exist roughly corresponding to the wide range of observed ionization energies and electron orbital shells from K to Q (1 to 7). The electrons form dynamic force-field shells directly coupled to individual protons in the nucleus. This orbital electron force field is composed of a composite standing wave, ellipsoid energy vortex, anchored to the proton by coulomb attraction and extending a great distance from the proton, standing in a position of dynamic equilibrium determined by the complex interaction of atomic scale EM fields and interactions with the local ZPE field, possibly including inertial and gravitational forces. The high energy, distended hydreno sites that constitute the four valence bonding positions are logically located in the same plane at the ends of the long axis of the atom in the positions of least restraint and highest exposure to the incident ZPE spectrum. Exposure to the ZPF is presumed to be key to the sustained stability of the atom in its entirety due to a combination of brute force radiation pressure from the vacuum and resonance interactions with discrete harmonic frequencies of the ZPE spectrum. Such freedom and exposure Mark Porringa

34

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

would logically result in a higher quantum energy state for these four electrons as represented by their distended ellipsoid orbitals, which for purely practical reasons are shown much shorter than in reality. The bulk volume of the atom remains mostly empty space. The orbital shell of the electron is therefore more reminiscent of the ellipsoid orbit of a comet, with the paired proton in its nested position on the surface of the neutron lattice core, “pinned” there, by the brute, impelling radiation pressure from the vacuum, which overcomes the mutual coulomb repulsion of the protons in the nucleus. The other two low energy hydrenos represented by the small black spheres are relatively shielded and more restrained and posses electron shells that stand at a distance much closer to the proton and are therefore not able to participate in chemical bonding since they are very tightly bound and occupy lower quantum energy states below the presumed event horizon for conventional Lavoisier type chemical reactions. Bonded graphite atoms would naturally assume the typical 120o trivalent, planar orientation illustrated in Figure 1b when one of the crowded high-energy hydreno groups releases its electron under the duress of in situ mutual repulsion giving graphite its good conductive properties. This flat atomic structure would logically give rise to the high tensile strength but essentially no shear strength between the atomic layers. The notion of electron orbitals of the Bohr atomic model and its associated quantum energy levels are consequently preserved, although in a highly modified, deterministic, yet dynamic structure consistent with both wave and particle properties. To be fair, it should be reiterated that other electron models are also compatible with the Lattice Nested Hydreno concept, but for the time being, are not considered in any detail to avoid confusion at this early conceptual stage of model development. By simply rearranging the neutrons and moving the hydrenos to other logical nested positions as shown in Figure 1c, we arrive at a compelling model for an amorphous carbon atom possessing a base 2 octahedral neutron lattice core with its familiar valence 4 tetrahedral configuration including its double and triple bonding characteristics. The valence 2 configuration is accommodated by the asymmetry provided by the two low energy hydrenos. The proposed atomic structure for diamond is essentially the same other than these two low energy hydrenos have been forced into very low quantum energy states using extreme pressure and temperature to literally compress them providing the +4, -4 valence of the diamond crystal. The recently discovered Fullerene form of carbon could likewise be constructed by a minor rearrangement of the nucleons or alternatively as an atomic level allotrope. Despite the rigid appearance of such models – which of course concurs with the rigid appearance of the macroscopic world - the internal dynamics of the LNH atom readily accommodate and harmonize the foundational principles of quantum theory including discrete energy states, the wave-particle duality of de Broglie, and apparently many other well established properties of the atom and nucleus. Continuing the atom building process for the series of group 4a elements Si, Ge, Sn and Pb one can quickly find several viable options within a narrow range of discrete neutron core shapes that support the valence and crystal structures observed. Silicon for instance appears to have a base 3 octahedral neutron core, Ge is base 4 octahedral, Sn base 6 tetrahedral and Pb, base 5x6 rectangular bipyramidal. This descriptive nomenclature is further developed within Section 7 detailing the postulates, principles and rules of the LNH atomic model. The neutron count and surface nested hydreno/proton counts, bond angles, valence and elemental crystal structure, precisely correspond to what is observed in nature in a very logical and intuitive fashion. Furthermore all stable isotopes can clearly be Mark Porringa

35

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

accommodated with Tin topping out with a full count of ten, with intermediate unstable forms barred by a readily apparent loss of nuclear symmetry. The accommodation of radioisotopes, modes of decay and sources of nuclear radiation also becomes quite evident for a variety of logical and intuitive reasons. Even the steady decline in the strength and rigidity of the elemental crystal structure from diamond down to lead is quite apparent due to escalating asymmetry and less definitive bonding of the high energy hydrenos (valence orbital electrons) at both the nuclear and atomic level. The crystal geometry of the elemental solid is consequently based on the shape of the individual atoms, which is primarily defined by the polyhedron neutron core and the resulting extrapolations of the surface bound hydreno distribution. From these collective observations of the group 4a elements, it is quite evident that one can arrive at logically deduced, highly deterministic models for all the elements, which clearly illustrate the common isotopes, allotropes and isomeric forms. The complete characterization of all the elements becomes an almost mundane, albeit time-consuming exercise, once basic rules dictating the elegant and highly deterministic geometry of the nucleus are realized. How such a simple concept has eluded great thinkers for so long is hard to fathom. The hazards of entrenched thinking are painfully evident. A wide variety of other nuclear phenomena, both familiar and previously unexplained, can also be understood on the basis of the definitive nuclear geometry in conjunction with matter’s continuous harmonic and brute force interactions with the ZPF of space. Chemical and elemental properties and phenomena such as crystal structure, valence, bond angles, volatility, compounds, bulk material characteristics and a vast array of other related observations are likewise understood and harmonized on the basis of the highly organized lattice geometry of the nucleus, and the resulting quantization of the electron force field states of the surface-bound hydrenos. These harmonic states of the orbital electrons, arising from the geometry of the nucleus and its definitive exposure to the ZPF, clearly imply that the chemical and structural properties of the atom are directly related to the structure of the nucleus, in glaring contrast to the assertions of Bohr. From a chemistry standpoint, one of the most daunting “acid tests” imaginable for the new model would be to explain the bizarre properties of Nitrogen – quite possibly the most enigmatic of all the elements. In its diatomic gaseous form it is so inert that Lavoisier was compelled to label it Azote, (meaning without life) yet it’s myriad of compounds are extremely volatile as a main component of explosives and many other highly reactive compounds. It also exhibits a profusion of 8 valence states from –3 to +5; no other element comes close. Obviously, there is something extremely peculiar about the atomic structure of Nitrogen that must logically explain such totally unique properties. What is behind all this strange behavior is actually quite easily explained by its very unique cubic close-packed nuclear geometry as illustrated in Figure 2a, which provides perfect cubic symmetry. Nitrogen's Base 2 Octahedral neutron core (B2 Octacore) is identical to that of diamond composed of six neutrons, with 7 nested protons (shown in red) and one additional peripheral neutron (white), evident in Figure 2b. The energy density and frequency distribution of the local vacuum has evidently been attenuated and taxed to its limit barring the formation of the eighth hydreno, which consequently remains in its unexcited state as a peripheral neutron. This clearly implies that the valence states are poorly defined subject to wide variations (accommodating all 8 valence configurations) and potentially very unstable. All eight bond sites on the neutron core are absolutely identical which logically means any of the 7 hydreno positions shown in Figure 2c is apt to exchange states with the one peripheral neutron with very little aggravation, particularly in explosive Mark Porringa

36

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

compounds such as TNT or Nitro-Glycerin, causing extremely volatile reactions involving the total collapse of any one of the seven hydrenos. Figure 2a: Nitrogen Nucleus

Figure 2b

Figure 2c

(Cubic Close Pack Geometry)

(Peripheral Neutron View)

(7 Proton / Hydreno View)

The entire quantum energy of the affected orbital is consequently liberated, releasing a massive burst of thermal radiations, while the neutron simultaneously expands to form a new hydreno to replace the one that is collapsing, gathering its required sustaining energy from discrete harmonics of the local quantum vacuum flux. This complete collapse of a valence orbital yields the maximum energy possible in a chemical reaction, if it is even appropriate to refer to it as such. Given that the nitrogen atom has in effect changed its nuclear structure, this is more properly referred to as a form of chemo-nuclear reaction. During the reaction transient there are evidently 8 hydrenos (protons), 2 of which are exchanging states, and only 6 core neutrons (the identical composition of unstable Oxygen 14). In contrast, diatomic nitrogen creates a virtually impenetrable chemical barrier composed of a radially symmetric distribution of 14 hydrenos of essentially identical energy states, none of which are free to react. The two atoms are firmly interlocked at the bond interface defined by the vacant peripheral neutron positions preventing them from assuming a hydreno state. Furthermore, the cause of the hexagonal close packed crystal structure of solid nitrogen is readily apparent from the six staggered facets formed by the hydreno grouping defined from the neutron core extrapolations. The cryogenic fluid nature of nitrogen is also explained by the lack of significant charge polarity of the diatomic molecule. Water by comparison forms a fluid at much higher temperatures due to its strong polarity. This closely bound diatomic gas is also known to undergo endogenous transmutation from thermally excited N2 to form CO with the exchange of a proton-neutron pair (deuteron) between the two closely bound nuclei. This discovery by Dr. Louis Kervran initiated global changes in welding practices that had caused numerous deaths due to carbon monoxide poisoning that could not be traced to CO in the work environment. In contrast to the Lattice Nested Hydreno model, the Bohr-Rutherford planetary model is irremediably inconsistent with such logical determinism and ought therefore to be largely abandoned as plainly inferior.

Mark Porringa

37

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

6.2

Philosophical Considerations

The ensuing list of postulates, principles and rules are intended to provide a reasonably comprehensive foundation and framework for the new Lattice Nest Hydreno atomic model. They are consequently listed in ascending order, starting from the seething active vacuum of space, and progressing up to the level of bulk matter and beyond. In light of the radical departure from the conventional Bohr-Rutherford model and numerous aspects of Standard Scientific Theory, existing empirical scientific evidence must often be reinterpreted as we proceed with a veritable reconstruction of atomic theory from the ground up. The sheer volume of empirical evidence that must be harmonized and accommodating in this rebuilding process (in contrast to the Bohr-Rutherford model) dictates a lengthy list of postulates and principles, which naturally and frequently spill over into other scientific disciplines bearing witness to the broad implications of the LNH model and its consequent potential as the foundation of a Grand Unified Theory. Simple, pragmatic and frequently intuitive concepts are always preferred over esoteric ideas that depart from sensible logic or otherwise give rise to contradictions. For instance, the emission of positrons or electrons from the nucleus, and the capture of orbital electrons by the nucleus, in conjunction with an attendant change in nuclear state, is clear evidence that nucleons are composed of electrons and positrons. This view is taken despite the potentially serious ramifications for existing theoretical concepts, which are here regarded with great suspicion. Simplicity at the most fundamental level is intuitively anticipated, rather than the increasing complexity typical of conventional particle physics. To better appreciate this principle toward fundamental simplicity, consider the astounding capabilities of modern computers driven by incredible complex software, that is fundamentally reducible to a language based on an alphabet confined to only two characters 0 and 1, operating an incredibly complex feat of engineering, fundamentally reducible to a huge network of ganged on/off switches in the guise of microscopic silicon transistors. Even the incredible complexities of life reflected in the gene sequences of the DNA molecule are to some degree reducible to a code with only four letters which can only appear as two inseparable pairs, acting upon a handful of elements including carbon, oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen and traces of others. From a more practical perspective, consider the workings of an ordinary automobile. Despite its obvious complexities as a precisely engineered assembly, it is fundamentally constructed and even powered by a small handful of different elemental materials, predominately iron, silicon, oxygen, carbon and hydrogen, ingeniously assembled on the basis of several thousand years of accumulated empirical knowledge and experience. In all of these cases an obvious and formidable intelligence has been at work ingeniously assembling a complex system from that, which is fundamentally very simple. This tendency toward simplicity at the most fundamental levels in the Cosmos appears to be an essentially universal observation and is the guiding principle behind the search for a Grand Unified Theory of all things physical. Consider also the infinite variety of our taste experiences, based on a combination of only four distinct sensations with varying intensity, or our visual experiences stemming from a combination of a few primary colors of varying brightness. One could continue ad nauseam with a long list of such examples. Even religious philosophies tend to follow this same pattern toward fundamental simplicity. According to Judeo-Christian tradition, God created the Universe from absolutely nothing, other than his own infinite power and intelligence. The Mark Porringa

38

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

question of why particle physicists espouse a dramatic increase in complexity at the subatomic level, with its myriad of weird and wonderful particles, therefore begs an answer. This mass of quarky confusion seems to be the outcome of the incredibly complex math that has gone terribly wrong and is too often cited as proof in it self. Devoid of realistic logic and modeling, this dubious mode of inquiry has evidently fallen prey to a compounding of errors and assumptions, not the least of which is the discounting of the energetic vacuum. Furthermore, the evidence for exotic heavy particles is often confined to energy deposited in a sensor, which is presumed to correspond to the mass of a particle. Given that mass is evidently not a fundamental nor immutable property of matter, this is pure presumption. By definition, mass is only exhibited in the presence of force and acceleration according to Newton’s equation, m=F/a. Matter and mass are clearly not the same thing. Even Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc2 is not truly fundamental, and indeed suspect, since the mass of a chunk of matter is evidently zero in the absence of force and acceleration. It should therefore come as no great surprise that I have purposely chosen to abandon this dubious mode of inquiry, with its bewildering collection of particles, in favor of only two fundamental “particles”, from which all matter in the universe can logically be constructed. This is not to suggest however that the Universe can be understood purely on the basis of inanimate matter, physics and chemistry. The vast complexities of life call for much deeper inquiries beyond the agreed confines of the physical sciences. In this respect, biology cannot really be viewed as a pure science, given that it invariably involves the metaphysical aspects of life that that will never be reduced to simple chemistry and physics. To suggest otherwise, is simply materialistic nonsense. In contrast to the confusion of particle physics, the field of chemistry was born of a period of extensive reformation and renaissance with a strict adherence to rigorous logic and modeling. As such, it has produced a science of higher precision and determinism, generally in much better shape than nuclear physics, needing only a clearer understanding of the fundamentals, rather than a major revamping. Nuclear physics, on the other hand, came from an era of counterintuitive, evolutionary thought, which has vainly attempted to bring order out of the presumed chaos of the atom and indeed the entire Universe. Based on the weight of contrary evidence chemists have, for the most part, wisely chosen to quietly ignore the indeterminate mindset that has become so pervasive in nuclear and particle physics. It should also be quite evident that this atomic model is still very much in the conceptual stage of development, a work in progress, evolving constantly and subject to constant revision and expansion. The reader is in fact welcomed to participate in the process of refinement, which is far too large a task for just a few people to undertake. It should be noted that this set of conceptual ideas is actually an expanded subset of a previously penned set of general postulates. This earlier work, entitled Weinstein’s Postulates, is provided for reference in Appendix E and clearly demonstrates several interim changes in thinking, as well as the original source of any contributing theoretical ideas, which come from a broad spectrum of theorists. The material presented here is ultimately meant to provide only a detailed conceptual introduction to the LNH model. Consequently, meticulous analysis of any particular concept is intentionally lacking in favor of a broad, “first pass”, common sense, qualitative evaluation of how the radically new model stacks up against a wide variety of observed evidence, both familiar and previously ignored due to the glaring conflicts with existing entrenched theory. Facts, however, must always Mark Porringa

39

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

take precedence over our pet theories, which should always be viewed with a healthy degree of suspicion, if one is to realistically maintain some credible level of objectivity. A few intricate details are however, thrown into the mix now and again to help the reader grasp the rather astounding power of this fundamentally simple, geometry based, atomic model and its implications for a vast array of science that is currently described only superficially within the confines of a very ragged collection of Standard Theory. Many of these initial thoughts are little more than placeholders, or starting points that will eventually fill many volumes ironing out all the meticulous details implied, that can now be investigated with far greater precision using more exacting models and mathematics. Whole texts are bound to emerge from some individual postulates as new territories of knowledge are opened up for closer scrutiny. This will of course entail a far more rigorous quantum theory, eventually yielding a very deterministic understanding of the atom as science gradually transitions from its empirical, ad hoc foundation to a much higher level of comprehension. The complete characterization of the all the elements, isotopes and allotropes as well as a myriad of other related scientific details is apt to be a never-ending process, requiring tremendous effort and resourcefulness. One can only imagine the astounding level of math that would be required to accurately describe a heavy element like uranium with its myriad of dynamic particles and their mutual interactions. Some essential and difficult concepts warrant frequent repeating, as we progress in context through the various stages of development of the model, from the vacuum, to bulk matter and beyond. The list of postulates is by no means complete. Many areas of science outside the realms of my personal experience have not yet been considered in any detail. Choosing to publish always seems premature, given that the ideas are still coming fast and furious within this dynamic paradigm shift. On the other hand, its high time to bring others onboard to help accelerate the building process through teamwork, and to share the great fun of it all. In light of these realities, a dynamic e-book and readily updated hard copy version seemed the most effective means to get the word out promptly, even though I am apt to be criticized for not using official scientific channels more extensively. It is certainly anticipated that these concepts, now numbering in the hundreds, will eventually grow to a much greater number as others begin to apply the basic model in more detail to their own areas of expertise. Consequently, there is no shortage of unanswered questions and remaining issues that appear unabashedly as forks in the road, or incomplete thoughts requiring a lot more head scratching to arrive at a more comprehensive view. In any event, the reader is cautioned to avoid getting too caught up on any particular point during the initial reading. Nothing is set in stone and constructive refinements are welcomed. If getting your head around something proves difficult, just move on, and come back to the problem later when things are starting to jell. The main point to ponder is the definitive and elegant geometry of the nucleus and its vast implications for the atom with a direct concurrence to the deterministic nature of the macroscopic reality. No doubt, you may eventually come to the point where you can begin to add your own thoughts and further intricate details to the list - this is certainly encouraged. In fact, the ongoing effort of reducing all these ideas to rigorous mathematics and meticulous science will be left for the most part to those better equipped than this engineer-cum-natural (or preternatural) philosopher. This meticulous job will involve many millions of man-hours Mark Porringa

40

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

of intensive inquiry. Without further ado, here then, is the entire head-banging experience as it currently stands.

Mark Porringa

41

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

7. THE DETAILED POSTULATES, PRINCIPLES & RULES 7.1 Concerning The Vacuum And Its Energy: 1) The primordial energy of the Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations of space is conjectured to be the root of all material existence. Empty space is in fact filled with (if not composed of) the ubiquitous, isotropic energy of the Zero Point Field (ZPF) theoretically ranging up to the Planck frequency of ~1043 sec-1 and beyond. With a wavelength approaching 10-35 m it is composed primarily of Longitudinal/Scalar waves evidently possessing a volumetric, vortex motion. The ZPF of free space has the highest entropy and lowest enthalpy of any form of energy. 2) The “Dark” matter proposed by Cosmologists should more appropriately be referred to as “Dark” energy, having a virtual, non-material mass. This predominately scalar or longitudinal wave energy of the vacuum exists well beyond present limits of detection (frequencies >> 1022 Hz). Instruments relying on the response of accelerated electrons (minimum relaxation time of 10-22 sec) are therefore unaffected, and the ZPF energy is largely unobservable except through interference or coherence phenomena, such as the Casimir Effect. Applying more conventional nomenclature, the ZPF might also be compared with the theoretical Higgs field, which is thought to give rise to the mass properties of matter. 3) Space and the all-pervasive Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) therein, pre-exists matter. The more fundamental question of what space and time are will not be addressed further at this time. It is not inconceivable that the properties of space-time may also prove to be a result of some particular spectral range of this ubiquitous energy of space. The nonspatial attributes of pure scalar waves at the high end of the ZPE spectrum suggests the prospect of pure tempic energy possessing only the dimension of time, possibly giving Et=∆tc2, similar to Einstein’s mass energy equation. The fundamental quantum of time might therefore be referred to as the Chronon and that of volumetric space something likewise appropriate. Furthermore, universal constants such as Planck’s constant evidently fit in here somewhere as a combined fundamental unit of action or physical reality. 4) The background ZPE of space when perturbed (compressed, translated or otherwise organized in any way), with respect to the ambient vacuum flux exhibits non-material, virtual mass having attendant virtual properties such as density, momentum, elasticity and stiffness without any matter, per se, being present. For instance, the virtual stiffness to density ratio of the ZPF has an established and astounding value of 9 x 1019 based on the fact that wave propagation velocity through any material medium is equal to the square root of the stiffness divided by the density. Similarly, the dielectric permeability to permittivity ratio of free space yields a well-established impedance of 377 ohms. 5) Transverse wave (or pulse) induced variations in the energy density of the localized ZPE constitute conventional electromagnetic radiations, including light. EM radiations are, in effect, a small transverse and/or longitudinal perturbation superimposed on the ubiquitous pool of essentially infinite density ZPE, not unlike a small ripple on the surface of a vast, turbulent ocean or a sound wave traveling at depth through the ocean. However, in contrast to the material Ether theories that were prevalent at the turn of the last century, no fundamental material substance is invoked, only the super dense, all pervasive, dynamic energy of the ZPF.

Mark Porringa

42

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

6) The photon is simply a single pulse of electromagnetic radiation of finite length as opposed to a continuous wave - it is not a true “particle” according to the wave-particle notion. Photons push on matter when reflected or absorbed, exhibiting the virtual mass and momentum of perturbed ZPE; not a real material mass. Furthermore, mass is not an immutable property of matter, but rather just a manifestation of matters accelerated interaction with respect to the dynamic reference frame of the ZPF. 7) The absolute propagation velocity c, of transverse electromagnetic waves in vacuum is equal to the reciprocal of the square root of the permeability times the permittivity of space as discovered by Maxwell. The propagation velocity of longitudinal, compression waves through the background ZPE of space is conjectured to be much higher than c, in much the same way that transverse waves on the surface of water are very much slower than compression (sound) waves through water. A pure longitudinal wave might have essentially infinite velocity – a good prospect for gravity waves. 8) The largely unobservable ZPE interacts with and sustains all matter on a continuous basis through a combination of brute force, harmonic resonance and interference interactions, not so different from the discrete interactions of sound waves in music theory. The absolute, dynamic radiation/photon pressure of the vacuum exceeds 1030 kPa by a wide margin based on a simple extrapolation of the Casimir effect to the subatomic scale. Consequently, there are no closed systems in the Universe; everything interacts with and through the ZPF. 9) The Universe is not expanding on a universal scale – it is essentially stable. Continuous expansion of the Universe would imply declining vacuum energy density, which ought to remain constant given that it is here suggested as the root and stability of all material existence. Observed redshifts (without mentioning conveniently ignored blueshifts) can be better explained by other ideas such as the simple tiring of light as it propagates with infinitesimally small energy losses over vast reaches of space, through the background virtual mass of ZPE. The observed quantization of redshifts causes further problems. The Big Bang theory is therefore considered superfluous on several accounts. 10) Forces do not exist in the incoherent vacuum of space – only fields of energy. Forces can only exist between two or more fundamental particles of matter or between individual fundamental particles and the organized energy of space. Force is therefore inseparable from the concept of mass according to Newton’s equation, F=ma. All forces are a manifestation of the interaction of net radiation pressure of the organized ZPF and the standing wave vortex that constitutes the fundamental particles of matter. 11) All forces therefore involve a continuous input of energy from the local vacuum flux regardless of whether motion results or not. From a purely scientific standpoint, the Work function, W=Fd is therefore a gross simplification, despite its validity and practical use in closed system engineering applications where the ZPE input and output from the material system is in equilibrium (and can therefore be neglected). However, it must be realized that all material systems have sustaining forces and consequently require continuous energy input. 12) This sustaining energy, Es or SE is for distinction, set apart from conventional notions of Potential or Kinetic energy, of a material system, in that it and does not entail any apparent displacement term such as Ep = mgh, and it generally remains undetected as an internally coherent flow of ZPE, from and to the vacuum, in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the material system. It is a time related energy, expressed as Es α Ft or more precisely Es = Ψ Ft, where Ψ is a variable, system specific constant with spaceMark Porringa

43

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

time velocity units, implying relative motion of the coherent energy flux of the force, with respect to the local isotropic ZPF flux. Sustaining Power is then simply, Ps= Es/t = Ψ F. 13) Sustaining, tempic energy and power are common to all material systems, from the fundamental particles to the universal scale. Sustaining energy is, for instance, required to maintain the electric field that radiates continually from all charges, giving rise to the electrostatic force. It is likewise required to sustain all magnetic forces including those of permanent magnets. It is consequently necessary for all chemical bonds between atoms; nuclear bonds between nucleons; gravitational forces between matter and so forth including all manifestations of force, static or otherwise, through every level of material organization, out to the universal scale. The Ps and Ψ constant can theoretically be calculated for any material system. 14) For instance, the Es, Ps and Ψ values for a simple earth orbit gravitational system can be approximated by equating the associated centripetal and gravitational forces, which are in equilibrium for a stable orbit, mg=mv2/r. According to the concept of sustaining energy, the Ep and Ek values must also be in equilibrium with the instantaneous Es value, which continually supplies the energy for the gravitational force that keeps the object in orbit, giving Es = Ep = Ek = ½ mv2. For a 2 kg mass orbiting close to the earth near the escape velocity of about 104 m/s, the sustaining energy flow per unit time (sustaining power) is then, Es/t = Ps = 108 J/s, and Ψ = Ps/F = 3.18 x106 m/s, (F=mv2/r, r = 6.37 x 106 m). This value is about 1/100 of light velocity and is evidently the net gravitational field velocity in the down direction, in close proximity to the earth. 15) Absolute motion and velocity in the universal reference frame is consequently detectable, at least theoretically, as a Doppler effect of the ZPF spectrum. Completely symmetrical incident ZPF wave vectors characterize an absolutely stationary point in free space. Acceleration of matter is resisted by Doppler transients between the radially organized emissions of matter and the ZPF of the vacuum resulting in inertial forces. 16) The general law of addition of velocities is consequently reestablished. In contrast to the misinterpreted interferometry experiments of Michelson and the resulting rise of Special Relativity, the apparent velocity of conventional transverse wave radiations/photons in vacuum, is relative to both source and observer motion. For instance an observer moving at an absolute velocity of ½ c toward a “stationary” light source will see photons arriving at 1.5 c. There are many observations that support this classical view, despite the serious implications for counter intuitive Relativity. 17) The inertial and gravitational properties of matter are in this view fundamentally due to transient or otherwise non-equilibrium interactions with the ZPE of the vacuum. Gravity, inertia and consequently mass are not immutable properties of matter, but rather based in matter’s continuous interaction with the ZPF. The acceleration of matter with respect to the local ZPF flux results in inertia and gravitation. This interaction can be dramatically altered or engineered for useful purposes including gravity control and inertial (reactionless) propulsion. 18) Gravity is only distinctive from inertia in that it involves the interaction of the locally organized fields of two or more bits of matter. The fundamental particles of matter attenuate the ZPF and organize discrete frequencies of the ZPF into radially emitted emissions that might be referred to as Gravitons having a flux density, which generally follows the observed 1/r2 relation of the Newtonian gravitational equation.

Mark Porringa

44

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

19) The Graviton is the quantum of the gravitational and inertial field. The radial attenuation of the local ZPF by the fundamental particles in conjunction with their radial emissions gives rise to gravity between particles and the inertia of individual particles. This localized organization of the energy of the vacuum interacts with the ambient ZPF to cause inertia, and with the graviton emissions and ZPF attenuation of other matter to cause gravity through mutual interference of their radial emissions. 20) Gravity is also complicated by mutual ZPF shadowing between bits of matter that give rise to gravitational anomalies such as the mysterious “Sling Shot” effect used in space programs, the orbital wobble or libration of the moon and step changes in local gravity during solar eclipses. Gravity is certainly more complex than Newton’s approximation would imply, but further discussion is beyond the scope of this initial conceptual inquiry. 7.2 Concerning Electrons & Positrons: 1) The Positron and the mirror image, counter rotating, oppositely charged Negatron or Electron are the fundamental “particles” of all matter and are essentially just energy in a highly organized, standing wave vortex, created from and continually sustained by the Zero-Point Energy of the vacuum. The composite standing wave is comprised of radial, spherical and time harmonic functions, which together produce an orbiting zone of charge density superposition. Despite the ramifications for neutrinos, this limit of inquiry into the fundamental nature of matter appears valid. 2) This composite standing wave vortex, with its orbiting zone of charge density, defines and constitutes a discrete spherical force field providing the illusion of the solidity of all particles and the bulk volume of matter. In turn, the force fields of the fundamental particles continually emit radially organized ZPE back into the ZPF as graviton emissions, by which they interact with all other matter in the Universe. As stated earlier, there are several other good prospects for the electron but these will not be considered further at this time to avoid unnecessary confusion. 3) The unit charge of the positron and negatron is produced from the orbiting zone of superposition of its composite standing wave form, driven continually by its harmonic interaction with the ZPF. The negative and positive charge of the electron and positron is determined by the direction of rotation of its energy vortex, which must be a composite rotation about a minimum of two perpendicular axes in order for the charge definition to be independent of its reference frame. The tangential rotation velocity of the vortex field vectors is presumed to be the speed of light in vacuum. 4) Electrons and positrons can be created by literally spinning them out of the energy of the ZPF of space as demonstrated by electron, positron pair production from high-energy gamma photons. An isolated Whimhurst generator operating in a vacuum is also reportedly capable of producing electrons unabated without any apparent physical source other than “empty” space. The continuous shearing action of the Whimhurst discs apparently spins the vortex motion of the ZPF into discrete, self-organizing electron vortices, thereafter sustained by tuned, harmonic vacuum energy input. The production of positrons in like manner is also anticipated although not widely reported. 5) The fundamental orbital frequency of the zone of superposition is the inherent Compton frequency of a “stationary” electron. The Compton frequency of the electron in motion, superimposed on the ZPF spectrum, produces a Doppler induced beat frequency that Mark Porringa

45

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

precisely corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength as documented by B. Haisch and Rueda [32]. 6) The resulting Doppler induced de Broglie beat frequency directly corresponds to the absolute velocity of the assembly of negatrons and positrons constituting aggregate particles of matter, causing inertial mass, by virtue of the motion induced asymmetry of the local vacuum flux. This also provides further explanation of the apparent wave nature of bulk matter. 7) The electric monopole of the isolated positron or negatron is actually just an illusion arising from an incomplete reference frame that generally discounts the existence of the ZPF. If charges are not paired in an obvious dipole arrangement, the radial distribution of the organized local vacuum and indeed the balance of the entire universe constitutes a radially dispersed opposite pole for the isolated charge of the electron and positron. 8) The apparent attraction of opposite charges, including the isolated electron and positron, is another illusion caused by the same incomplete reference frame. Opposite charges are actually pushed or impelled together by the resulting localized coherence of the random ZPF, which has been organized by the presence of the highly structured material vortex energy of the electron and positron. Positive charge in material bodies is most often provided by the simple removal or displacement of free electrons leaving a net positive charge on the remaining matter. 9) Macroscopic electricity universally requires the production of a source dipole composed of separated, oppositely charged particles, raised above or below the local potential of the vacuum, by an applied field. Particles involved may include electrons, positrons or any combination of ions produced by a battery or any form of alternating or constant field generator. 10) Electron displacement current flow in circuits involves the accumulated movement of free electrons in the conductor induced by the field of potential from the source dipole, which surrounds and extends the length of the conductor to which it is electrically connected, propagating at the speed of light. Field effects propagating through the energetic vacuum surrounding the conductor give rise to the circuit effects - not the other way round as generally implied in most electrical texts. 11) Electricity can theoretically be either positive or negative, although all contemporary electrical machinery and electronics generally utilize only electron currents. Some electrostatic machines appear to be capable of producing positrons for positive electricity directly from the vacuum of space although conduction through conventional electrical conductors, which rely on freed orbital electrons, may not be feasible with existing technology. Positronic circuits are however considered possible despite the technological hurtles involved. 12) By way of distinction from conventional electron based electricity and electronics the terms Positricity, Positronics and other appropriate nomenclature are suggested. It is further conjectured that a flow of positrons and electrons in parity and in constructive interference so as to avoid annihilation may constitute some form of neutral current as suggested by some theorists and by the cold radiant electrical phenomena discovered by Tesla and recently articulated by P. Lindeman [33]. 13) The interior field of the electron and positron is considerably attenuated compared to the ambient ZPF and largely devoid of observable transverse radiations less than 1022 Hz, Mark Porringa

46

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

with the exception of the constituent frequencies of the electron’s internal quantum orbital energy state, which determines its spheroid force field diameter. The force field of an electron or positron can be spatially distorted dramatically by the mutual coulomb repulsion of other charged particle fields in close vicinity and the absorption of predominantly harmonic radiations. 14) The electron force field may consequently be modeled as a discrete, two dimensional spheroid surface, analogous to an ordinary balloon or soap bubble, which can be distorted by external forces. The interface between electrons in close proximity or contact is bound to be similar in many respects to that of soap bubbles, which exhibit a flat surface along the contact interface. 15) The composite standing wave of the electron can be changed to higher and lower quantum energy states without observable radiations, permissible according to the harmonic relation 2πre = nλ (re, nominal electron radius) by its interactions with resonant frequencies of the ubiquitous ZPF radiation, discrete interference frequencies from other orbital electrons and adjacent matter, excitation from incident photons/radiations and the degree of ZPF shadowing inherent to its environment and position. 16) The resulting shape of the confined and restrained electron orbital force fields of the atom are bound to be something approximating an ellipsoid “teardrop” or conical shape with the apex extending down to the surface of the nucleus. The simple, tornado like vortex model of the electron has the added appeal of already possessing an ideal conical shape that would readily accommodate the different hydreno energy states of the atomic orbitals. 17) Electrons and positrons annihilate when their oppositely rotating energy vortices interact in destructive interference due to mismatched energy states causing their standing wave vortex to literally unwind producing high-energy gamma photons (single pulses) with an energy of about 511 KeV. The “material” vortex energy of the electron and positron is therefore an invariant 511 KeV based on this observation. 18) By comparison, the orbiting charge density superposition zone responsible for coulomb interaction is a constant and meager 1 eV spread over the surface of the electron force field orbitspheroid or orbitelipsoid shell. The total energy of the electron only varies with the inclusion of the quantum energy of the orbital electron states and its momentum with respect to the background ZPF, absolute reference frame. 19) The magnetic dipole of the electron and positron at present accounted for as real particle spin is actually due to the polarized orbit of the electric charge density produced by the interference of the radial, spherical and time harmonic functions of the composite standing wave vortex that constitutes the “material” particle. The magneton spin quanta for the electron and positron is consequently invariant, since the orbiting velocity of the charge density zone remains constant. 20) Magnetic monopoles therefore cannot apparently exist for an isolated electron or positron although a composite assembly of these two oppositely charged particles might conceivably produce such an oddity. A negatron-positron assembly with south poles facing and presumably canceling each other in destructive interference would probably result in two north poles providing the perception of a singular north monopole. 21) Macroscopic magnetism involves the collective polarization of the individual magnetic fields of the electrons in magnetic materials such as iron or the vectored, collective Mark Porringa

47

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

translation of free electrons or positrons in beams and circuits that produce the spiraling magnetic field typical of a current carrying conductor. The spiraling magnetic field around a conductor is the combined result of all the polarized fields of the conduction electrons and their induced drift motion through the conductor. 22) The orbital path of the charge density zone is subject to various degrees of polarization from applied magnetic fields producing the magnetic properties of materials with orbital configurations that are amenable to such polarization such as iron and the rare earth elements. The asymmetry of the combined hydreno orbital configurations and the degree of distortion of the individual hydreno orbitals from the spherical relaxed state has a direct bearing on the strength of the magnetic properties of a material. Magnetic fields and forces are fundamentally produced from the organized polarization of the local vacuum field of space. 23) Electrons, and to a lesser extent positrons, can exist in five different states ranging from: a) the smallest inter-nucleon state from which the nucleons are constructed, here referred to as the negatron and positron; b) the fractional quantum state electrons of the hydreno (electron/proton pair) below the ground state of the K orbital; c) the ground state orbital electrons of the hydreno nominally corresponding to the seven conventional quantum energy levels of atomic orbits K to Q (including their s, p, d, f and h orbitals). 24) Continuing this transformation process beyond the orbital ground state electrons we have: d) the unstable excited state electron above the ground state of the various orbitals; e) the free state electron which carries displacement currents in conductors and can move freely in space as electron beams and such; f) and finally the plane wave state electron resulting from the continuous expansion of an ionized free electron as it expands in all directions eventually dissipating its energy over a large area of space. 25) The inter-nucleon, zero quantum state negatrons and positrons, e-n /e+n are about 1/15 the nominal diameter of the proton. Inter-nucleon state negatrons and positrons may constitute the densest form of matter in the universe and have zero quantum orbital energy. The much-expanded atomic orbital electrons by comparison have a very much lower energy and matter density but slightly higher total energy with the addition of quantized, harmonic orbital energy. 26) The inter-nucleon state negatron becomes the hydreno state, fractional orbital electron, efh when it absorbs sufficient energy to expand to the various fractional quantum states of the hydreno below the conventional ground state electron orbital shell corresponding to harmonic overtones of the K or 1st orbital, having fractional wavelengths of 1/2, 1/3, 1/4, 1/5, 1/6, 1/7, 1/8… 1/256…1/512…1/1024 and possibly higher harmonics of the ground state having the arbitrarily assigned integer quantum energy value of 1. Fractional quantum states corresponding to harmonic overtones of the L to Q orbits probably also exist. 27) The fractional harmonic hydreno orbital electron becomes the conventional ground state hydreno orbital electron, eoh when it attains an integer quantum energy value of 1 or greater. All orbital hydreno electrons remain bound to their paired proton in the nucleus with a long axis orbital shell ellipsoid dimension roughly 1000 times larger than the diameter of the inter-nucleon negatrons or positrons within the nucleus. The total collapse of a free orbital (conduction) electron at low thermal energy temperatures can result in a free negatron, permitting superconductivity.

Mark Porringa

48

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

28) The ratio of cross sectional area of the orbital electron compared to the nuclear state negatron is consequently about 106 with a volumetric ratio approaching 109. The billionfold reduction in volume would presumably cause a corresponding decrease in electron flow resistance that is typically observed in low temperature super conductors. Collapse of free conduction electrons in metals may also explain the “cold” electrical phenomenon produced by Tesla and others. 29) The ground state hydreno electron becomes the excited state electron, e‫ ׳‬when its standing wave vortex, force field absorbs a photon of sufficient energy to cause it to expand momentarily, before falling back to its ground state orbital, emitting a photon corresponding to the reduction in the mean electron force field diameter. 30) The excited state electron becomes the ionized state, free electron when it absorbs enough energy to overcome the attraction of its paired proton and breaks free of the nucleus. The ionized free electron in turn becomes the wave state electron eλ when it continually absorbs energy, expanding to such an extent that it essentially loses its spherical shape and propagates as a plane wave. 31) The wave properties of the free electron and positron such as diffraction of an electron beam are due to the interaction of their combined de Broglie and Compton wavelengths associated with these various energy states. If, for instance a beam of monochromatic electrons impinges on a crystal target, the beam interacts with the discrete frequencies of the highly organized crystalline electron bond structure to produce a diffraction pattern. The wave-particle nature of electromagnetic radiations and matter is thereby, further explained. 32) The observed mass of an electron or positron will vary depending on its energy state and absolute velocity with respect to the ZPF due to Doppler induced changes in its interaction with the seething vacuum flux. Mass is not an immutable or invariant property of matter. The present obsession with the conservation of momentum in material systems therefore becomes a moot point, and theoretical particles arising from this notion, such as the neutrino remain highly questionable despite the “evidence” coming from various experimental facilities. 33) The mass of an electron and positron also varies to a minor extent based on its insitu position with respect to the vacuum flux. The matter of an intact fundamental particle is however always conserved. Again matter and mass are not interchangeable concepts despite the fact that they are frequently treated as such. Establishing a separate and distinctive unit for matter seems appropriate. 34) The eventually fate of Einstein’s most famous equation, E=mc2 therefore hangs in the balance to some degree, because the mass of a given quantity of matter is subject to variation indicating that this equation is not truly fundamental. It only appears applicable in the prevalent, steady state, superficial view of mass. To be precise it should somehow be directly related to the number of fundamental particles of matter present not their observed mass. 7.3 Concerning The Nucleons: 1) The proton is considered to be a composite particle with a geometric shape approximating a sphere (evidently an edge and corner truncated octahedron) having a positron center, composed of 918 negatrons and 919 positrons bound in a square planar Mark Porringa

49

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

lattice arrangement so as to provide stronger coulomb attraction between adjacent, opposite charges than the repulsion between diagonal like charges. The nominal diameter of the proton is equivalent to 15 positrons or negatrons. 2) Theoretically a negative equivalent of the proton might also exist having exactly the same structure but with the electron and positron positions reversed. The existence of the Tauon and Muon heavy electrons would seem to suggest that this might be the case. Virtual particles are for the moment considered superfluous theoretical artifacts based on erroneous models and mathematics. Consequently, they will not be considered further. 3) The lattice structure also provides mutually supportive constructive interference between the oppositely rotating negatron and positron vortices thereby avoiding negatron/positron annihilation on a massive scale. A 1/8th quadrant of a proposed edge and corner truncated, octahedral lattice structure is illustrated in Figure 3 with a total of 26 distinct facets. Positrons are shown in black. The nucleons still only account for about one millionth of the volume of the atom. The much larger nucleus proposed in the LNH model certainly appears very likely, although not strictly required. 4) Facets naturally exist at six positions corresponding to the terminus of the x, y and zaxis, and at twelve positions, 45 degrees between each pair of major axes. A further eight intermediate facets exist in the quadrants defined by adjacent x, y and z-axes with a nominal facet angle of 55 degrees from the horizontal. These latter eight facets are evidently shaped like a six-pointed star identical to the geometry of the “Star of David” and are entirely composed of positrons, constituting a localized area of positive charge with a strong affinity for one additional neutralizing electron. Figure 3: Proton Model (1/8th Section Views) Seven Facet Outside View Top Inside View

(Positron star facet)

(square planar lattice evident)

Top Inside/Outside View

(star facet at top of photo)

5) This surface-bound electron occupies one of several bond sites on one of the 8 positron facets of the proton lattice structure bringing the net charge of the assembly to zero creating the neutron with 919 electrons and 919 positrons. The neutron is consequently identical to the proton and of the same dimension with the exception of one additional electron, which simply occupies a bond site on the surface of the proton. 6) Alternatively the possibility also exists that this defining electron expands to somehow envelope the entire proton in a bound orbital state, attracted equally by all 8 positron facets, again resulting in neutrality. Although more appealing in some regards from the conventions of the Bohr planetary model, this option seems a bit forced, and less likely based on the weight of other evidence. To avoid confusion this variant will not be pursued further at this time, although it certainly has some appealing merit worthy of preservation and closer scrutiny.

Mark Porringa

50

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

7) This one additional electron occupies a position that is mostly outside the envelope of the proton providing significantly greater exposure to the quantum vacuum flux in its protruded position. The nucleons are very likely much larger than the currently accepted dimension of 10-15m, probably closer to 10-12 m. The intensity of the mutual coulomb repulsion of the protons within the nucleus is consequently much less than thought, in accordance with the typical 1/r2 relation of an electric field radiating from a point charge. 8) The neutron defining electron can only remain in its small inter-nucleon state, provided it is reasonably well shielded or shadowed by other nucleons. The neutron is, in effect, a fully condensed Hydreno composed of a proton plus its electron orbital shell, in a fully collapsed and bound zero quantum state, such that neutrality results for the entire assembly, despite localized charge asymmetry. 9) Nucleons consequently do not spin within the nucleus. Such motion is prevented by the mating flat facets of the nucleons, and the protruding zero state electron, which defines the neutron. However, the combined magnetic fields of the constituent positrons and negatrons produce a quantized magnetic field corresponding to the observed proton and neutron spin quanta. The “spin” quanta of individual neutrons and protons consequently do not vary appreciably. 10) The material and mass of a proton or neutron may vary slightly with the addition or deletion of electrons or positrons to the surface of its lattice structure. Positive β particle (positron) emissions may create neutrons with a particle count of two less than the “normal” neutron. This light neutron cannot form a hydreno since the defining electron now lies within the envelope, or horizon of the proton, and has insufficient exposure to the vacuum flux to sustain an orbital electron state. 11) Nucleons are considered semi-transparent to the ZPE field. The vacuum field must penetrate individual nucleons in order to sustain the standing wave vortex structure of the individual negatrons and positrons. The square planar, open lattice structure provides unobstructed penetration of the quantum vacuum flux along the x, y and z axis, as well as 45 degrees between each pair of major axes. The upward bound on the size of a nucleon is in fact determined by the penetration capabilities of the sustaining vacuum flux, which is attenuated to some degree, with each additional layer of negatrons and positrons. 12) The mass of a nucleon is not simply the sum of its constituent electrons and positrons. A mass defect exists similar to, but more pronounced than that observed for nuclear assemblies, due to the higher constituent particle count and material density. The mass of the center positron is for instance, marginally less than a surface bound positron, due to attenuated exposure to the ambient vacuum field. This shadowing effect constitutes a nuclear level Cavity QED shielding, caused by the surrounding lattice structure. 13) Massive electron positron annihilation, within individual nucleons, is conjectured to be the primary source of energy released in thermonuclear fission and fusion reactions, due to the disruption of this generally spherical nucleon lattice, as it is ripped across the lattice structure, or shear indexed along a cleavage plane, resulting in acute coulomb repulsion of like charges, and electron/positron annihilations on a potentially massive scale. This is especially true with fusions bombs, which have observed energy yields typically greater than predicted by conventional nuclear theory. 14) Fractal fission of individual nucleons along defined cleavage planes produces the transitory, intermediate mass particles, such as mesons, baryons and quarks. These Mark Porringa

51

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

particles result from very high-energy collisions, using small projectiles such as negatrons, that literally split a nucleon when they land in a surface discontinuity, in a direction parallel to a fractal plain of the nucleon lattice. Collisions, which are not aligned with the lattice, may cause massive stochastic destruction and consequent evaporation of the nucleon through negatron-positron scattering and mutual annihilations on a massive scale yielding intense bursts of gamma radiation. 7.4 Concerning The Nucleus: 1) The core of the nucleus is composed entirely of neutrons arranged in the closest packing tetrahedral and pyramidal lattice arrangement practically attainable through square planar and trigonal (staggered) planar nuclear bonds with preference for trigonal bonding to produce a variety of platonic polyhedrons. Trigonal bonding is more prevalent in the neutron core because it is more stable and space efficient. The center of the nucleus can be either space centered or neutron centered. 2) Self-organization of the nucleus is evidently accomplished by the complimentary orientation of the mating facets of the individual nucleons; the uniform impelling radiation pressure of the quantum vacuum flux; the protrusion of the neutron defining negatron; hydreno crowding at the surface of the nucleus and the mutual repulsion of the concentrated charge of the eight radially distributed positron facets described previously. 3) The neutron lattice core is based primarily on the tetra-neutron (tetrahedral bonding) but also includes as needed other poly-neutrons including the Tri-neutron (trigonal planar bonding), Di-neutron (linear/square planar bonding) and single neutrons to fill out the continuous nuclear core lattice structure, which tends toward a more or less spherical, radially balanced shape, although in practice never actually spherical. 4) Consequently, the only permissible, nominal angles in the neutron core of the nucleus are 60, 90 and 120 degrees. The developed angles between the facets of the resulting geometric shapes are confined to 70, 110, 125 and 140 degrees. Slight distortion of all these nominal angles occurs due to harmonic oscillation and imbalance in the impelling radiation pressure from the vacuum and other contributing factors. The points and facets of the neutron core geometry are the major contributors to valence and observed bond angles in the atom. 5) Given the apparent dimension of the nucleons, the diameter of the nucleus also appears to be in the range of 10-12m. As mentioned earlier, the conclusions drawn from Rutherford’s gold foil experiment on the size of the nucleus are dubious. Although not strictly required, the much larger nucleus would appear to be practically necessary in order to maintain a realistic spatial relationship between the electron force-field shell and its associated proton on the surface of the neutron core of the nucleus. 6) The Strong force is an ultra-close range Casimir effect that literally holds the nucleus together from the outside through the brute radiation pressure of the incident ZPF estimated to be 1020 Pa (1015 atm). The nucleus is not held together by internal attraction by some mysterious gluon particle. The individual facets of the nucleons provide a secure contact interface between bonded nucleons contributing to bond strength, lattice stability and semi-rigidity. 7) The well defined mating facets would contribute to very strong, ultra-close range casimir forces that would consequently exhibit the very short range of the strong force. Solid Mark Porringa

52

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

contact between the individual nucleons would, however, be prevented by the mutual repulsion of the 8 star-shaped positron facets described previously. This spacing would presumably permit the observed harmonic oscillation modes of the nucleus. 8) Minor variation in nuclear bond strength is a function of tetrahedral versus pyramidal nesting, the associated configuration of mating bond facets, the proximity of adjacent hydrenos and the degree of spatial exposure to the local ZPF. Pyramidal nesting is deeper with higher net impelling radiation pressure and a larger bonding interface with the underlying neutrons. Consequently it also produces more stress on the underlying structure of the nucleus. 9) A high degree of radial, axial or mirror image, bilateral symmetry normally exists to avoid net ZPF radiation force vectors that would otherwise tend to disrupt the nucleus or result in continuous translation of the atom from the imbalanced radiation force of the incident vacuum flux. This is one mechanism that actively drives the formation of diatomic elements and the Brownian motion of asymmetric molecules such as water. 10) Bilateral symmetry of the nucleus about two perpendicular planes appears to be the minimum requirement for stable nuclei and invariably results in diatomic elements. This is particularly evident with many of the lighter elements and the Halogens, which compensate for minimal symmetry by assuming only diatomic forms in nature, thus producing higher net symmetry about three perpendicular planes. 11) Nuclei having an odd number of neutrons, only have one stable isotope, or may not exist at all, as is the case for Technetium and Promethium. Nuclei having an odd number of protons must be paired with an even number of neutrons, and usually only have one, or rarely two stable elements. This observation is directly related to the permissible geometries of the nuclear assembly, which must maintain the minimum level of symmetry for nuclear stability. Hydreno orbital instability may be a secondary factor. 12) The primary neutron core geometries - with some abuse of conventional platonic solid nomenclature for simplicity - are illustrated in Figure 4 and described as tetrahedral, hexahedral (triangular bi-pyramid), octahedral, recoctahedral (rectangular bi-pyramid), decahedral (pentagonal bi-pyramid), rhombahedral, cuboctahedral, cuboidoctahedral and icosahedral. The icosahedral configuration is presumably the most stable neutron core due to its near spherical shape, low angularity and small facets which would reduce internal disruptive stress concentrations.

Mark Porringa

53

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

13) Neutron core nomenclature is further simplified by adopting the more definitive terms Tetracore, Hexacore, Octacore, Cuboctacore, Cuboidoctacore, Decacore, Rhombacore, Recoctacore and Icosacore. These primary core geometries occur repeatedly on a periodic basis throughout the table of elements, ranging in size from 2 base units up to 8. Similar neutron core geometries with increasing base neutron counts, generally occupy a particular group of elements exhibiting similar valence states (with some allotropic variations). 14) Between the completed, perfect neutron core shapes, a wide variety of truncated geometries exist, involving successive trimming of the corners and edges of the completed geometries accommodating all of the elements, including their stable and radioactive isotopes. Radioisotopes are associated with inadequate nuclear symmetry and other factors as described further on.

Mark Porringa

54

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Figure 4: Neutron Core Geometries Tetracores

Hexacores

Octacores

(half view)

Recoctacores

Decacores

(half view)

Cuboidoctacores

Cuboctacores

(half view)

Icosacores

Rhombacores

(half view)

Mark Porringa

55

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

15) The neutrons that make up the core geometric shapes are referred to as the core neutrons. The additional neutrons that are nested on the surface of the neutron core, giving rise to the heavier isotopes of a particular element, are referred to as the peripheral neutrons. Peripheral neutrons can only exist with a high degree of shadowing from adjacent hydrenos (protons) generally in the middle region of the larger facets of the neutron core, at least two bond sites from any corner or edge of the geometric core shape. 16) The aspect ratio between the maximum and minimum dimensions of the neutron core and indeed the entire nucleus cannot exceed a certain value beyond which stability is not possible. The ensuing imbalance of incident radiation forces causes stress concentrations that would disrupt the integrity of the neutron core lattice. The maximum aspect ratio for smaller single layer neutron cores is 3 corresponding to elements such as graphite and lithium, which are both excellent lubricants as a result. The values for larger nuclei range up to 1.33 corresponding to the Decacores of the Halogens. 17) The so-called “magic” elements, having neutron counts including 20, 28, 50, 82 that form an abundance of stable elements from the same number of neutrons, are associated with different core geometries, having the same total number of core and peripheral neutrons. The magic is therefore purely a matter of nuclear geometry so the name should be changed to something akin to geometry rich isobars. For instance, the six stable elements of Isobar 50 are associated with six distinct neutron core geometries that give rise to different elements due to the difference in ZPF exposure of the various neutron cores and their resulting hydreno distributions. 18) Similarly, the corresponding magic elements having an abundance of stable isotopes with the same proton counts of 20, 28, 50 and 82 are associated with a neutron core geometry having larger facets and abundant truncation options that do not affect hydreno bond sites dramatically. These would best be described as isotope rich core geometries. Tin (element 50) having 10 stable isotopes, has a very rich Base 6 Tetrahedral neutron core with a first level corner truncation (B6 – CT4 Tetracore) geometry. Tin might also exist as B3x4 Recoctacore accounting for its two distinctive allotropic forms, which exhibit tetrahedral and cubic crystal structure. Double magic elements are simply a coincidence of the two forms of magic. 19) Hydrenos are always located on the surface of the nucleus where they receive sufficient energy from the quantum vacuum flux to continually sustain the harmonic, quantum energy state of their paired orbital electron. With rare exceptions, they are always located in a nested position, on the surface of the neutron core, occupying the apex position of a tetrahedral or pyramidal base unit formed by the neutron lattice. They cannot exist below the surface of the nucleus, because nuclear level Cavity QED shields out the vacuum energy frequencies necessary to sustain their quantum energy state, causing them to collapse to form neutrons, through electron capture. 20) High energy hydrenos are preferentially located first, at truncated sharp corners and apex positions where ZPF exposure is greatest, then along truncated sharp edges between the facets of the neutron core, and lastly on the facets themselves, where their exposure to the vacuum flux is still sufficient to sustain low energy hydreno states. In rare cases involving very open hydreno distributions such as that exhibited by the Icosacore structure of Arsenic, a very low energy hydreno may occupy an exposed surface position of the neutron core lattice in a transitory fashion.

Mark Porringa

56

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

21) Hydrenos and peripheral neutrons are located so as to maintain bilateral, mirror image, axial or radial symmetry of the nuclear lattice. Again, asymmetry results in unstable nuclei. Diatomic elements have minimum permissible symmetry. The mating atom of diatomic pair is required to establish symmetry about three planes. No stable elements exist with an odd number of protons and neutrons due to a lack of minimum geometric symmetry. Missing and otherwise unstable elements such as Technetium and Promethium attempt to break into complete, symmetric geometries barring any stable forms. The insitu stability of the Hydrenos is a secondary factor. 22) The proton of the hydreno stays securely anchored to its nesting site held there by the impelling radiation pressure of the vacuum, which again constitutes the short range Strong force. If the orbital electron actually envelopes its paired proton, some space between the proton and nesting site would be necessary to permit the electron force field shell to envelope the proton (in the case of a Mills orbitsphere electron). However, it would appear in fact that the orbital electron force field is merely bound to the surface of the proton, held there by simple coulomb “attraction”, despite the inherent discomfort of such a major departure from the Bohr planetary model. 23) A major consequence of this nested hydreno atomic structure is that nuclei do not spin within atoms. The magnetic field of the nucleus normally ascribed to spin is just the combined field of all the constituent nucleons, which do not spin either. Their magnetic fields are comprised of the combined fields of all their constituent positrons and negatrons. The spin quanta of individual nuclei and isotopes can therefore be expected to vary widely in keeping with observed magneton data, but should not be referred to as spin to avoid deceptive terminology. Magneton superposition would be a better term in recognition of the polarization of the negatron and positron magnetic dipole. 24) The Neutron/Proton ratio is dictated by the availability of nested bond sites on the surface of the poly neutron lattice core. The upward bound on the size of the nucleus is limited to a large extent by a simple surface area (r2) to volume (r3) ratio, such that the coulomb repulsion is a function of nuclear volume and the sustaining radiation pressure of the vacuum is a primarily a function of interactions at the nuclear surface. The Neutron/Proton and Neutron/Hydreno ratio are of course identical for non-ionized atoms. 25) Given that neutrons occupy the primary volume of the nucleus (a function of r3) and the protons occupy the surface of the nucleus (a function of r2) it is not surprising that stable, generally spherical nuclei, do not exist beyond a neutron to proton ratio of ~1.6. At such a ratio, the accumulated internal coulomb repulsion and the external impelling ZPF pressure approach equilibrium. Taking Uranium as the upward bound for generally spherical nuclei, a neutron to proton ratio of 1.59 is observed. 26) The upward bound on the size of the nucleus is also affected by available hydreno bonding sites, nuclear penetration capabilities of the ZPE spectrum, and progressive crowding of the hydrenos, and their associated ellipsoid orbital electron shells, which become greatly compressed and distended in the higher orbital states. This is especially so for the highest full orbital of inert elements. Super-heavy elements probably exist as multi-lobed or composite nuclei. 27) The void of nuclear stability between Bi83 and Th90 can be accounted for due to these multiple considerations. Only highly balanced and symmetric geometries are permissible as the size of the nucleus approaches the upward bound, barring the majority of more acute angular geometries, such as the tetra, hexa and octahedral cores. This causes the observed void of stability as the only remaining highly spherical Mark Porringa

57

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

geometries approach completion through an unstable transition zone requiring the addition of numerous nucleons. 28) Stable and radioactive Isotopes can be deduced from the lattice structure of the nucleus. Elements having many stable isotopes have an abundance of unoccupied bond sites that can accommodate extra neutrons but are not amenable to hydrenos due to excessive shielding from the ZPF and hydreno crowding. A hydreno placed in such a bond site would tend to collapse and capture its associated electron to form a neutron. The base 4 octohedral neutron core (B4 Octacore) structure of Ge can, for instance, accommodate all 5 observed stable isotopes in a logical and predictable fashion. Tin with its base 6 Tetracore structure can accommodate twice that number due to its larger facets. 29) Allotropes can originate from either nuclear or atomic structure and frequently have dramatically different nuclear arrangements, which dictate their physical form and chemistry. For instance, the allotropes of carbon, which include diamond, graphite and amorphous carbon, are in some sense Nuclear Isomers, evidently possessing distinctly different arrangements of the neutrons and protons, with primary emphasis on the foundational neutron core. Nuclear-based allotropes are particularly prevalent in the lighter elements such as carbon, where the nucleons can be rearranged to dramatically different configurations, using various means including heat, pressure and EM stimulation. Atomic or Chemistry based allotropes involve altered valence hydreno energy states. 30) Elements having only one stable isotope have nuclear structures associated with completed, full geometry, which have all available tetrahedral and pyramidal nesting sites on the surface of the neutron core occupied by hydrenos and ZPF shadowed peripheral neutrons. This is regular occurrence throughout the Periodic table for all permissible neutron core geometries. This list of elements includes Be, Al, F, P, Sc, Mn, Co, As, Y, Rh, I, Cs, Pr, Tb, Ho, Tm, Au, Bi & Th. 31) Unstable isotopes beyond the range of stable isotopes generally result from nesting sites offering contact with only two neutrons. This means that these neutrons are free to move in a short arc probably producing gamma rays and weaker nuclear bonding making the neutron prone to escape the nucleus when sufficiently perturbed. The more of such sites that are occupied, the more frequent the secondary perturbations and the shorter the half-life of the isotope. The highest degrees of freedom are least likely to exist and have very short half-lives. The half-life also generally declines as more of these un-nested sites are occupied. 32) Unstable isotopes, within the range of stable isotopes, result from asymmetry in the nucleus such that the peripheral neutrons and required protons cannot be evenly distributed to maintain the minimum degree of bilateral symmetry about two planes required for stable nuclei. Such instability may result in the emission of a β- particle (negatron) from the offending neutron to form a proton, reconfiguring the nucleus to form a lighter isotope of the element with the next higher atomic number. This is why Sn120 and Sn122 are stable, while Sn121 is not.

Mark Porringa

58

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

7.5 Nuclear Reactions And Decay: 1) The nature, cause and sequence of nuclear reactions and decay as well as their associated radiations are predictable based on the structure of the atom with primary emphasis on the nucleus. The attendant stability of the surface bound hydrenos and peripheral neutrons is, in turn, a function of the neutron core geometry and the sum total of all atomic interactions with the ZPF of the vacuum. 2) Gamma radiation is caused by unstable nuclei tending from a less efficient and asymmetric geometry toward a more closely packed and symmetric shape; from the oscillation of poorly bound peripheral neutrons, which are only confined in two axes; from conventional electron-positron annihilations; and from negatron-positron annihilations during thermonuclear fission and fusion reactions. 3) Beta particles result from the emission of a nuclear state negatron or positron from the surface of a peripheral nucleon resulting in the conversion of a neutron into a proton or a proton into a neutron. Neutrons formed from the emission of a β+ particle (positron) form lighter neutrons that cannot revert again to protons due the absence of an electron having a high degree of exposure to the local ZPF. 4) Neutron emissions result from the ejection of surplus peripheral neutrons from unstable bond sites on the surface of the neutron core, rearrangement of unstable nuclear geometry, and from the disruptive forces of thermonuclear fission from within the neutron core. These unstable bond sites are characterized by lack of nuclear symmetry, or inadequate confinement due to bonding with only two other nucleons. Stable bonding requires contact with a minimum of three core neutrons. Ejected neutrons eventually decay to form hydrenos or full blown hydrogen atoms due to their increased exposure to the ZPF of the local vacuum. 5) Alpha particle decay involves the ejection of two protons and two neutrons in trigonal planar bonding, from a corner or edge position between the facets of the neutron core, accompanied by double ionization as a heavy unstable nucleus rearranges its neutron core under the impelling pressure of ZPF radiation to provide a more stable geometry. The kinetic energy of the alpha particle is directly related to the magnitude and intensity of the nuclear rearrangement, which quite literally spits out the particle. 6) Electron capture occurs as a result of hydreno collapse to its fully bound state forming the negatron/proton pair of the neutron from the orbital electron and proton pair of the original hydreno. The energy of the collapsed orbital shell electron is emitted as an Xray photon corresponding to the ground state of the collapsed orbital. Electron capture might also result from the absorption of a high energy β- particle by a proton on the surface of the nucleus which would subsequently result in the emission of the associated hydreno orbital shell electron without ionization of the atom. 7) Cross-sections for thermal neutron absorption are primarily a function of the available nesting sites on the surface of the neutron core that are not occupied, atomic geometries conducive to capture, and neutron evaporation or “disappearance” due to hydreno and hydrogen production. The more open sites there are, the higher the cross-section. The Hydreno states of the target material are evidently a major contributing factor in transitions from neutron to hydreno states. The purely statistical nature of nuclear crosssections can therefore be analyzed in a more precise, deterministic manner. Crosssections for other types of nuclear reactions are similarly determined. Mark Porringa

59

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

8) High states of ionization can have dramatic effects on the decay rate and half-life of an element due to the altered state of its ZPF interactions resulting primarily from the increased exposure of the nucleus to the vacuum flux at the locations of ionization. Accelerated decay rates can also be accomplished by bathing the nucleus in transverse or scalar wave interference effectively modifying the energy exchange between the nucleus and the local vacuum flux. 9) Low Energy induced fusion of atoms can occur when the hydrenos occupying the mating faces between the fusing nuclei collapse to zero quantum energy states forming neutrons due to atomic scale Casimir effects (microcavity QED) that begin to manifest at subatomic spacing, resulting from mutual ZPF shadowing and the inward directed radiation pressure of ZPE coherence. This implosive collapse constitutes a form of passive inertial confinement fusion that is greatly facilitated by the diminished coulomb barrier of the collapsed hydreno. 10) Fusion by this method does not result in the massive release of energy characteristic of conventional thermonuclear fusion. The cohered ZPE remains confined to the fused nuclei as potential and sustaining energy. Intermediate states of nuclear fusion may result where the fusion interface hydrenos do not collapse completely, forming a composite nucleus comprised of two distinct, but chemically indiscernible nuclei, that do not rearrange to form a single combined nucleus of different core geometry. 11) Diatomic oxygen for instance may collapse along the bond interface to such an extent that the two nuclei are very nearly touching, without the individual nuclei being altered. This condensed form of O2 constitutes a single atom of organic sulfur, one of its several allotropic forms. Similarly, CO may collapse to form organic Si; Na and O to form organic K; Si and O to form organic Ca and several other variants that are known to occur widely in nature. 12) Intermediate collapse of the high energy hydrenos to very low energy states approaching a neutron, resulting from a diminished input of ZPE, or extremely high applied fluid pressures, produces a form of condensed matter that need not be ionized. This apparently occurs during the ZIPP Fusion process within a collapsing Electron Cloud (EV) that is, in turn, typically enveloped by a collapsing cavitation bubble, or an imploding hydroxy gas bubble. The resulting plasma pressure inside the collapsing bubble may exceed 1018 kPa during the final stage of collapse as a result of the radial coherence of ZPE. 13) Cold fission can occur when the atom is sheared along a fractal plane of the neutron lattice core without disruption of the individual nucleons along the fracture. The resulting fission fragments then rapidly regroup their nucleons to form stable elements without release of observable radiation. The excess neutrons exposed along the fractal plane, are prompt converted to hydrenos, as the fission fragments separate, exposing the core neutrons to the full energy of the ZPF. 14) Elements with large neutron cores having higher aspect ratios are more readily cold fissionable. For example the nucleus of lead evidently has a neutron core based on a 5 x 6 rectangular bi-pyramid (B5x6 Recoctacore). Cold fission may be initiated in a variety of ways including Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Confined Plasma Induced ZPE coherence, Scalar Wave Interferometry and other methods. 15) Cold Fission can produce fission fragments having high or low kinetic energy yields, depending on the mode of fission and the initial state of the nucleus, whether it possess Mark Porringa

60

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

a composite or singular core structure. If the fission occurs within a persistent zone of ZPE coherence, the fragments do not necessarily fly apart with high kinetic energy due to coulomb repulsion. Neutron absorption is not necessary for cold fission to occur. Results from low energy, non-radioactive fission of heavy metals such as uranium, lead and mercury appear to support these assertions. 16) The thermal neutron fission properties of Th, U, Pu are caused by the existence of open bond sites on the surface of the barely stable neutron core which are able to absorb a neutron but result in broken symmetry causing the nucleus to be literally torn apart, in the absence of well defined natural cleavage planes, as a consequence of imbalanced radiation pressure from the vacuum on these heavy, marginally stable nuclei. Uranium 235 has three vacant neutron sites symmetrically spaced for absorbing slow neutrons that spiral into the nucleus under the influence of nuclear level, very close range Casimir forces providing a relatively high reaction cross section. 17) Uranium 238, by comparison, is not thermal neutron fissionable, because the geometry is apparently complete, with no vacant bond sites left for absorbing a peripheral neutron. The high energy impact of fast neutrons is therefore required to disrupt the nucleus directly, producing only fast fission with a much lower reaction cross-section, due to the requirement for a high velocity projectile impact on the nucleus. The asymmetric mass distribution of hot fission fragments is directly related to the poorly defined fractal planes of the neutron core geometries of hot fissionable elements, which are apparently base 4 icosehedral (B4 Icosacore) or possibly B4 Cuboctacore (less likely due to more acute angularity and variations in facet area). 18) By comparison, the cold fission of Lead is accompanied by near perfect symmetry of the fission fragments, indicating a very definitive cleavage plane through the center of the nucleus augmented by hydreno distribution, yielding the highly deterministic reaction, 206 → 2 48Rh103 accompanied by hydreno development along the newly exposed 82Pb fractal faces, which converts the excess neutrons to hydrenos during the rearrangement of the nucleons to form the completed, Base 3 cuboctahedral neutron core (B-4 Cuboctacore) structure of the single isotope of the Rhodium nucleus. 19) Energy yields from thermonuclear reactions are not simply due to the separation or joining of nucleons, which can in fact occur at very subtle observable energies, even in biological systems. It should be noted however that the unobserved interaction with the vacuum is always extremely large despite appearances in normal 4-space closed system analysis that disregards for convenience the non-thermal matter/vacuum interaction, which is generally in a state of dynamic equilibrium, or very nearly so. 20) The high energy yields of conventional thermonuclear fission and fusion reactions result primarily from the fracture and consequent destruction (evaporation) of individual core neutrons resulting in acute coulomb repulsion of the indexed negatron/positron lattice of the neutron and extensive electron/positron annihilations which gives rise to a massive burst of gamma radiation that interacts with the matter within the explosion to produce heat and light radiations. 21) The organized standing wave vortex “material” energy of electrons and positrons is consequently released as they are converted to radiating, high energy gamma photons which in turn convert to kinetic energy and then heat from interactions with adjacent matter, primarily the fission fragments of the nucleus. Fundamentally this is large, nonequilibrium transient between matter and the local ZPF. A precise mass balance on a thermonuclear reaction would no doubt detect lost nucleons. Mark Porringa

61

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

22) Thermonuclear fission results in radioactivity and radioactive daughter products as a results of the violent disruptive explosion of the nucleus which rips through the nuclear lattice in adhoc fashion leaving ragged, highly asymmetric fragments that emit radiation as they gradually transition to stable end products through the emission and absorption of particles, conversion of excess neutrons to protons, and nucleon rearrangement to attain minimum allowable degrees of geometric symmetry for stable elements. All of these processes are attended by quantized radiations characteristic of the particular process and the change in energy state as the nucleus reestablishes dynamic equilibrium with the local ZPF. 23) High Energy Fusion reactions, such as occur in Hydrogen bombs, have much higher yields primarily due to the more prolific destruction of the annihilated negatron-positron pairs in the destroyed nucleons, which are constrained more efficiently by the implosion pressure of the enveloping fission bomb ignition. Again, the high-energy yield is largely due to electron-positron annihilations and coulomb repulsions within the destroyed nucleons - not nuclear fusion per se. Thermonuclear fusion and fission are consequently very similar, despite superficial appearances and claims to the contrary. 24) Low energy induced fission and fusion reactions, like conventional chemistry, can be either exothermic or endothermic and the associated energy yields do not necessarily follow the mass defect energies predicted on the basis of Einstein’s equation E=mc2. Furthermore, in the context of the LNH model, mass is not considered an immutable property of matter but rather a result of transient and non-equilibrium interactions between matter and the locally distorted ZPE of space, which can be altered, yielding variations in the mass of a particle. The mass variable in this equation should ideally be replaced with some form of absolute matter term. 25) Observed mass defects are instead due to slight variations in the mass of the nucleons as a function of the structure of the nucleus. For instance, a neutron at the center of the nucleus will have a marginally lower in situ mass than a peripheral neutron, even though they have exactly the same “material” structure. There is in fact no energy/matter conversion occurring in Low Energy Induced fusion and Cold fission reactions, only in thermonuclear reactions. These cold nuclear reactions should be referred to distinctly as Chemo-nuclear and Bio-nuclear reactions. 7.6 Concerning The Atom: 1) The Hydreno is the fundamental building block of all atoms and is essentially the same as the hydrogen atom in that it is composed of a proton and its associated spherical standing wave electron shell at various fractional, harmonic (quantized) energy levels. It is important to note, however, that the proton appears to be outside the spherical shell of the electron force field, simply attached to the outside of it, at one of the eight positron facets of the proton as previously described. Despite this discomforting departure from the Bohr planetary model, this electron-proton relationship seems the best option for the moment, although the final decision on this issue still hangs in the balance. 2) The standing wave orbital electron simply attaches itself by coulomb attraction and impelling ZPF radiation to one proton on the surface of the nucleus forming a dynamic force field shell. This electron-proton pairing constitutes the Hydreno. This configuration also implies exposure of the bare proton, in the hydrogen atom, giving rise to its unique properties, bonding and diatomic form. The electron’s standing wave force field is free to Mark Porringa

62

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

extend far from the nucleus to provide the normal volume of the atom and the illusion of the bulk solidity of matter. 3) The orbital electron is generally much larger than its paired proton with a highly dispersed orbiting charge density that spends most of its time away from the proton. The brief period of time spent close to the proton maintains its coulomb attraction. Therefore, the larger and more energetic the electron, the less tightly bound it becomes, making it both easier to remove in the process of ionization and more reactive in chemical reactions. 4) Only hydrogen and helium would have essentially spherical electron force fields. Hydrogen is the only nearly spherical atom; all others have distinct geometric shapes produced by the hydreno distribution, which is an extrapolation of the neutron core shape. The electrons above the s orbitals of helium are by necessity teardrop shaped, due to the crowding that ensues, as more and more hydrenos are nested on the neutron core of heavier elements. 5) The tear drop shape typical of the p, d and f orbitals described by the Schroedinger wave functions, is a good approximation of the actual shape of the force field, which tends to become more and more distended as hydreno crowding progresses. The “contact” between the individual hydreno force fields along the interface is bound to cause stressinduced distortion of the individual hydreno force fields. The existence of “spherical” s type orbitals above helium is therefore excluded. 6) The electron’s dynamic force field does not radiate at any detectable frequency for reasons similar to those proposed by Mills. However when heavily distorted, the tear drop composite wave may radiate at frequencies too high to be detectable by existing instrumentation, which relies on the relatively slow response time of electrons which does not exceed 10-22 seconds. This lack of observable EM frequencies above 1022 Hz is therefore not the least bit surprising. 7) Hydrenos exist in quantum energy states corresponding to the various electron orbitals and loosely corresponding to ionization energies. There are in fact numerous possible energy states for the hydreno at discrete harmonic frequencies above and below the ground state frequency of hydrogen. Only the highest energy states can participate in chemical bonding, which is confined to the exterior surface of the atom with a maximum of 8 electrons. Lower energy states exist well below the atom’s surface, the lowest of which are very much closer to the nucleus. 8) Hydrenos can only occupy nested bond sites where the nuclear bonding is strong, stable and confined against motion in all three axes. High-energy hydrenos generally occupy the tetrahedral bond sites where the nuclear bonding is marginally weaker and the degree of exposure to the ZPE spectrum is greater. The tetrahedral nesting sites are characterized by three nucleons forming a triangular base unit, only one of which may be a very low energy hydreno. 9) High-energy valence bonding hydrenos are preferentially located in the tetrahedral nesting sites so as to maintain geometric balance and to avoid excessive crowding and mutual coulomb repulsion. Outer Valence bonding sites then become apparent according to the orbital orientations observed in conventional chemistry. No more than two high-energy hydrenos can exist in direct proximity to each other forming the double bond. Mark Porringa

63

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

10) High Energy bonding hydrenos above the K orbital evidently require the presence of other hydrenos in close proximity to support its high energy state through mutual repulsion causing compression and distention/elongation of the “squeezed” electron orbital similar to the behavior of a balloon squeezed perpendicular to its long axis. 11) Lower energy hydrenos tend to occupy the pyramidal bond sites where the nuclear bonding is strongest and deep seated, although the energy of the hydreno is again also a function of the degree of spatial exposure to the localized ZPF. Low energy hydrenos always occupy sites of greater confinement and reduced exposure to the ZPE of the vacuum. No more than three hydrenos in any energy state above that of a neutron can exist in direct contact with each other. 12) The energy state of the hydreno can only exist in a finite number of discrete, harmonic, quantum energy levels dictated by the geometry of the nesting site and the makeup of its immediate surroundings, particularly the presence of other adjacent hydrenos and atoms. Fractional harmonic states well below the K orbital ground state can exist, giving rise to ultra close range atomic spacing, which causes the two distinct atoms to appear as one atom with an indistinguishable compound nucleus. The bio-nuclear fusion of Na23 + O16 appearing chemically as K39 is one indisputable example of this common occurrence. 13) The K, L, M, N, O, P and Q electron shell orbits of the periodic table correspond to the discrete quantum energy states of the nested hydrenos. The quantized energy level within any particular orbital level can, however, vary to some extent within harmonic constraints. For brevity, it should again be emphasized that electrons in this view do not “orbit” the entire nucleus. They remain directly associated with a singular proton on the surface of the nucleus in a confined orientation. 14) The escalating number of electrons in each orbital shell from K to Q is determined by radial bisections of the sub-orbitals of the underlying orbit. For instance, bisection of the 2s electrons of the K orbit results in the 8 (2n2) electrons of the L orbit with its s and p orbital orientations. Similarly, radial bisection of the orbitals of the L orbit eventually gives rise to the 18 s, p and d electron orbitals of the M orbit and so forth, topping out with a maximum permissible orbit population of 32 electrons limited by excessive electron crowding, symmetry and attenuated ZPF density. 15) The development of new orbits as one progresses down a group of the periodic table causes the nominal atomic diameter to increase generally from about 1 Angstrom to the maximum diameter of about 6 Angstroms. This results primarily from mutual ZPF shadowing and coulomb repulsion from the underlying orbitals, supporting and defining the ones above through electron force field repulsion which is bound to cause complex interactions at the “contact” interface between the individual electron force-fields. 16) Conversely, nominal atomic diameter generally decreases with increasing atomic number across an orbital period because the first electron of any new orbital level are much larger due to better initial exposure to ZPF energy input protruding out well beyond the previous orbital level. Subsequent electron additions begin to shadow the first electron, causing it to shrink to a lower quantum harmonic state. This shrinkage continues with each additional orbital electron, with the available energy shared amongst all the electrons, and all preceding electrons experiencing quantized shrinkage within a narrow range of harmonic states. This is why the nominal atomic diameter of Cs55 (5.2 Å) is larger than Bi83 (3.2 Å). Mark Porringa

64

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

17) The s, p, d, f, h and all of the observed hybrid orbitals of conventional chemistry largely correspond to real geometric orientations and quantum energy states of the electrons within each orbit level (K to Q or 1 to 7) determined by the nested position of the highest energy hydrenos on the neutron lattice core. Such orientation is also very much a result of the influence of adjacent hydrenos and lower electron orbital shell orientations. 18) The outer orbital layer responsible for bonding is always restricted to a maximum of 8 orbitals corresponding to the radially symmetric orientation similar to that provided by the corners of a cube or indexed cube resulting in a generally spherical atom, though in practice never spherical, with a lobed and faceted surface structure resulting from the ellipsoid hydreno packing. Mutual shadowing of the high-energy hydrenos and the resulting spectral shift of the local vacuum flux apparently prevents any more than 8 electrons in the outer orbital. 19) Elements belonging to the same group tend to have similar neutron core structures and consequent bonding electron configurations and angles. For instance, the crystalline forms of Group 4a elements; Carbon, Silicon and Germanium, Tin and Lead have essentially tetrahedral or octahedral neutron cores with a base of 2 to 6 neutrons. This naturally gives rise to the tetrahedral valence 4 bonding of their compounds and the various elemental, crystalline structures observed such as cubic close-packed and tetragonal. 7.7 Atomic Bonding and Chemistry: 1) Ultimately the atoms of all materials are held together by very close range casimir forces (as compared to the ultra-close range casimir force holding the nucleus together), which are provided by the net ZPF radiation pressure with the individual atoms acting as minute conductive plates. Crystalline materials such as metals, diamond, and minerals compounds have regular geometric atomic shapes conducive to packing in regular selforganizing lattice structures. Self-organization is largely provided by the electrostatic polarity of the individual atoms or molecules making up the crystal structure due to slight asymmetry in the hydreno distribution or their individual energies. 2) The structure of all crystalline forms of the elements is directly attributable to the structure of the nucleus and the resulting highly symmetrical distribution of the bonding hydrenos and peripheral neutrons. Furthermore, the strength and rigidity of such crystalline structure is a function of the underlying rigidity and definition of the atomic facets produced by the bonding hydrenos and the degree of buttressing provided by lower energy supporting hydrenos in close proximity. 3) The chemical properties, valence and bond angles of the elements are fundamentally determined and indirectly indicative of the structure of the nucleus and are therefore predictable to a large extent. Similarly, the structure of the nucleus can be deduced to some extent from the known electron configuration. Peripheral neutrons have a strong bearing on the valence and observed bond angles of the atom. 4) The high-energy hydreno sites constituting the chemical bonding valence positions always occupy the positions of greatest spatial freedom and exposure to the ZPF supported to a significant extent by lower energy hydrenos in close proximity. The valence state of the atom can be altered by its environment and energy input, including degrees of shadowing from the ZPF. Bohr’s assertion that the nucleus has little significance to the chemistry of the atom is therefore incorrect. Mark Porringa

65

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

5) Bond angles are generally perpendicular to the plane through the nesting site and secondarily influenced by coulomb repulsion of hydrenos in close proximity. The higher the energy state and disparities of the adjacent hydrenos, the greater the influence on bond angle. The peculiar bond angles associated with oxygen are a clear case in point. 6) Diatomic bonds in elements such as H2, O2, N2, and Cl2 having a negative valence, bond by covering each other’s vacant valence electron sub-shell orbital sites. These vacant sites are characterized by a depression on the surface of the atom forming a saddle into which the mating atom fits with a right angle orientation (except hydrogen). Orientation results from the polarity of the asymmetric distribution of the hydrenos in the individual atoms. Bond strength is provided primarily by the net pressure of the impelling radiation of the ZPF, not “sharing” of electrons. 7) Covalent bonding between atoms is determined by a literal peg and hole match between the unoccupied hydreno sites of the moderately full outer valence orbital and the surplus hydrenos of the moderately empty valence orbital ideally having corresponding orbital electron energy surplus and deficiency. Inert elements have neither a surplus of valence orbital hydrenos that may be thought of as pegs nor orbital gaps as holes in which to receive a hydreno. 8) Ionic bonding occurs when the bond site (hole) of the receiving atom has a much greater affinity for the electron than the hydreno of the atom from which it is taken. This occurs between the unoccupied electron shells of the nearly full outer valence orbital and the surplus electrons of the nearly empty orbital, having a large difference in the their valence (1 versus 7), electron affinity and electronegativity. 9) This acute difference in electron affinity results in the transfer of the electron, which is pulled from its proton anchor in the nucleus of the donor atom and deposited in the vacant orbital site on the surface of the receptor atom. This ionic bond electron is not anchored to the nucleus as a hydreno, but merely occupies the vacant sub-shell of the incomplete outer valence orbital as a free electron with a dimension roughly matching that of the bond site. The transfer of the electron effectively forms two ions that bond by coulomb attraction, which again is fundamentally an impelling force from the ZPF radiation. 10) Volatility generally increases with increasing atomic mass within any particular elemental group due to increased crowding of the hydrenos, resulting in larger reaction crosssections for the bonding electrons. However, in opposition to this trend, volatility also tends to decrease to a lesser extent as the ratio between the atomic mass (inertia) and the electrostatic interaction between the bonding electrons increases, reducing atom acceleration and reaction rates. 11) Electronegativity is similarly affected, generally declining with increasing atomic number in a particular group or valence state, primarily influenced by coulomb charge asymmetry in the hydreno distribution. Electron affinity is also affected in a similar manner. Not surprisingly, reactivity increases with disparity in electron affinity and electronegativity. 12) The net energy flow in chemical reactions, whether endothermic or exothermic, is a reflection of the change in quantum energy states of the orbital electrons of the hydrenos as a result of the reaction and also due to ZPF energy coherence or dispersion via Casimir effects to the local vacuum from the shrinkage or expansion of the molecular assembly and possibly other factors. The previously discussed enigmatic properties of Mark Porringa

66

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Nitrogen, provide an example of the extreme variations that can occur in the calorimetry of chemical reactions. 13) A very high degree of hydreno symmetry about all three axes tends to produce less reactive elements. Inert elements such as the Noble gas series have all eight permissible ellipsoid electron positions in their outer valence orbital shells filled, creating a chemically impenetrable barrier against intrusion by other electrons. They also have relatively low hydreno harmonic, quantum energy states in the outer orbital with correspondingly high ionization energies, due to the extent of mutual shadowing from the incident ZPF radiation that must be shared amongst all 8 electrons in the outer valence orbital. 14) Catalysts such as Platinum and Rhodium have a high degree of radial symmetry in the nucleus and evenly distributed quasi-stable high-energy hydrenos, permitting the valence electron orbitals to undergo shrinkage due to shadowing from atoms in close proximity. The unstable valence sites may in fact literally move around the surface of the atom (similar to nitrogen), disappearing from one location, and reappearing elsewhere, facilitating reactions over its whole surface. The valence bond site literally collapses to assume a low energy state below the horizon of chemical reactions. 15) The collapse of the valence electron orbital consequently liberates its energy, facilitating the catalytic reaction after attracting the reactants within close proximity, without itself participating in bonding. When the reactants move off, the valence electron of the catalyst literally “re-inflates” gathering its required energy from the discrete harmonics of the local vacuum flux. Rhodium for instance has three valence electrons that may occupy eight hydreno bond locations distributed evenly, over the triangular facets of its cuboctahedral neutron core (B3 Cuboctacore). 16) Ionization results in the removal of the standing wave shell electron from the hydreno leaving an exposed proton on the surface of the nucleus. The ionized electron is essentially distended to such an extent that it breaks away from its proton anchor and is expelled from the atom in its coherent standing wave form to move freely as a spherical force field exhibiting the properties of a material “particle”. Alternatively, the ionized electron may expand continuously and propagate away as a plane wave of discrete length, capable of exhibiting wave properties such as diffraction. 17) Successive ionization increases chemical volatility due to charge imbalance with the nucleus and larger gaps in the outer bonding orbital. Successive ionization energies can vary widely as determined by the quantum energy state of the hydreno being ionized. The ionization of each successive valence electron increases gradually within each orbit and dramatically between successive orbits. Lower orbits and their constituent orbitals are substantially closer to the nucleus, smaller and more tightly bound. They are consequently much harder to remove. 18) Ionization results in shrinkage of the volume of the isolated atom roughly proportional to the inverse of the ionization energy. Since lower ionization energies are associated with highly distended ellipsoid electron shells, their removal from the atom causes a more substantial decline in atomic volume, which is primarily a function of the shell like force field of the electron. This corresponds with the observed trends in the size of ionized atoms.

Mark Porringa

67

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

7.8

Concerning Bulk Matter:

1) Bulk matter is considered almost transparent to the vast majority of the ZPE spectrum aside from minor effects such as gravity, inertia and atomic and molecular bonding. The properties of bulk matter are directly attributable to the combined attributes of its atomic, nuclear and nucleon properties fundamentally based in the energetic vacuum of space. 2) Fundamentally, bulk matter (like nuclear and atomic matter) is held together by the greatly diminished, net impelling radiation pressure of the ZPF primarily acting at the atomic, molecular and macro scale, such that the individual atoms and molecules constitute microscopic Casimir plates. Charge interactions are a secondary effect of the ZPF coherence. The phases of bulk matter are essentially confined to solids and liquids. Gasses do not constitute a form of bulk matter, remaining as individual atoms or molecules possessing highly erratic motion, due to forces arising from the minimal geometric symmetry with respect to dynamic pressure of the stochastic vacuum flux. 3) Brownian motion in water is similarly driven by the asymmetry of the water molecule with respect to the dynamic radiation pressure of the incident ZPF. The chevron profile of the water molecule has a lower ZPF drag coefficient in the forward direction due to its more streamlined shape in the forward direction. The water molecule is literally propelled generally forward like a delta-winged aircraft out of control. Diffusion of gasses and liquids is also driven to a large extent by this dynamic force of the vacuum on the asymmetry of matter. 4) Electrostatic, atomic polarity is essential to the formation of bulk crystalline matter. Metal atoms are characterized by regular geometry with well-defined facets and strong electrostatic polarity to encourage self-organizing atomic alignment in the bulk crystalline material. These regular geometric shapes are amenable to packing in a highly organized lattice such as cubic close-packed, hexagonal close-packed, tetragonal and so forth to form crystalline bulk matter of high material density. 5) Gold, for instance, appears to have a base 6, corner truncated octahedral neutron core (B6-2CT Octacore) with twelve distinct facets producing the same basic structure at the atomic level. The hydrenos bonded to the surface of the neutron core effectively extrapolate the geometry of the core to the atomic scale, giving rise to the observed cubic close-packed structure with each atom in facet to facet contact with 12 others. The same type of arrangement also pertains to silver and copper, which are in the same elemental group but having a neutron core of lower base units. 6) Amorphous solids are generally composed of complex molecular arrangements with a high degree of molecular scale roughness and irregularities conducive to loose packing, entanglement and intertwining of the individual molecules with large inter atomic and molecular void spaces providing low bulk densities. Amorphous solids are ultimately held together by the impelling ZPF radiation acting primarily at the molecular and macroscopic scale, well above the atomic scale. 7) Pure elemental fluids posses irregular or near spherical atomic geometry not conducive to stable regular packing and/or extremely weak atomic polarity that cannot promote self organization of a crystal structure or too much inter-atomic movement (thermal energy) to permit effective bonding between facets of the individual atoms. Fluids are therefore predominately molecular or mixtures of atoms and compounds of irregular collective geometry that consequently cannot be easily “frozen” as solids with strong inter-atomic bonding. Mark Porringa

68

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

8) Glass compounds (sometimes referred to as super-cooled liquids) do not form crystalline solids because they lack regular molecular geometry conducive to packing in a crystal structure. They do, however possess strong polarity in more than one plane of their molecular structure causing strong coulomb attractions between the individual molecules, which locks them together in an irregular fashion lacking a definitive crystal structure. The strong molecular polarity of glass compounds also gives rise to their observed dielectric properties including the ability to store electric field energy in the stressed bonds of their randomly oriented polarized molecules. 9) The mechanical properties of bulk matter, such as strength, stiffness, elasticity, malleability, density and smoothness are primarily rooted in the macro, molecular and atomic level matter-vacuum interactions, which are, in turn, rooted in the geometry of the nucleus. For instance, the strength and density of metals are generally higher than other materials due to closely packed and highly regular atomic geometry involving well defined, mating bond facets. 10) Stressing a solid material within its elastic limit distorts the bonding electron force-field shell, altering its interaction with the ZPF, but without any actual displacement of the atomic facet bonds allowing the material to return to its relaxed state. During the stressed state of the material the sustaining energy input Es from the vacuum actually increases to supply the elevated inter-atomic forces required to keep the stressed material intact. 11) Stressing a material to the point of causing strain begins to rip the atoms apart and they will not return to their previous state without going through a strain relaxation process which allows the ZPF pressure to compress and reestablish more intimate contact between the atoms. The eventual failure of a cyclically strained material is therefore anticipated due to progressive weakening of more and more atomic bonds which cause stress concentrations at any remaining bonds. 12) Alloying of metals improves strength by filling in microscopic voids between the atoms of the parent metal, thereby increasing the effective force from ZPF pressure and diminishing inter-atomic stress concentrations. The fatigue failure of material such as steel is associated with the growth of these microscopic voids between individual atoms, which can only be relieved by heating to a plastic or fluid state, allowing regrouping of atoms and closure of voids. 13) The intrinsic properties of matter such as enthalpy, resistance, conductivity, reflectivity, refraction, color, and a myriad of other material properties, can also be accounted for in straightforward manner within the deterministic, rigid atomic structure provided by the LNH model, but will not be discussed in any detail at this juncture. 14) Conductivity, for example, results from a high-energy valence electron that is easily displaced from its proton anchor in the nucleus, allowing it to move in halting fashion, within the interstitial spaces of the metal lattice. Reflectivity and color are related to the natural surface produced by the crystal arrangement of the individual atoms and their spacing at the surface of bulk matter. The crystal structure and orientation of gold and silver atoms evidently produces a very flat, contiguous surface at the atomic scale. 15) The interaction of bulk material objects brings us again finally to gravitational fields in their more familiar context. Detailed discussion of the implications of ZPE on inertial and gravitational mass is, however, beyond the scope of this conceptual investigation. It Mark Porringa

69

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

should be obvious by now that these characteristics of mass are not immutable properties of matter alone, but rather a consequence of matter’s continuous interaction with the ZPF and various complications involving mutual shadowing. 16) The matter-vacuum interaction can theoretically be effectively engineered to locally attenuate, neutralize or even reverse gravity and inertia through a variety of shielding, interference and coherence effects that alter the radial distribution of graviton emissions and mutual shadowing effects between chunks of matter and the local vacuum flux. Asymmetrical high voltage capacitors, non-linear angular momentum transients and other means can give rise to such anomalies as widely reported in the scientific and patent literature. 17) The intended scope of our conceptual inquiry into the nature of the atom and matter has now extended through six levels of organization, from the vacuum, to bulk matter. There are, of course, many other material properties and phenomena that remain to be addressed by those better equipped to apply, evaluate and refine the LNH model within their particular areas of expertise. Hopefully, I have by now provided a sufficiently detailed foundation for this vast work to proceed. 7.9

Some Astrophysical Implications

1) It should go without saying, that many of the aforementioned postulates, can be similarly extrapolated to all higher levels of matter organization, including the planetary, solar, stellar, galactic, galactic clusters, super clusters and ultimately to the Universal scale, comprising all 12 apparent levels of material organization, very likely explaining an enormous collection of cosmological and astrophysical data and phenomena. Application to the behavior of the solar system has already been inferred as a means of explaining gravitation, including such mysteries as the sling shot effect used in space programs, moon libration and gravity shadowing during solar eclipses. 2) At the Solar scale, it should be apparent that the maximum dimension of a bulk matter star is ultimately determined by the penetration capabilities of the ZPF, which must extend to its core with sufficient brevity to sustain all of its constituent positrons and negatrons within the nucleons of the individual atomic nuclei. Furthermore, the orbital electron force fields of the individual atoms must withstand the extreme fluid pressures at the core, without collapsing to form a neutron star with a roughly million-fold increase in matter density. 3) Consequently, the maximum dimension of a condensed matter neutron star is for that reason, much smaller than a bulk matter star since the ZPF attenuation rate would be roughly 104 times higher. The graviton emissions would, however, be largely independent of the density with a direct correlation to the number of fundamental material particles only. In other words, a large bulk matter star would produce approximately the same gravitational field (at distance) as a much smaller neutron star composed of the same number of fundamental particles, with slight variations due to secondary mutual shadowing effects. 4) Ultimately, the energy, which powers a star comes from the absorption of a small fraction of the incident ZPF energy. Thermonuclear fusion, consequently, is not really the fundamental source. Effectively a star just recycles the energy of the vacuum, transducing it from the incident unobservable, ultra-high frequency scalar radiation, to the emitted observable low frequency thermal radiations of the conventional EM Mark Porringa

70

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

spectrum. Sufficient interstellar spacing is therefore critical to the survival of a star, which must have a minimum energy input from the vacuum to remain stable in the long term. 5) Similarly, the maximum matter density and dimension of a galaxy would be determined by the ZPF distribution, which would eventually be organized and attenuated to such an extent, that new stars could not be sustained from the locally attenuated vacuum flux. This process of extrapolation to ever higher levels could apparently continue ad nauseam to the Universal scale, at which point we would have nothing further to inquire about, regarding the material Universe, but that is not about to happen anytime soon.

Mark Porringa

71

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

8. 8.1

BUILDING ATOMIC MODELS The Modeling Process

The Atomic model building process begins by first collecting all the relevant empirical data and other information on the chosen element and its isotopes. This includes such things as the atomic crystal structure, valences, bond angles, neutron and proton counts and so on. Based on this information, several prospective neutron core geometries are selected using correlating information from the partially completed Table Of Nuclear Geometry (Appendix C) that appears to have good prospects of accommodating the observed characteristics of the element, including the range of neutron counts in the stable isotopes. For instance, an element that exhibits a cubic close-packed crystal structure requires a neutron core with a minimum of twelve projected facets, since each atom is evidently in contact with twelve others in the CCP crystal structure. The points, edges and smallest facets of the selected neutron core are the bond locations occupied by the hydrenos, which project from the neutron core to produce an atomic shape that is an extrapolation of the neutron core. Atomic model construction begins with the best neutron core prospect to provide the basic geometric lattice selected from the table of nuclear geometry consisting of the number of neutrons closely approximating the lightest isotope, using square planar and trigonal planar bonding. The neutron core is then evaluated and refined with respect to the known elemental characteristics, which are a reflection or extrapolation of the nuclear geometry, primarily the geometry of the neutron core. Hydreno and peripheral neutron bond sites then become readily apparent once the neutron core is completed. Hydrenos are always located in a nested position on the surface of the neutron core forming the apex position of a tetrahedral or pyramidal base (3 or 4 neutrons) in general accord with the orbital orientations observed in conventional chemistry. The high energy valence hydreno sites constituting the chemical bonding positions always occupy the positions of greatest spatial freedom and exposure to the active vacuum and are preferentially located in the tetrahedral nesting sites so as to avoid excessive crowding and mutual coulomb repulsion. Hydrenos located along edges provide the intermediate orbital levels. The small facet positions provide the lowest energy orbitals due to the diminished exposure to the ZPF. Positions in the center of larger facets, which are surrounded by hydrenos, provide locations for peripheral neutrons due to the high degree of shadowing that can no longer support a hydreno orbital state. Elements exhibiting many isotopes must therefore have larger facets to accommodate many peripheral neutrons. Refinement of the atomic model proceeds in such a way so as to maintain a reasonably high level of geometric balance and symmetry although various degrees of asymmetry generally exist and frequently appear necessary to the observed chemical properties. Bilateral symmetry of the nucleus about two perpendicular planes appears to be the minimum requirement for stable nuclei. Bond angles are generally perpendicular to the plane through the nesting site and secondarily influenced by coulomb repulsion of hydrenos in close proximity. The higher the energy states of the adjacent hydrenos, the greater the influence on bond angle. High Energy bonding hydrenos above the K orbit appear to require the presence of other hydrenos in close proximity to support its high energy, distended ellipsoid state. Mark Porringa

72

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

High-energy valence hydrenos cannot evidently exist in direct proximity to each other (a very rare occurrence if at all). No more than three hydrenos, in any quantum energy state above that of a neutron, can exit in direct contact with each other. Peripheral neutrons required for heavier isotopes can then be placed in the middle region of partially vacant facets where they are able to maintain a high degree of shadowing from adjacent hydrenos in order to maintain their zero quantum orbital energy (neutron state) and minimum permissible nuclear symmetry. Alternative geometries of the neutron lattice core give rise to isobars or different nuclear allotropes of the elements such as graphite and diamond, which in effect constitute nuclear transition isomers. The various allotropes of an element are constructed by rearranging the nucleons so as to place the high-energy bonding hydrenos at other logical bond sites providing alternate bond angles and valence options. Chemical allotropes are presumed to be the most common and are simply caused by altered valence states that do not alter the nuclear geometry. Unstable isotopes, outside the range of the stable ones are formed by adding neutrons to un-nested bond sites that have various degrees of freedom of motion or which upset the minimum symmetry. They can also result from increased shadowing of a low energy hydreno causing it to collapse to form a neutron, changing the element to a heavy isotope of a lower atomic number. Unstable isotopes within the stable range are constructed by adding them to sites that destroy the minimum permissible symmetry of the nucleus, barring long-term survival. The whole process involves a good measure of trial and error iteration, intuition and deductive reasoning that will no doubt improve with experience as more details are revealed concerning the principles of nuclear structure. For a more thorough understanding of the process refer back to the detailed postulates frequently until the concepts are mastered. Feel free to add building rules of your own. Further refinements in the process are certainly anticipated given that I have so far only spot-checked a limited number of elements and their isotopes and allotropes. The whole process could, of course, be greatly accelerated with the development of a computer program incorporating the principles of nuclear assembly with three-dimensional modeling and three- axis rotation capabilities. The adaptation of existing atomic modeling or crystallography software programs would seem the best prospect. Software developers wishing to incorporate the LNH atomic model into commercial software are invited to seek licensing opportunities from the author. Until that becomes available, existing graphics or CAD software can probably be employed. Simple, low tech, physical models using 1” styrofoam spheres or their equivalent, assembled with low temperature hot melt glue also works fine. Physical models are frequently more instructive in analyzing, correlating and visualizing the complexities of the modeling process.

Mark Porringa

73

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

8.2

Model Cataloging And Licensing

Individuals who would like to be a part of this historic project by contributing to the development and cataloging of models for all the elements, including all allotropes and isotopes, are invited to do so under a personal use license of the LNH Atomic model as part of your purchase price of this report. Any models to be submitted for official evaluation, cataloging and author recognition must be posted to Zeropoint Techtonix with a detailed explanation of reasoning, adequate photographs or illustrations and a preliminary evaluation fee. Refer to www.lnhatom.com for detailed instructions. Unofficial models can be posted at the discretion of the creator, provided this report is properly referenced with the above website address clearly attached. The unconcerned hobbyist may prefer this route for financial reasons, but chances of official recognition for your efforts are greatly diminished, as potential infringement of your own copyright would be greatly enhanced. Commercial use is strictly prohibited without a License. Industry standard royalties will apply. All other forms of duplication or commercial application of the Lattice Nested Hydreno Model are strictly forbidden without the expressed written permission of the copyright and trademark owner. Licensing inquiries are invited. Consult our website at www.lnhatom.com for a range of commercial opportunities including computer software, gaming and ornamental applications. HYDRENO, LNHATOM, LNHATOMIC and other related terms including their facsimiles are Trademarks of ZEROPOINT TECHTONIX Inc.

Mark Porringa

74

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

9.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Existing atomic theory, based in the Bohr-Rutherford model, has been shown at the very least to be in serious need of major refinement, if any progress is to be made on the theoretical foundations of low energy fusion, fission, and many other nuclear and chemical phenomena that are currently without logical explanation. The Lattice Nested Hydreno model, in contrast, provides a very sensible and frequently intuitive basis for understanding a wide array of observed chemical and nuclear phenomena that cannot be understood within standard theoretical models. The chemistry and structure of the atom are in fact rooted in the geometry of the nucleus, which has been shown to be far more elegant and deterministic than previously appreciated. It also bears repeating that the value of any scientific model is established by its concurrence with observed data, and the ability to predict the properties and mechanisms of such behavior accurately. A summary comparison of these two atomic models is provided in Appendix C, which clearly indicates that the Lattice Nested Hydreno model is much superior to the Bohr-Rutherford model in essentially every respect. It also provides the justification and basis for a complete rework of the entire set of Standard Theory from gravity to quantum mechanics providing the foundational concepts of a Grand Unified Theory based in the reality of the Zero-Point Energy of Space. The ZPE is indeed responsible for the stability of all matter on a continuous basis, including the subatomic particles. Refinement and broad application of the Lattice Nested Hydreno model are certainly warranted. Adoption of such a highly deterministic atomic model and a reworked, embellished Standard Theory would reintegrate chemistry and nuclear physics, and return the entire field of science to a firmer foundation. This could facilitate rapid advances in engineering of the atom and the vacuum that would be unleashed through precise mathematical computer modeling. The highly statistical, non-deterministic nature of contemporary nuclear physics and many other fields of science could be happily abandoned, making the Quantum theorist’s job a lot more pleasant. Science and technology, in effect, would move from an empirical foundation to a highly deterministic foundation, providing a veritable renaissance and reformation unprecedented in human history. The reality of low energy nuclear reactions must also be regarded as a simple fact despite the lack of official theoretical understanding or the contradictions that arise with the existing dogmas of high-energy physics and Lavoisier chemistry. The objective observer has more than ample evidence to conclude that low energy induced nuclear reactions occur with surprising abundance in a wide variety of processes, many of which would have to be regarded as entirely natural. The primary reason that they are not widely observed and recognized is due to the simple fact that they are considered impossible, on the basis of entrenched misconceptions, particularly the present misunderstanding of thermonuclear fission and fusion reactions. Strangely enough, the vast majority of such reactions belong to the realm of biology, evidently due to the prevalence of scalar waves and extreme potential gradients. With due respect to the contributions of Lavoisier, his law concerning conservation of elements in chemical reactions is obviously not true for this special class of chemo-nuclear and bio-nuclear reactions, which combine aspects of chemical, biological and nuclear phenomena. The effective application of such chemo-nuclear reactions (hyper-chemistry) to the treatment of nuclear waste and a wide variety of other fields is essentially a given that is only limited by the lack of financial commitment, political will and the refusal to believe facts which are contrary to well entrenched but incorrect or incomplete theoretical ideas. In addition to the Hydroxy gas process mentioned earlier, numerous other methods now exceeding a dozen Mark Porringa

75

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

are proposed for investigation, some of which are rapidly approaching industrial application. The principles employed include sub-critical fission reactions attended by greatly accelerated decay sequences, and low energy induced fusion and cold fission reactions that produce only stable end products. A sampling of these various radwaste treatment methods include the ten processes briefly described in Appendix B. The essential difference between hot and cold fission has been put forward. Cold fission is achieved by fracturing the nuclear lattice in a concise manner along a natural cleavage plane without destroying individual nucleons, similar in many respects to cutting a crystal such as diamond. In contrast, the massive releases of energy which accompany conventional thermonuclear fission and fusion reactions come from the destruction of one or more nucleons resulting from intense coulomb repulsion and electron/positron annihilations on a massive scale during the violent, stochastic disruption of involved nuclei. Thermonuclear fission in the final analysis is an undesirable, dangerous source of energy fraught with unacceptable social and environmental consequences due to accidents, nuclear weapons proliferation and the destabilizing effects on nuclei, which present a very long-term environmental, social and health hazard apart from effective treatment methods. It should also be evident that many new energy and propulsion technologies are possible, which rely on transient, non-equilibrium interactions between matter and the surrounding ZPE of the vacuum. Such transients can be introduced on a cyclic basis such that the continuity of the internal Sustaining Energy (Es) flow is disrupted momentarily inducing a net energy gain to the material system with each cycle, providing useful energy to a load or a reactionless propulsion force to the material system. A net loss of energy to the material system is also possible providing a cooling effect to the local environment. Despite their superficial appearance as perpetual motion machines such devices draw their energy supply continuously from the local vacuum flux. Systems of this nature can be constructed of almost any conceivable combination of components including: hydraulic, pneumatic, magnetic, electric, electronic, mechanical, inertial and gravitational elements. Some noteworthy examples include several different Permanent Magnet motor designs, the Motionless Electromagnetic Generator of Beardon and company and the Water Fuel Cell of the late Stanley Meyers. In point of fact, well over a hundred others are in existence in various states of development or suppression, all of which should be regarded as Quantum Vacuum (QVac) Engineered devices.

Mark Porringa

76

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

10. CLOSING COMMENTS The prevailing attitude from evolutionary thought, that the Universe is some sort of “cosmic crap shoot” without any real purpose or meaning, is logically objectionable and has not served us at all well over the past century. We should instead return to our original foundation of belief in an overriding order and design to the Cosmos, as clearly demonstrated in the macroscopic world and now clearly evident right down to the structure of the nucleus of matter and beyond. The massive gains in understanding that have come through the likes of Newton and Maxwell would not have been possible without this belief in an over riding order. To presume otherwise leaves science with no logical basis from which to direct its inquiry. Einstein’s assertion that, “God doesn’t play dice with the Universe” and his consequent aversion to the indeterminate nature of conventional quantum mechanics, would appear in the end to be entirely justified. The move back to a determinate form of quantum mechanics is already well underway. Indeed, the argument for intelligent purposeful design is overwhelming, despite the uncomfortable position it leaves much of mankind in. To the chagrin of atheists, the final need for God cannot be avoided, if logic is to be embraced. Order and design simply cannot possibly arise totally unassisted from chaos. The Universe in all of its incredible complexity and clearly evident design must have come about by an intelligently directed “force” acting on the energy of the vacuum. To continue to cling in blind faith fashion to clearly defunct and largely deficient theories such as evolution is an act of intellectual suicide. The final cause of the universe must be a “mastermind” of apparently infinite intelligence and power. In closing, the reader is welcomed to a new paradigm of a deeper, more dignified science based in a revived dynamic Ether concept in the form of the ZPE of the quantum vacuum. The precise nature of the ether is still very much open to dispute and refinement. Whether it is the “dark matter” advocated by Astrophysicists and envisioned by the likes of neoclassical theorist S. Sarg or the “dark energy” advocated by the likes of Beardon, Puthoff and this author or a combination of the two as implied by Tewari is still quite uncertain despite the confident assertions from some quarters. In any event, Ether theories of space have a long and reputable history, and were inappropriately abandoned almost a century ago in the wake of Einstein’s special relativity and the misinterpreted results of the Michelson-Morley Interferometer experiments on which Einstein’s empty space theory rode to prominence. The general consensus that all interferometry experiments failed to detect the earth’s absolute motion through space, would appear in the final analysis to be false dogma as daily proven by the application of optical gyroscopes and other phenomena. As Monti [34] points out, later experiments by Sagnac clearly indicated that the earth’s motion through the ether was discernible and of the magnitude predicted, not to mention the general confusion between the kinematic versus electromagnetic velocity of light, which are evidently quite different. If the twentieth century was known amongst other things as the “Nuclear Age”, it is suggested that the next century and indeed the millennium belongs to the engineering of the all pervasive zero point energy of the vacuum fluctuations of space; the primordial, first order energy of the Universe, in which every aspect of our material reality appears to be rooted and continually sustained. Within this emerging realm of science lies a clearer, simpler understanding of many of the remaining mysteries, including a fundamental explanation of matter, mass, energy, force, inertia, gravity, time, space and so forth. Mark Porringa

77

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Although these extraordinary developments still remain largely ignored by the entrenched “old boy” network, one can certainly anticipate in the very near future that every scientific discipline will be radically transformed within this emerging paradigm of a highly energetic vacuum and its continuous interactions with matter. It seems only fitting that the dawn of this new paradigm of science is unfolding at the outset of the new millennium. What will become of this quantum leap in fundamental scientific understanding in light of mankind’s well-established propensity toward evil is anyone’s guess. Like everything else, there are bound to some serious downsides to all of this. In the meantime, God seems to be letting us in on one of his best-kept secrets.

Mark Porringa

78

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

APPENDIX A

A SAMPLING OF ZIPP FUSION & FISSION REACTIONS (Reported before the Canadian Nuclear Society and the Louis de Broglie Foundation) Molecular Reactions

Diatomic Reactions

12 16 6C 8O

→

14Si

12 16 6C 8O

↔

2 7N14

→

26Fe

56

26C12 8O16

EC

28

2 14Si28

Atomic Reactions

14Si

28

+

12 6C

16 8O

+

11Na

12 6C

+

12Mg

16 8O

24

23

↔

20Ca

40

↔

39 19K

15 7N

→

13Al

+

16 8O

↔

20Ca

+

15 7N

↔

31 15P

56

→

26Fe

2 14Si30

→

28Ni

2 13Al27

→

26Fe

2 6C12

→

12Mg

2 16S32

→

30Zn

2 8O16

↔

32 16S

EC

EC

60

54

24

64

27

Heavy Metal Cold Fission

40

80Hg

82Pb

199

206

→

n>p

→

n>p

47Ag

109

+

40Zr

90

2 45Rh103

Note: Fusion reactions shown as reversible (↔) have compelling evidence indicating that Cold Fission also occurs. Precise isotopic delineation of reactants by Mass Spectrometry remains to be done. EC designates electron capture, which converts a proton to a neutron and n>p designates the reverse operation.

Mark Porringa

79

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

APPENDIX B A SYNOPSIS OF RADWASTE TREATMENT PROCESSES

Photo-Deactivation: Monochromatic gamma radiation (also Lasers) tuned to induce giant dipole nuclear resonance, which is capable of initiating sub-critical fission and greatly accelerated decay sequences through harmonic vibration of the nucleus. Monti Process: Involves a proprietary firing mixture of powdered materials including Carbon, nitrogen and oxygen compounds and various metals capable of facilitating low energy fission and fusion reactions when ignited to produce white-hot radiant energy frequencies. Keller Catalytic Process: Similar in many respects to the Monti process with the addition of a proprietary nuclear reaction catalyst for producing nuclear reactions at relatively low firing temperatures. RIPPLE Fission: Utilizes a supersonic ionized gas-to-vapor heat exchanger to envelope the radwaste aerosol in a vacuum-induced plasma vortex, which is capable of harmonic disruption of the matter sustaining ZPF resulting in the production of stable light elements from heavy metals. ZIPP Fusion & Fission: Variations and refinements of the author’s passive inertial confinement fusion process utilizing plasma discharges, EV production and cavitation bubble collapse to cohere the ZPE via Casimir effects to produce a wide array of nuclear reactions, a few of which are listed in Appendix A. Plasma Arc Implosion: An electrical plasma arc is used to produce implosive ball lightning (EV production), which is used to confine an aerosol of radwaste causing a variety of nuclear stabilizing reactions. (Similar to both ZIPP and RIPPLE Fission) Scalar Interferometry: Involves the interference of Scalar/Longitudinal EM waves to modify or disrupt the matter-stabilizing frequencies of the ZPF in a defined region of space, resulting in greatly accelerated nuclear decay to stable end products. Bio-Nuclear Remediation: Utilizes the high voltage gradients, dielectric micro-cavities (ie contractile vacuoles) and scalar wave frequencies believed common to living systems to modify the ZPF, causing cold fission, fusion and accelerated decay reactions. LENTEC Processes: Novel Electrolytic Cells and operating regimes are employed to produce Low Energy Nuclear Transmutations (LENT) using High Density Charge Clusters (HDCC) or EVs, which induce nuclear reactions in the electrolyte and electrode materials, which contain the targeted radwaste. PIT Processes: Plasma Injected/Induced Transmutations (PIT) processes utilize various glow discharge and HDCC phenomena within rarified gaseous atmospheres to effect transmutations through the apparent coherence of the local ZPF.

Mark Porringa

80

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

APPENDIX C A COMPARISON OF THE LNH AND BOHR – RUTHERFORD ATOMIC MODELS Phenomenon Or Property Logically Explained (A Partial List)

LNH

Bohr/Ruther

Yes Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

No N Y? N N N N N N Y?

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N N N N Y? Y? N

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y N N N N N N N N

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y? Y? N N N N Y? Y?

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y? N ? Y? Y? N Y? N

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

N Y? Y? N Y? Y? Y? N

Concerning Positrons & Negatrons: Positron / Electron (Negatron) Structure Particle Genesis Electrostatic Attraction & Repulsion Charge Definition Non Radiating Orbital Electrons Ellipsoid Electron Orbitals Electron / Positron Annihilation Electron / Positron Pair Production Particle Mass Spin Quanta

Concerning Nucleons: Proton Structure and Genesis Neutron Structure and Genesis Heavy Electrons (Muon and Tau) Nucleon Internal Bonding and Stability Mass Defect Spin Quanta Nucleon Evaporation

Concerning The Nucleus: Nuclear Structure and Genesis Nucleon Bonding (Strong Force) Void of Nuclear Stability (between Bi83 and Th90) Limit of Nuclear Stability Range of Stable Isotopes Unstable Mid-Range Isotopes Isotopic Abundance Missing Elements (Tc, Pr, etc) Spin Quanta

Concerning Nuclear Reactions: Thermonuclear Fission Thermonuclear Fusion Cold Fission Cold Fusion (low energy induced fusion) Bio-nuclear Reactions Chemo-nuclear Reactions Mass Defect α, β, γ and η Radiations

Concerning The Atom: Atomic Structure and Genesis Allotropes Bond Angles & Isomers Catalysts Inert & Volatile Elements Diatomic / Multiatomic Elements Quantization of Electron Orbital Energies Valence States and Alterations

Concerning Bulk Matter: Structure and Formation Bulk Volume and Solidity Mechanical Properties (strength, stiffness, elasticity, stress, strain, etc.) Crystal Structure of Elemental Solids & Compounds (Salts and Minerals) Intrinsic Properties (conductivity, enthalpy, resistance, etc.) Fluid Properties (Viscosity, Surface tension, Brownian motion, etc.) Atomic Bonds (Hydrogen, Ionic, Covalent) Gravitation & Inertial Forces Mark Porringa

81

APPENDIX D Neutron Core Lattice Geometries

Neutron Core Cell Count

(Only certain shapes are permissible due to limits

Base Units of Neutron Core

TABLE OF NUCLEAR GEOMETRY Facets & Corner Adjacent Nominal Corners & Apex Facet Bond Angles Angles facets corners Angles

Crystal Possible Form Valances Options

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

4 n/a

10 6 n/a

20 16 n/a n/a

35 31 19 17 15 13

56 52 40 36 32 28

84 80 68 62 56 50

120 116 104 96 88 80

4 8 8 12 12 12

4 12 12 12 12 12

60 120

70 70, 110 70, 110 110, 125 110, 125 110, 125

70, 110, 120

tet bcc

5 n/a

14 12 n/a

30 28 25 19

55 53 50 44 32

91 87 84 78 66 60

140 136 133 127 115 103 91

n/a

6 8 11 11

5

60 120

70, 140 70, 140

40, 120, 180

hcp trigonal triclinic

Octacore (Octahedral Core) 45 indexable 1st Bilateral Truncation (2 corners) 2nd Bilateral Truncation (2 corners) 3rd Bilateral Truncation (2 corners) 4th Bilateral Truncation (2nd stage truncation) 5th Bilateral Truncation (2nd stage truncation) 6th Bilateral Truncation (2nd stage truncation)

6 n/a

19 17 15 13 n/a

44 42 40 38 n/a

85 83 81 79 71 63 55

146 144 142 140 132 124 116

n/a

8 10 12 14 14 14 14

6

90

110 125

110, 180 55

Decacore (Decahedral Core) 1st Base Corner Truncation (remove 5) 1st Base Edge Truncation 1st Apex Truncation 2nd Base Corner Truncation (remove 10) 2nd Base Edge Truncation (remove 10 )

7 n/a

23 18 13 11

54 49 39 37

105 100 85 83 73

181 176 151 149 139 129

n/a

10

7

108

70, 140

72, 90, 180 40, 90

Rhombacore (Rhombahedral Core) 1st Apex Truncation (both) 2nd Apex Truncation (both)

8 6 n/a

27 25 19

64 62 56

125 123 117

n/a

6

8

60 120

70, 110

55, 70, 180

Cuboctacore (Cuboctahedral Core) 60 indexable 1st Apex Corner Truncation (remove 6) 1st Base Truncation (remove 6)

13 n/a

55 49 43

146 140 134

n/a

14

12

120

110, 125, 140

Icosacore (Icosahedral Core) 1st Bilateral Corner Truncation 2nd Bilateral Corner Truncation 3rd Bialteral Corner Truncation 4th Bialteral Corner Truncation 5th Bialteral Corner Truncation All Corner Truncation (remove 12)

13 n/a

55 53 51 49 47 45 43

145 143 141 139 137 135 133

n/a

20

12

108

135

40, 72, 180

Recoctacore (Recoctahedral Core) base units >> o No Truncation (90 indexable) 1st Apex Truncation (both) 1st Bilateral Base Truncation 2nd Bilateral Base Truncation

1x2 4 n/a

2x3 10 6 n/a

3x4 28 24 22 20

4x5 60 56 54 52

8

8

120

110 125

110, 180 55

97 91 85

n/a

of square and trigonal planar packing of spheres) Tetracore (Tetrahedral Core) 1st Corner Truncation (remove 4) 2nd Corner Truncation (remove 12) 1st Bilateral Edge Truncation 2nd Bilateral Edge Truncation 3rd Bilateral Edge Truncation o

Hexacore (Hexahedral Core) 30 indexable 1st Apex Truncation (both) 1st Base Corner Truncation (remove 3) 2nd Apex Truncation (remove 6) 1st Edge Truncation 2nd Edge Truncation 3rd Apex Truncation (remove 12) o

o

o

Cuboidoctacore (Cuboidoctahedral Core) 60 indexable 1st Apex Truncation (remove 6) 1st Base Truncation (remove 6)

5

32 26 20

5x6 110 106 104 102

bcc

2

Lattice Nested Bond Sites Base Units of Neutron Core 3 4 5 6 7

8

1, 2, 4, -4 0

4

12

24

40

60

1, 2, 3, 5, 6

6

18

36

60 56 48

90

0, 1, 2, 4, 6, -4 3?

8

24

48

80

112

C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb?

10

30

60

100

Cl, Br, I

1, 2, 4, 6

6

24

56

96

V, Tc

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

14

48

102

176

Rh, Al

20

60

120

200

Ar

1x2 2

2x3 12+

3x4 32+

4x5 60+

6

36

84

152

C, Si, Ge Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn

ccp

Au, Ag orthorho 1, 2, 5, 7 (diatomic)

rhombic hcp ccp

orthorho 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 monoclin

bcc

0, 1, 2, 4, 6

ccp 14

84

Prospective Elements

12

120

110, 125, 140

bcc

0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6

Note: This table is not to be construed as complete or necessarily correct. Other nuclear geometries and hybrids are conjectured to exist and much data is obviously missing. Provided as a guide only.

5x6 96+

Pb, Fe, Sn

APPENDIX E LNH ATOMIC MODEL GALLERY

Aluminum 27 (B2 – Cuboctacore)

Tin 116 (B6 – 4CT Tetracore)

Rhodium 113 (B3 – Cuboctacore)

Sulfur 32 (B4 – 1CT Tetracore)

Lithium 7 (B2 – 1AT Hexacore)

Cd 116 (B4 – 2AT Rhombacore)

Oxygen (B3x2 – 2ET Recoctacore)

Proton 1/8th Section

Boron 9 and 10

Hydrogen to Lithium 6

Be Atom Hydrenos (K & L Orbitals)

Boron Atom - Hydreno Configuration

Diamond - Hydreno Configuration

Neon - Hydreno Configuration

Argon Hydrenos (K, L & M orbitals)

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

APPENDIX F WEINSTEIN’S POSTULATES Conceptual Foundation For A Grand Unified Field Theory Based In The Ubiquitous Zero-Point Energy of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations (© 2002, Mark Porringa) INTRODUCTION: Despite the lofty achievements of science over the past century, it is very strange that there has been a notable lack of real progress in many of the fundamentals that underlie much of our existing technology. Within this body of orthodox “truth” there remains many unanswered questions, superficial explanations and outright contradictions. It is a little known fact for instance that modern electromagnetic theory is but a small subset of Maxwell’s original work stripped down to four simple equations by Oliver Heaviside to facilitate practical application to the design of electrical machinery and electronics. Maxwell’s original theory was actually written in the now defunct, higher topology mathematics of Quaternions and consisted of some twenty equations in twenty variables. This forgotten work remains to be essentially rediscovered as possible fertile ground for major advances in field theory. Science often seems content to simply put labels to things, describing what happens without bothering to answer the deeper how and why questions. The lack of any source for the energy that emanates from all point charges is a gargantuan hole in electromagnetic theory that no one seems to even be aware of anymore, let alone care about. The forgoing list of informal postulates is simply a collection of evolving ideas that have served me well as a framework in which to begin to explain a growing number of anomalous phenomena that I have been investigating for about five years now. For the most part these observations appear on the surface to defy explanation within the existing “empty space” paradigm of science, which generally continues to ignore the reality and significance of the Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum theory and the Zero-Point energy of Stochastic Electrodynamics despite the growing wealth of information appearing in the peer reviewed literature. This all-pervasive background energy of the Universe appears in fact to be the root of all material existence despite its immaterial and generally unobservable nature. The observed facts under investigation include new classes of low energy induced nuclear fusion and fission reactions, systems which display over unity energy efficiencies, devices which produce forces without an apparent medium for reaction and the anomalous thermodynamic behavior of a stoichiometric, implosive gas mixture. Arthur C. Clarke once said, “any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”, which is precisely the appearance of many of these phenomena to the uninitiated, especially those who find it very difficult to consider ideas outside the “box” of conventional thinking. In studying such admittedly strange events, I have chosen to believe the observed facts and then went looking for an explanation rather than continue to ignore such observations as invalid. Choosing to ignore anomalies simply because they appear to call into question the existing dogmas of science has become a very bad habit of the swaggering arrogance, of modern “know it all” science. This all too prevalent attitude is an extremely undesirable mindset for anyone professing to be a scientist. A recent cover story in TIME magazine went as far as to suggest that the glory days of science are almost over; just a few loose ends to tie up and everything of significance is essentially known.

Mark Porringa

84

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

In stark contrast to such sentiments, I believe we are on the verge of a major paradigm shift that is required to explain a growing list of such “miracles” and this is the task to which I have applied myself, albeit in a fairly primitive and conceptual fashion. A veritable renaissance of science is in the works, which promises to revolutionize every scientific and engineering discipline. I am not to be construed as an expert in any of the applicable fields of inquiry such as Quantum mechanics. I have instead purposely chosen to remain a generalist in order not to lose sight of the forest for the trees, so to speak. I am afraid that the highly fragmented and specialized nature of modern science does not lend itself to a good view of the big picture anymore. By comparison the state of science around the turn of the 19th century was on much better footing in this regard. The basis for this major paradigm shift is to be found in the universal Zero-Point Energy (ZPE) of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) or the Vacuum Fluctuations of Quantum Electrodynamics (QED), depending on your perspective. By way of explanation SED is simply Classical Physics with the ubiquitous ZPE Field (ZPF) acknowledged; a relatively new upstart theory in head to head competition with Planck’s Quantum theory. Coherence of this otherwise random, ZPE field appears to be the common denominator in all of these strange phenomena. I must apologize in advance for the proliferation of new and evolving terminology, which is used with some confusion in the pioneering literature. For instance the term Zero-Point Energy can have some very different connotations depending on the QED or SED context in which it is used. As a bit of a pioneer in this field myself, I am afraid that I have also taken some creative license, adding some of my own nomenclature and terminology to the existing confusion. No doubt as this subject matter continues to move into the mainstream, a more consistent and refined usage will emerge. Students of Einstein will quickly realize why I chose to call this collection of thoughts, Weinstein’s Postulates. Without intending to do so, I may appear to be doing a lot of whining about Relativity theory. While the novelty of Einstein’s theories has always intrigued me, I have never been comfortable with the numerous paradoxes and boldfaced contradictions, which run amok of common sense experience and logic. Still in many regards, Einstein remains for me the model of a strangely idealic scientist, with the courage to challenge conventional thinking. I am afraid however, that imminent discoveries due to occur early in the new millennium will prove Special Relativity in particular to be a solution to a problem that never existed. Presenting ideas that are so often an antithesis of those put forward by Einstein has frankly left me in the uncomfortable position of a “scientific heretic”, a position that he himself once occupied. My reservations with Special Relativity stem from what appears to be a fundamental confusion between the measurement and actual passage of time and other considerations. To my knowledge there is no real conclusive evidence to support the assertions that time is relative and that the velocity of light is unaffected by source and observer motion. Other more logical explanations do exist and should have been preferred apart from the presumed failure of the Michelson/Morley experiments on which Einstein’s theories rode to prominence. I must therefore apologize in advance for the damage that may be done to this icon of modern science, especially now that he has been named “The Most Influential Man of the Century” by TIME magazine. Labeling these postulates as my own also seemed inappropriate given that a substantial number of the underlying ideas presented do not originate with me. It is the proven reality of the ZPE for which I can take very little credit that forms the foundation for most of these ideas. My contribution has been primarily to integrate and extrapolate a diverse collection of thoughts and findings from a wide variety of theorists and experimentalists, with a healthy portion of my own ideas thrown into the mix from the perspective of a generalist trying to arrive at some sort of “big picture” rather than getting lost in the tunnel vision of any particular detail. Mark Porringa

85

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Where possible I have tried to reference the individual from whom I acquired the underlying idea for the stated postulate (not necessarily the original source). If I have out of ignorance neglected to give credit were due for that I offer my apologies in advance. In this broad field of inquiry it can be hard to determine what is new from what is in fact quite old since theories regarding the properties of space (Ether theories) have been around for ages. A list (by no means comprehensive) of those individuals who have significantly influenced my thinking is included at the end of this document. Without the benefit of this collective wisdom I could not have hoped to arrive at the ensuing collection of frequently radical assertions. In my typical contrarion fashion, I have decided not to write exclusively in the impersonal, sterile language of science since this seems to me a form of false humility and just another way of making science a lot less fun. Arrogance must however be guarded against, as some of what I have stated is bound to be pure nonsense. Again these postulates should not be construed in any way as a completed work but rather subject to constant revision. By the time you read this, dramatic revisions may have already occurred and will likely continue to occur. Regardless, I thought it best to get these ideas into the public forum to aid in their rapid refinement or demise. Please feel free to post your intelligent criticisms to [email protected]. For brevity the postulates are stated rather succinctly without much comment. The reader is encouraged to consult the supplementary notes reference in bold superscript, which address some of the more difficult initial concepts, but only after racking their brains a little bit. Formulating your own thoughts will prove a lot more rewarding. Hopefully these notes will also help the reader begin to entertain ideas outside the well-worn ruts of conventional thinking. Understanding of this collection of thoughts is actually based in some very simple and widely applicable concepts that seem to logically lead to all the details without ever having to invoke an esoteric concept outside the realms of common sense experience, that is, once the basic concepts are acknowledged as plausible. Getting your head around these fundamental concepts may prove to be a bit of stretch, even though they are based on well established but little appreciated aspects of QED and SED. Much of what I have stated in these postulates seems to me inherently obvious, but has been included regardless, as part of the package. Familiar concepts viewed from a very different perspective can take on a whole new light. While I could not dispute the flawless predictive value of Quantum mechanics based on Max Planck’s theory, I have never been comfortable with its numerous “Alice in Wonderland” assertions and the “black box” mentality which, does little to shed light on the deeper how and why questions. I share his own reservations with regard to its real world validity and have started leaning heavily toward the emerging, competing theory of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED) although the central concept of quantization of energy remains clearly applicable. However, the notion that electromagnetic radiations are quantized as “particles” does not sit well with my common sense view of things and SED is proving to be very adept at predicted identical Quantum phenomena without the need of photons. In any event, the concept of the “particle” photon seems to me less and less compelling if not altogether superfluous. The singular photon is simply a discrete pulse of radiation; not a continuous wave as conventionally depicted. I have instead taken a very different perspective concerning matter and mass drawing some clear distinctions between these two concepts, which are typically used in error interchangeably in modern physics. This presumption may prove to be one of the gravest errors of modern science and a large stumbling block that has seriously curtailed progress in our fundamental understanding of things. I have also done away with the notion of “solid” fundamental particles and exchanged them with complex standing waves of energy of discrete volume, which are self-organizing and sustained by harmonic interactions with the ubiquitous ZPE spectrum of Quantum Vacuum Fluctuations. These Mark Porringa

86

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

energetic fluctuations are now a well-proven fact, albeit generally ignored by the mainstream of science apparently as a matter of pure convenience. The use of complex mathematics has been purposely avoided to prevent unnecessary confusion at this early, conceptual stage of thinking and to help make the subject matter accessible to a wider audience. Theories should stand first on the basis of logic and frankly my math skills are not up to the task of quantifying these as yet primitive ideas, which in some cases are little more than wild speculation. Mathematics is an excellent tool for fleshing out theory but should not in my view be used to create new theory, since it is typically fraught with presumptuous boundary conditions and assumptions that may or may not be valid. Given that all systems in this view are open, assigning valid boundary conditions becomes highly problematic. The reader will also notice that some points are essentially restated under a variety of headings, from different perspectives. This is done for brevity to ensure that each category of the detailed postulates can stand on its own and to emphasize the strong relationship that is implied between such normally diverse concepts as electromagnetic energy and matter. Fundamentally, matter would appear to be just another form of electromagnetic energy. Finally, my use of the term Universe refers only to the physical Universe, as I remain utterly convinced that their remains aspects of creation that are beyond the realms of reductionist, materialistic scientific inquiry. I can see absolutely no way of removing a Divine intelligence from cosmology even though the stochastic basis of these postulates may be twisted to lend some further credence to evolutionary thought, which I must regard as essentially bankrupt. Evolution persists as little more than the religious dogma of Humanism providing its adherents with a convenient excuse to deny the obvious. The final cause of anything so obviously created, must in the end be an intelligent Creator, a view held by many of the greatest minds of science, much to the embarrassment of the prevalent materialistic mindset evolutionary science.

Mark Porringa

87

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

THE GENERAL POSTULATES 1) The Physical Universe is fundamentally an Electromagnetic phenomenon. 2) In the Universe there are no closed systems - all systems are open. 1(end

note)

[TB](Theorist)

3) In the Universe there are no static systems - all systems are dynamic. 4) The Universe is governed by a Universal Time Reference Frame - there are no persistent paradoxes of time.2 [JP] 5) The Universe is governed by a Universal Dynamic Space Reference Frame - absolute motion can be detected. 3 6) In the Universe there is no established limit of velocity - Superluminal velocities are considered possible. 4 7) In the Universe there are no attractive forces per se - only the perception of attraction.5 [RT] 8) The absolute velocity of light in vacuum is granted as essentially constant, but relative to both source and observer motion.6 [OL] 9) The Universe is not expanding - the Big Bang theory is superfluous.7 10) The vacuum of space is endowed with real physical properties - it is not an empty void.8 [RF] 11) Space has the highest energy density of any physical phenomenon in the Universe. 9 [HP] 12) The entire ZPE spectrum of QED and/or SED constitutes the primordial energy from which all of material existence is derived including all Matter, Energy, Forces and possibly even Space and Time itself.10 [TB] 13) Matter and Mass are not the same thing.11 14) Gravity and Inertia are neither intrinsic, fundamental nor immutable properties of matter.12 [AS] 15) The fundamental particles of the atom are not solid - they are standing waves of electromagnetic radiation of discrete volume in harmonic interaction with the ZPE. [PT]

Mark Porringa

88

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

THE DETAILED POSTULATES Concerning Energy: 1) All manifestations of Energy in the Physical Universe are fundamentally rooted in a coherence of the Zero Point energy (ZPE) of space.13 2) The ZPE spectrum of space constitutes the primordial energy from which all other manifestations of energy are derived. 3) The ZPE is composed of all frequencies and modes up to and beyond the Planck frequency of 1044 Hz. [HP] 4) ZPE can be extracted from free space through energy coherence phenomena. [KS] 5) Energy released in nuclear reactions is due to a localized coherence of ZPE, the destruction of nucleons through electron positron annihilations and the attendant increase of free space.14 6) Absolute Zero Temperature pertains only to thermal radiation - EM energy remains in all systems including the cold hard vacuum of so-called “empty” space. [DC] 7) E=mc2 is suspect due to a fundamental confusion of the terms matter and mass.15 8) Energy is conserved only when the ZPE is properly accounted for. 9) Energy cannot be created or destroyed – only converted from one form to another. [IN] 10) Energy is only conserved in space and time together – not in space or time separately.

Concerning Matter: 1) All manifestations of matter are fundamentally derived from a coherence of the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) of space.16 2) Matter is a locally organized, low energy density state of ZPE. 17 [PT] 3) Matter can be created or destroyed - matter is not conserved. 4) Matter can be adequately defined without appealing to the concept of mass. 5) The matter of the nucleus is the exact sum of its parts. 6) Inertia is not a fundamental property of matter alone. [BH] 7) Gravity is not a fundamental property of matter alone. [AS] 8) The upward bound of the size of the nucleus is limited in one sense by a simple volume to area ratio (r3/r2) where the coulomb repulsion of the protons is proportional to volume and the strong force is proportional to the outside surface area. 9) Fundamental particles of matter are complex standing electromagnetic wave phenomenon sustained through harmonic resonance interactions with discreet frequencies of the all-pervasive ZPF. 18 10) There is no such thing as a “solid” particle - only the interaction of standing electromagnetic waves. 11) Localized disruptions of the ZPF can cause the annihilation of existing matter or the synthesis of new matter. 12) The apparent solidity of any fundamental particle is derived from the interaction of its Electromagnetic properties (internal and external) with those of other particles. 13) The apparent solidity of bulk matter is derived from the aggregate interaction of the constituent fundamental particles. 14) Matter has no mass unless it is in accelerated motion with respect to the ZPF. [AR] 15) Electron orbital stability is only possible as a result of a harmonic energy input from the ZPF. 19 [HP] 16) The Nucleus is held together from the outside by the impelling force of all reflected and a portion of the absorbed incident ZPF radiation. Mark Porringa

89

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

17) The size of the nucleus is also limited by the penetration capabilities of the ZPF since all the constituent particles must themselves receive sustaining energy from the vacuum. 18) The nucleus is semi permeable to the ZPE spectrum. 19) Individual nuclei can be fused through a localized coherence of ZPE. [LK] 20) Electrons and Positrons are the fundamental particles of all matter. [PT] 21) Electrons and Positrons are mirror image complex standing EM waves of discrete volume that can coexist in a mutually constructive interference pattern. 22) A Neutron is composed of an equal number of electrons and positrons arranged in a spherical matrix in such a way as to avoid electron/positron annihilation. [PT] 23) A Proton is composed of one less electron than a neutron. 24) Electron/Positron annihilation occurs when their standing wave structures interfere destructively. 25) A Muon is the rare result of a fissioned nucleon, having one excess electron.

Concerning Forces: 1) Force is inseparable from the understanding of mass - mass cannot be defined without appealing to the notion of force (F=ma). 2) Forces do not exist in the absence of matter. [TB] 3) Inertial forces result from the absolute acceleration of matter with respect to the ZPF. [AS] 4) All forces are fundamentally due to the interaction of two or more electromagnetic fields one of which must be organized. 5) All forces are a manifestation of the net imbalance of radiation pressure from the ubiquitous ZPF and its interaction with the organized standing EM waves that constitute matter. 6) Inertial forces can be reduced, cancelled or increased through localized distortions of the ZPF caused by complex transient motion of matter and it’s associated EM fields.20 7) Gravitational force can be reduced, cancelled, increased, or reversed through localized distortions of the ZPF caused by complex transient motion of matter and its associated EM fields. 8) The Strong force is an ultra close range Casimir effect that exists between adjacent bonded nucleons. 21 [HC]

Concerning Mass: 1) Mass is considered as a separate and distinct attribute of matter. 2) Mass has matter but the opposite is not true unless absolute acceleration is occurring. 3) The Atomic mass of an element is less than the sum of its constituent parts, possibly due to a simple compaction and surface roughness factor. 4) Loss of mass (mass defect) in nuclear reactions may be due in part to a decrease in occupied volume (an increase in free space) - not a loss of matter.22 5) Inertial mass is granted as identical to gravitational mass. [IN] 6) The manifestation of mass is a result of matters interaction with the ZPF during accelerated motion. [AR] 7) Matter at rest or in uniform motion with respect to the ZPF does not have mass. 8) Mass does not exist in the absence of acceleration. 9) M=E/c2 is suspect due to the fundamental confusion of the terms mass and matter. If this expression remains true it may be a secondary observation. 10) Observed relativistic mass increases at velocities approaching light speed do not affect the matter of an object – only the mass or fundamental charge of the constituent particles. [OL] 11) The observed mass increase of particles approaching the velocity of light is caused by drag like forces that develop which, are in some ways analogous to those of supersonic flight. 23 Mark Porringa

90

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

Concerning Space: 1) Space (the vacuum) is the stuff of which all material existence is derived including all energy, matter, forces and possibly time. 2) The vacuum of space has the highest energy density, the highest state of Entropy (disorder) and the lowest state of enthalpy.24 3) The energy density of space far exceeds that of the nucleus of matter. [HP] 4) Free Space is seething with a stochastic flux of essentially homogenous, isotropic electromagnetic energy that may somehow constitute the manifestation of space itself. 5) An absolutely stationary point in free space is characterized by uniform incident velocity vectors of the ZPF radiation - motion induced Doppler affects do not exist. 6) The Lorentz Transformations of spatial dimensions at velocities approaching light speed are superfluous for the same reasons that Special Relativity is superfluous. [OL]

Concerning Time: 1) Time is somehow a fundamental property of the pure scalar waves of the universal ZPF. 2) Time is not relative-persistent paradoxes of time are not considered possible in the physical Universe. [JP] 3) All man made and natural time measuring devices are unreliable in the measurement of the Universal time. [OL] 4) The periodicity of all clocks and processes are subject to change due to interaction with their environment - the universal passage of time however, remains constant. 5) The universal time cannot be affected by any act of man. 6) All events regardless of how instantaneous their appearance require a finite length of time. 7) No event can occur in the physical universe without an elapse of universal time. 25 8) Localized time may however, be altered or even reversed. 9) The fundamental quantum unit of time shall be called the Chronon, a function of Planck’s constant. 10) Time and motion are inseparably linked – one cannot occur without the other in the physical realm.

Concerning Motion: 1) Absolute motion is detectable and measureable as a Doppler affect of the ZPF spectrum. 2) Absolute acceleration of matter is resisted by an acceleration induced transient Doppler effect of the ZPF. 3) Everything is in constant motion at one or more levels - there are no static systems. 4) The principle of the addition of velocities is reestablished for all systems. 26 [OL] 5) An absolutely stationary point in the Universal reference frame is defined as a state of completely uniform ZPF incident wave velocity vectors. 6) Action at a distance is explained by the conveyance of a “ripple” of energy through the “turbulent sea” of ZPE. 7) The velocity of light is not the limit of velocity in the physical universe. 8) The absolute acceleration of matter results in mass. [BH] 9) Motion at Superluminal velocities is resisted due to the Emach affect which is an accumulation of EM energy waves that can no longer out run the source. Mark Porringa

91

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

10) Motion and time are inseparably linked.

Concerning Electromagnetism: 1) All energy in the physical universe (so far discovered) is fundamentally electromagnetic energy. 2) The energy source of the idealized point charge radiating continuously into free space is an influx of tempic ZPE from the vacuum. 3) Photons in the particle sense do not exist - electromagnetic radiation is a continuous wave function or finite individual pulses not a particle per se. 4) There is no such thing as Static Electricity - Electricity is by nature always dynamic. 5) There is no such thing as Static Magnetism - Magnetism is by nature always dynamic. 6) Steady state electrical or magnetic fields are coherent vectored flows of ZPE in dynamic equilibrium with the surrounding space fabric. [TB] 7) Fluctuating electromagnetic fields are a coherent vectored flow of ZPE not in dynamic equilibrium. 8) All DC voltage sources are in a state of dynamic equilibrium with the ZPE composed of a vectored coherent flow of ZPE. [TB] 9) All AC voltage sources are a fluctuating, vectored coherent flow of ZPE, not in dynamic equilibrium with ZPE. [TB] 10) Electromagnetic radiation is propagated through space as a transverse ripple or a longitudinal compression wave through the background “turbulent sea” of ZPE. 27 11) Electromagnetic radiation “tires” as it traverses vast regions of space causing a redshift that increases with distance from the source. [JP] SUPPLEMENTARY END NOTES 1. Despite appearances and the conveniences of contemporary closed system engineering and scientific analysis, all systems are actually open owing to their continual interaction with the Zero Point Energy (ZPE) of Quantum Field theory, which is conjectured to occupy all of free space. Fortunately, most systems are in a state of relatively stable, dynamic equilibrium and as such can usually be assumed as closed for convenience. QED and SED have however, proved otherwise. 2. The passage of time is in this view is a universal phenomenon despite the contrary suggestions of Special relativity. A fundamental confusion between the passage of time and its measurement is the root cause of the paradoxes suggested by Einstein which all stem from the supposition that the velocity of light is not relative to source and observer motion. This error is in turn based on the results of the Michelson/Morley experiments, which failed to detect the relative velocity of light due to several fundamental errors in formulating the experiment. However, given that the passage of time is believed itself to be a function of the ZPF, and that the ZPF can be locally distorted, it is considered possible to have a localized distortion of time and possibly even a reversal. There is evidence to suggest that complex electromagnetic fields can retard or even reverse the normal sequence of events in systems subject to aging. The universal passage of time however, remains unchanged; alternate realities and time travel are barred in this view. A simplistic example of this would be an individual frozen in suspended animation who is revived years later without any signs of aging have occurred. He is in fact older according to the universal time even though his biological state and conscious perceptions would indicate otherwise. 3. The universal dynamic space reference frame is provided by the ubiquitous Zero Point Field. This is not to be confused with the notion of a thin material Ether as was the popular view around Mark Porringa

92

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

the turn of the century. The Ether has in this case been replaced with the homogenous and isotropic EM energy flux of the ZPF. Motion with respect to the Ether of free space should theoretically be detectable as a Doppler shift of this radiation. The earth’s absolute velocity with reference to this field has actually been measured on several occasions, using a variety of techniques and is in the order of approximately 300 Km/sec. 4. With the false limitations of relativity theory removed a whole new world of possibilities emerges including the very real prospect of superluminal space travel that could exceed the velocity of light by a wide margin. Coupling this prospect with that of inertial propulsion methods that do not require a propellant mass and the possibility of interstellar space flight becomes a practical reality. 5. The illusory appearance of attraction is one of perspective only. Gravity for example is conjectured, in a simplistic sense, to be a push force resulting from the net imbalance of the impelling Cosmic radiation pressure that results from a partial shadowing of the Zero Point Field when chunks of matter are in close proximity to one another. The attraction of appositely charged particles might be explained in terms of a localized distortion of the ZPF surrounding the particle, which results in a net imbalance of radiation pressure driving them together. 6. The notion that the velocity of light is not relative to source and observer motion is based entirely on the apparent failure of the Michelson/Morley interferometry experiment and its numerous variants. As mentioned earlier, such experiments are based on fundamentally flawed reasoning and will always return a null result due to the mutually compensating temporal and spacial Doppler shifts of the out and return path of light used which is invariably used. Single path measurements would have to be employed to prove the relative velocity of electromagnetic radiations. Not necessarily an easy task, but one that is believed to be achievable with the use of geo-stationary satellites or other means. 7. The contemporary cosmological interpretations of red shifts (not to mention conveniently ignored blue shifts) are an unfounded bias toward the Big Bang theory of which I am not an advocate. Other explanations exist for this strange phenomenon including the possible “tiring” of light as it traverses vast regions of space. If the frequency related energy content of EM waves is gradually dissipated this would necessitate an increasing wavelength and declining frequency since the velocity is presumed to remain constant. Also the possibility remains that interstellar and intergalactic space may behave in ways quite different from local space. 8. Even a hard cold vacuum is speculated to be filled with a seething Electromagnetic Energy flux that appears in free space to be totally random, homogenous and isotropic and is believed to range up to and beyond the Planck frequency of 1044 Hz with a wave length of 10-32 m. As to why we are not aware of this energy, I can only offer the analogy of fish living seven miles down in the ocean where the pressure approaches 13,000 psi. Since the pressure is everywhere uniform no ill effects are experienced or even noticeable; such is our perspective of the ZPF. Apart from coherence phenomena we have no way of readily detecting its presence. Put another way how would we measure the mass of a beaker of water if the entire laboratory is submerged; what do you measure with respect to what? 9. Matter in this view is conjectured to arise from, and is continually sustained by the highly energetic vacuum, which would seem to imply that it must be of a higher energy density, despite its appearance. Although the energy at any discreet frequency of the ZPF (0 to ~1044 Hz) is miniscule the accumulated energy of all such frequencies and modes has been estimated by

Mark Porringa

93

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

prominent physicists to easily exceed the energy density of the nucleus of matter as established by the equation E=mc2 - essentially infinite. 10. This is where the notion of a Grand Unified Field theory comes into play. It would appear that all of these phenomena could be explained within the framework of the ubiquitous ZPF. These postulates are however only a crude foundation on which to begin building a refined theory. Quantifying and reducing such ideas to rigorous mathematical equations is not something I would attempt or even be capable of doing. 11. These two terms are often used erroneously as equivalent and interchangeable concepts. While matter can be adequately defined without appealing to the notion of force and acceleration, mass on the other hand cannot (m=F/a). I would suggest in fact that matter has no mass unless it is in accelerated motion with respect to the ZPF. 12. Gravitation and inertia are distinctly mass phenomena since both involve force and acceleration. The ongoing confusion of the terms matter and mass has no doubt impeded the development of a fundamental theory of inertia and gravitation, not to mention the possibility of controlling both of the these phenomena which is conjectured to be possible according to a growing number of documented anomalies, some of which are being reported in peer reviewed literature. 13. By coherence, I mean that methods are employed to create a net flow of ZPE into or out of a system or discreet volume of space. The well-documented Casimir effect that exists between closely spaced conductive plates is one such phenomenon of which there are numerous variants. Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics is one field that appears to utilize this coherence method to alter, often by a wide margin, the spontaneous emissions of excited atoms. 14. The kinetic energy imparted to fission products is thought to be due to the pinch effect of the ZPF as it penetrates the destabilized nucleus along the line of fission, literally ripping the nucleus in to two roughly equal fragments. With the strong force now disrupted the coulomb repulsion of protons completes the process. Fundamentally the source of all the kinetic energy is a momentary, localized coherence of ZPE. 15. What will become of Einstein’s most famous equations in light of the existing confusion between the terms matter and mass is unclear to me. If it does remain true it would appear to be a secondary observation of the EM energy density required to exhibit the manifestations of mass, rather than an expression of conversion from matter to energy. 16. The creative manipulation of the homogenous energy of the ZPF can give rise to new matter from the vacuum. There is ample evidence to suggest that the fundamental particles of matter can be literally “spun” into existence from the random energy of the ZPF. Electron, positron pair production from gamma radiation is but one of the fundamental processes for the production of new matter. There are presumably others. 17. In this view matter is ultimately just another form of highly organized EM energy in the form of complex standing wave in the turbulence of the ZPE flux. 18. Electrons and Positrons might for instance be complex standing wave functions of a combined torroid and vortex occupying a discreet volume of space. A simple visualization of this concept can be constructed by joining the ends of a slinky toy to form a torroid (donut shape). The core of the torroid represents the electric field and the spiral represents the magnetic field.

Mark Porringa

94

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

19. Without this constant energy input, charged electrons in accelerated motion orbiting the nucleus would quickly radiate their energy away and collapse on to the nucleus. The acceleration of electrons in an antenna is after all, how we create radio waves. 20. Surprisingly there are a growing number of devices some of which are approaching commercialization which substantiate this claim that the inertial and gravitational properties of matter can in fact be altered or even negated. The Inertial propulsion EZKL drive of B. Thornson is but one example of a device that appears on the surface to defy Newton’s third law. Newton’s law does appear to remain intact provided the ZPF is acknowledged as the medium of reaction. 21. A simple straight line extrapolation of the Casimir force, Fc=π2hcA/240d4 from 0.1 microns (for which hard data exists) down to the known separation distance of bonded nucleons in the order of 10-15m, yields an astronomically high pressure which is believed capable of overcoming the coulomb repulsion of the protons. 22. The mass defect predicted on the basis of the energy yield for nuclear reactions (E=mc2), does not appear however to be a well established fact as observed in a growing number of anomalous low energy yield fission and fusion reactions. In any event, the matter of the nucleus remains the exact sum of its constituent “particles” (using the term loosely). Redrawing the lines of distinction between the terms mass and matter remains a key issue in resolving this problem. 23. Continuing with the sound wave analogy, this effect shall be called the Emach (Electromagnetic Mach) number. A velocity of twice the speed of light in vacuum would therefore be referred to as Emach 2. 24. This is to say that the energy content of the perfect vacuum of free space has essentially no thermal component and is in a complete state of chaos, totally without apparent order. The density of this chaotic energy flux is however conjectured to be very much higher than that of the nucleus of atoms as determined from the expression E=mc2, but again I remain suspicious of the fundamental validity of this equation. 25. As mentioned in note #3 time can appear locally distorted were aging processes or the normal sequence and timing of natural events are altered. Observers of such phenomena would however be unaffected in their awareness of the passage of the universal time although the nature of the observed event can always affect our personal perception of the passage of time. 26. In contrast to the peculiar claims of Special Relativity all velocities are in fact relative to both source and observer motion including those of light – time and motion contradictions and the resulting paradoxes are therefore eliminated. The Universe again becomes a much friendlier place in better agreement with common sense logic and perceptions. This claim is in effect a return to a classical (non relativistic) physics with the addition of the ZPF, an approach which might better be referred to as neo-classical physics rather than the tunnel vision inducing label of Stochastic Electrodynamics (SED). 27. Electromagnetic radiation is therefore analogous to surface water waves or sound waves propagating through water. EM waves may consequently be longitudinal (compression/rarefaction of the ZPF) in addition to the conventional view as a transverse waveform with the electric and magnetic field components perpendicular to each other. The polarization of light certainly maintains good support for the transverse wave theory. Longitudinal, scalar waves would presumably propagate at much higher than c.

Mark Porringa

95

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

CONTRIBUTING THEORISTS (In no particular order): T. Beardon K. Shoulders P. Tewari R. Tessien M. Planck A. Rueda

Mark Porringa

[TB] [KS] [PT] [RT] [MP] [AR]

H. Puthoff H. Lorentz A. Einstein D. Cole I. Newton H. Casimir

[HP] [HL] [AE] [DC] [IN] [HC]

A. Sacharov O. Luther R. Forward J. Sepetys B. Haisch

[AS] [OL] [RF] [JP] [BH]

96

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

L.N. Vauquelin. Annale de Chimie. Vol. 29-30, Nivose, Year VII, pp. 3-26, January 19, 1799. E. Fermi, E. Amaldi, F. Rosetti. La Ricera Scientifica, Serie II, Anno VIII, No 1-2, Luglio, Italy, 1937. L. Kervran, New York Academy of Science, “Biological Transmutations”, Happiness Press, Magalia, California, 1980. Y. Dardene, J. Cole et al. “Observation of Cold Fission In 242Pu Spontaneous Fission”, Physical Review C, Nuclear Physics, July 1996, Vol 54(1) Pg 206-210. R. Monti, “Low Energy Nuclear Reactions: Experimental Evidence for the Alpha Extended Model of the Atom”, Journal of New Energy. Vol. 1., N° 3, 1996, pp. 131-144. G. Oshawa, “George Oshawa’s Transmutation Experiments”, East-West Magazine, March 1965 M. Porringa, “Theory And Experimental Evidence For Low Energy Induced Nuclear Fusion” Planetary Association For Clean Energy Newsletter, Vol 11, N° 4, Pg 13, Feb 2003. M. Singh, M. Saksena, V. Dixit, and V. Kartha, “Verification of the George Oshawa Experiment for Anomalous Production of Iron From Carbon Arc in Water”, Fusion Technology, Vol 26, Pg 266, November 1994. R. Sundaresan, J. Bockris, “Anomalous Reactions During Arcing Between Carbon Rods in Water”, Fusion Technology, Vol 26, Pg 261, November 1994. R. Taleyarkhan, “Evidence For Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation”, Science, Vol 295, Pg 1868, March 2002. M. Porringa, “Low Energy Induced Fusion Via Coherence of the Quantum Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy Through Ultra Close Range Casimir Effects”, Annals of the Louis de Broglie Foundation, Vol 29, Series 3, 2004. K. Shoulders, “Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density”, United States Patent No. 5,018,180. US Patent and Trade Mark Office, May 21, 1991. W. Bahmann, “Zero Point Energy Research-Energy Extraction from the Void” (Compiled from lectures and publications of H. Puthoff), Planetary Association For Clean Energy, 1996. T. Boyer, “The Classical Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy”, Scientific American, August 1985. P. Milonni, Los Alamos Laboratories, “Radiation Pressure From The Vacuum: Physical Interpretation Of The Casimir Force”, Physical Review B, Vol 38, Pg 1621, 1988. U. Mohideen and A. Roy, University of California, “Precision Measurement Of The Casimir Force from 0.1 to 0.9 µm”, Physical Review Letters, Vol 81, Pg 4549, 1998. F. Grimer, N. Clayton, “The Diphase Concept, With Particular Reference To Concrete”, Building Research Establishment, Watford, UK, 1980. J. Schwinger, “Casimir Light: The Source”, 1993 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA. S. Haroche and J. Raimond,”Cavity Quantum Electromagnetics”, Scientific American, April 1993, Pg 26. H. Puthoff, “Ground State Of Hydrogen As A Zero-Point Fluctuation Determined State, Physical Review D, Vol. 35, No. 10, Pg 3266, May 1987. P. Tewari, “Beyond Matter: A Comprehensive Theory Of The Material Universe”, VAP-Verlag, Weisbaden, Germany, 1995. R. Mills, “Energy / Matter Conversion Methods and Structures”, WIPO Patent Application WO 90/13126, PCT US90/01998, World Intellectual Property Organization, November 1990. S. Sarg, “Basic Structures of Matter - Beyond The Visible Universe”, Helical Structures Press, Toronto, Canada, 2004. H. Maris, “Can The Electron Be Cut In Half”, New Scientist Magazine, October 14, 2000. W. Harkins, Journal Of The American Chemical Society, Vol 38, No. 2, Pg 189, Feb 1916. R. Monti, “A Brief History Of The Atom, Cold Fusion and Cold Fission, Proceedings Of The International Conference On What Physics For The 21st Century, Italy, 1991. D. Borghi, D. Giori, “Experimental Evidence On The Emission Of Neutron From Cold Hydrogen Plasma”, CEN, Recife, Brazil, 1957. A. Crehore. Philosophical Magazine. Series 6. Vol. 42, No. 250, Pg 569, October 1921. E. Rutherford, “The Scattering Of α And β Particles By Matter And The Structure Of The Atom”, Philosophical Magazine, Series 6, Vol. 21, Pg 669, May 1911. W. Harkins, Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Vol 4, Pg 1956, 1920. F. Marques, etal, “Detection Of Neutron Clusters”, Physcial Review C, Vol. 65, 044006, 2002. B. Haisch, A. Rueda, “On The Relation Between The Zero-Point Field Induced Inertial Effect And The Einstein-de Broglie formula”, Physics Letters A, Vol 268, No. 224, 2000 P. Lindemann, “The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity”, Clear Tech Inc. Metaline Falls, WA, 2000. R. Monti, G. Monti, “The Real Einstein” Physics Essays, Received Manuscript PE02988, July, 2002.

Mark Porringa

97

Hydreno Atomic Model R-0.1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Newton once commented that he was able to see further than his contemporaries by standing on the shoulders of the giants that preceded him. Likewise any advances that might result from this work have come about by building on the foundations laid by the numerous giants of science referenced. The resources and encouragement received from Andrew Michrowski, president of the Planetary Association of Clean Energy were particularly helpful. The Institute for New Energy (INE) and Thomas Beardon also figured large in pointing me to a wealth of original subject matter that was often sourced through signposts on their web sites and other publications. Correspondence with Paramahamsa Tewari provided significant food for thought as well as a long list of other intellectual giants including Randell Mills. Roberto Monti’s insightful articles on the history of atomic theory and the Alpha Extended model of the atom also provided some key pieces of the puzzle. My thanks also to Jerry Albrecht for his editorial assistance and for provided a sounding board for these often controversial ideas. On the more personal side I would like to thank my wife and children for bearing with me on this bumpy road of discovery and the sacrifice of personal time that entailed. And finally for his constant, gracious support and inspirational thoughts my highest regards are always reserved for YHWY, an individual who frequently prefers to remain mysterious, and in the end, the ultimate source of all good things.

© 2005 Mark Porringa, ZEROPOINT TECHTONIX Inc. (Canadian Copyright Registration #1027039)

ISBN 978-0-919969-17-9 With due respect to the contributing thoughts of others, no part of this original creative work herein described may be duplicated in any form or put to commercial use without the expressed written permission of ZEROPOINT TECHTONIX Inc. Licensing proposals for commercial applications of the Lattice Nested HydrenoTM Atomic Model and associated original material are welcomed. Such commercial applications encompass any product or service including, but not limited to, scientific and engineering publications, Laboratory equipment and apparatus, industrial designs and processes, environmental technologies, waste treatment methods, computer software, games, models, graphics, ornamental objects, branded apparel, training programs, consulting services and the like. Potential commercial applications are mentioned here in support of the requirements for demonstrating commercial value within a copyrighted “creative work of the mind”. In effect this disclosure constitutes an Intellectual Passport CB (IPCB) open to public scrutiny, intended for the promotion of licensed commercial applications of every sort. Proposals are certainly invited.

Mark Porringa

98