Nuclei Structures Resolved?

Progress in the development of LENR, hot fusion and other emerging energy systems will be greatly assisted by further improvements in theoretical models.

One set of data that is often overlooked in model development is isotope data. Since the identification if the atomic structure by Rutherford in 1911, stability of hundreds of isotopes have been very well described, but no existing models are able to demonstrate structures consistent with isotope stability observations.

A new atomic model has been developed based on an extension of the "wave particle equivalence", as originally proposed by De Broglie. The model also incorporates the concept of electrodynamic stability as the basis for nucleus, atomic and molecular stability.

Validation of structures includes:
- consistent with isotope
stability,
- consistent with atomic mass data,
- unifies chemistry with the nucleus,
- consistent with bond angles,
- consistency with packing configurations.

The model may have significant potential for better understanding LENR observations and for the development of viable new energy systems.

For more information, go to www.subtleatomics.com

Quote from MrSelfSustain

Simon Brinks,

Here are a few questions about your theory.

1) Does it include an aether(s) and if so what is the aether according to your theory?
2) What produces gravity according to your theory? Can it be manipulated?
3) What limits the velocity of an object traveling in space to the speed of light according to your theory?
4) Does your theory predict that in deep space, far away from solar systems between stars, the speed of light may vary?
5) Does your theory propose a method of reactionless or "warp" propulsion by modifying the aether or via some other means?
6) According to your theory, what is the nature of the "magnetic vector potential"?

Display More

There is a background energy page covering some of this. Click on the links.
Current thoughts:
1- aether, yes- probably electromagnetic energy travelling at slow speeds
2 - gravity is from aether shielding. You would have to produce a lot of aether to offset the gravity force. Possible, but unlikely to be practical.
3- I don't support relativity without some type of aether. Otherwise it is 'relative to what? Beyond the speed of light, there might be a destabilising 'optic boom', or similar. Possibly the speed of light relates to conditions at the observer, but frequency relates to conditions at the source.
4- probably would vary if background energy frequency and/or density vary.
5- interaction with matter is minimal, not practical.
6 - Sorry, not familiar with this.

SB

Hi Simon,

I am interested in this:

Quote

The model also incorporates the concept of electrodynamic stability as the basis for nucleus, atomic and molecular stability.

How is this stability achieved? Is it some kind of nonradiation condition or is the basis of your theory completely different than Mills?

Where is Zephir_awt when you need him? Like many ideas in LENR land I spent some time on aether theory. I would like to know what the more knowledgeable in this area think of the eLISA or pathfinder and if it could help in search of the aether. Anyone?

Quote from Epimetheus

Hi Simon,

I am interested in this:
Quote: “The model also incorporates the concept of electrodynamic stability as the basis for nucleus, atomic and molecular stability.”

How is this stability achieved? Is it some kind of nonradiation condition…

Looking at 3D wave structures which hold themselves together. A photon doesn't radiate part of itself. Definitely different to Mills. Electromagnetics define forces between nucleons and electrons. - Look at the website.

@Simon

So you try to explain everything with EM. DO you have source terms as well? As far as I understand there is photons in the Mills model as well (behind the seen and sometimes shows up). Have you done
and analysis combining the photon and the charge field do you have mathematics that describes the fields?

Regards
Stefan

Quote from stefan

<a href="https://www.lenr-forum.com/forum/index.php/User/1868-Simon/">@Simon</a>

So you try to explain everything with EM. DO you have source terms as well? As far as I understand there is photons in the Mills model as well (behind the seen and sometimes shows up). Have you done
and analysis combining the photon and the…

Modelling is based on circular current flows, but different to Mills, oscillations in current flow are recognised, similar to waveform oscillations in photons.
Electrons themselves (and nucleons) are considered to be photons trapped in a circular orbit. (No additional trapped photons necessary)
Stable states (nucleons) are "full", so there is no source or sink terms, but lower energy states (dark matter) will be absorbing energy, so a sink term can be used in modelling.

Quote from padam73

Quote from Simon Brink: “Electrons themselves (and nucleons) are considered to be photons trapped in a circular orbit.”

This is interesting. AFAIK models of photons trapped in closed orbits have until now been limited to the electron following the…

Nothing further published yet.

By R.C. JENNISON

Quote from MikeFid

By R.C. JENNISON

Nice find. Definitely some similarities.