STEM: An Energy-Centric Model for Atomic Structure and the Nature of Electricity and Light

  • The Spin Torus Energy Model (STEM) is an energy-centric approach that is based upon the hypothesis there is only one type of energy, with electric and magnetic fields consisting of the same type of field-energy, but with different field-energy flow patterns.


    STEM is a personal theory that been developed ad hoc over the past six years. Rather than trying to fit the physical model to a mathematical model and interpretation of data, the model has been developed and re-jigged on the basis of what it can and cannot explain: what I refer to as a pragmatic approach. Testing of the theory and underpinning hypothesis is thus in terms of how completely and logically it can explain known Physics and Chemistry related phenomena.


    There are 3 STEM papers (all pdf format): one on atomic structure; a second about the electron and electricity; and a third about light.


    All three papers are inter-related and inter-dependent. It is a bit of a chicken and the egg problem to decide with which to start. I would suspect that most LENR participants would be most comfortable starting with the atomic structure paper, but might need to look at the electron paper (the Duplicit Electron) to find out more about how electromagnetic fields are envisaged and the difference between positive and negative charge carriers.


    The third paper, about the physical form and behaviour of the many types of EMR forms would probably be tackled further down the track.


    A skeletal overview and flowchart of STEM can be found in the STEM Overview pdf: it also contains direct links to the three papers referenced above.


    I have made several posts in Frank Gordon's "Lattice Energy Converter (LEC)" in the replications workshop that was related to ortho- and para-hydrogen explanations. Much of this suggested approach was based around pages 23 to 26 in the atomic structure paper, together with the explanation of why palladium can absorb up to 900% of its volume of H2 (or D) gas being found on page 62 in the ‘And Beyond Silicon..’ chapter.

  • Curbina

    Approved the thread.
  • Innerspace , thanks for sharing your work with the LENR-forum community.


    Your model has some interesting parallels with other models, I look forward to get familiar with it and I appreciate that you have taken care of thinking on how your model would explain some of the more known LENR experimental observations.

    I certainly Hope to see LENR helping humans to blossom, and I'm here to help it happen.

  • This work has some superficial similarities to that presented by N Lynn Bowen at ICCF23. See the linear model in the ICCF23 video http://ikkem.com/iccf23/MP4/3a-IN19.mp4 at about 5:30.


    That said, the model proposed by Innerspace is a more radical departure from conventional physics, and it's thus more difficult to grok. For example, the question of dipole symmetry isn't discussed and some of the proposed nucleon structures seem to violate this principle. I've only read the first ten pages, so there's undoubtedly much more to the document and the underlying thought that produced it. At first reading, its a very ambitious and well-presented theory.

  • Thank you for that video reference, previously unseen be myself. Ms. Bowen keeps her chains open whereas STEM’s are usually closed and can become embedded structures. I suspect that her electric and magnetic field calculations, with slight modification, could also apply to STEM structures. Pity there wasn’t more time for questions at the end of her session.


    Certainly within STEM polygonal structures, repeat subsets of her ‘standard’ shapes can be identified, and I am pretty sure they would have the same number of quark connections. An interesting approach.


    The first 10 to 15 pages of the Atomic Structure paper are the most difficult in terms of culture shock and intense in terms of model development. I hope you persevere and can comment further.


    MagicSound wrote…

    Quote

    the question of dipole symmetry isn't discussed and some of the proposed nucleon structures seem to violate this principle

    Electrons and CESs are considered to represent a dipole because the outflow flow side defines a pattern that we associate with an outflow positive or negative charge, and the reverse side by a corresponding inflow negative and positive charge. Molecular dipole symmetry would depend upon the layering, structure and bonding patterns, that I would expect would become apparent from computer modelling: an area in which Ms. Bowen’s model is currently far more advanced than STEM.

  • Quote

    Bayak wrote...the basic element of your model (STEM), represented as a torus stretched over a sphere with cut-out polar caps, has the symmetry of the group U(1) x SU(2) = U(2)

    The torus R:r ratio is speculative and thus ill defined, as would be the latitudinal spread of your polar cap cut-outs. The CEWL calculations for electron radius referenced in the Atomic Structure paper influenced the dimensions used for electrons and CESs, that in turn produce atom sizes and bond length for molecules that seem in the right ball park.


    The symmetry of the toroidal structures could well be group U(1) x SU(2): assuming this to be true, what are the implications?

  • Bayak wrote...

    Quote

    To make sure of this, look at the beginning of the preprint. As for the consequences of this mathematical fact in physics, then, probably, it can be used in the construction of an electron model


    Thank you for that. From a purely geometric point of view it provides confidence that a toroidal model is compatible with a spherical interpretation of an electron or a CES. I suspect that it is also a better option in the wave equations if you are not going to assume that an electron has a point-form (i.e. to be dimensionless).


    I must admit you lost me after equation 1.7. At least I now know what Villarceau circles are.


    (Also, you may care to correct your spelling Villarso circle to Villarceau circle in your article).



    '

  • I suspect that it is also a better option in the wave equations if you are not going to assume that an electron has a point-form (i.e. to be dimensionless).

    On the contrary, it should be assumed that in our Euclidean space, electrons are dimensionless, and in additional dimensions they acquire a toroidal-spherical shape.

  • This work has some superficial similarities to that presented by N Lynn Bowen at ICCF23. See the linear model in the ICCF23 video http://ikkem.com/iccf23/MP4/3a-IN19.mp4 at about 5:30.

    .I listened to this report ... In my opinion, everything that is contained in this report is very far from the truth ... This fantasy has nothing to do with what is happening in nature ... It's a pity for this woman ... She is mistaken ...

  • .I listened to this report ... In my opinion, everything that is contained in this report is very far from the truth ... This fantasy has nothing to do with what is happening in nature ... It's a pity for this woman ... She is mistaken ...

    You have the opportunity to compare my models and those of Lynn Bowen.









    This is how low-temperature nuclear reactions take place. Thermonuclear reactions are an invention of physicists who invented the atomic bomb, but did not understand the physics of the processes occurring during an atomic explosion ...

  • Your model, the stem model, the bowden model, the wyttenbach model all have the same weak point.

    You have only a focused view about what could be an atom then no one put the question, why an atom exists, where in the universe it is located ( global organization) , how it could evolve at higher universe scale..

    Be able to think at different scale this is the only way to finally discover more about the atom.

    Sorry friends but all of you only have how to say.. only a small human view ( perspective).

  • I would like to re-iterate that, as was stated in the opening gambit of this thread, that...

    Quote

    Rather than trying to fit the physical model to a mathematical model and interpretation of data, the STEM model has been developed and re-jigged on the basis of what it can and cannot explain: what I refer to as a pragmatic approach. Testing of the theory and underpinning hypothesis is thus in terms of how completely and logically it can explain known Physics and Chemistry related phenomena.


    We can argue to and fro until the cows come home about the size of the electron, the 'e' of the electron (the Cherepanov2020 obsession), whether or not quarks exist, the symmetry of geometric shapes, the larger philosophical picture (Cydonia's call) and a myriad of perceived discrepancies and subtleties.


    In the submitted papers, STEM develops scale models for atoms and uses them to create models for molecules such as water, oxygen and hydrogen at a scale that corresponds to their well known bond lengths. It provides an explanation of the the allotropic forms graphite and cubic/hex diamond, and a feasible explanation of nucleon-type conversion and the related beta decay process.


    STEM blurs the differences between electric and magnetic fields, attributing the different electromagnetic characteristics to different flow patterns of field energy. It also provides an explanation for electric current formation within semiconductors without having to invoke the positive holes based upon static cation switching. The STEM approach also supports the simultaneous two-way electric currents required by the operation of photodiodes and the various common-pin configurations used for transistors: an area totally unexplained by conventional Science.


    STEM provides an explanation for the particle/wave nature of light without the need for luminiferous aether (or Ether) to sustain a light ray's travel over vast distances through the near-to-vacuum void of outer-Space. It provides a physical model for light that conforms to the mathematical models in terms of the laws of optics and a logical explanation for the many different forms light takes (PPL, CPL, OVL etc.).


    A measure of STEM's relevance is how well it explains observed physical phenomena, including issues relevant to LENR. Once it has been appropriately hacked, re-engineered and improved would be the time to develop the maths to quantify and fine-tune the approach - or, of course, to dump it. But at this point of time it is in the hypothesis testing stage, and a discussion of hobby-horse topics, the finer points of various mathematical theories and historical injustices would seem to be counter-productive.



    Cherepanov2020 wrote...

    Quote

    You have the opportunity to compare my models and those of Lynn Bowen.

    I think that I did that earlier in this thread. I would hope that some of her mathematical modelling can be adapted and applied to STEM at a later date.

  • Innerspace


    Thank you for your contribution -did you see this work from Edo another one of our members, reviewed here?


  • Alan Smith wrote...

    Quote

    did you see this work from Edo another one of our members, reviewed here?


    No, but I have visited the SAM web site on many occasions, and their video, which is really impressive.


    SAM and Lyn Bowen's models have similarities: the former building atoms using deuterium structures and the other Helium/Alpha structures. The videos and graphics of SAM provide lots of eye candy and their full version of the Periodic Table is impressive. Perhaps the book applies the model to explain physical phenomena such as emission spectra and related EMR, electricity, chemistry etc... I will certainly try to get a copy.


    All grist to the mill for the development of a structured nucleus model and to provide a valid alternative to the increasingly irrelevant orbital nuclear atomic model.

  • You threw a stone at me and I have to defend myself and defend my good name. You wrote - "the 'e' of the electron (the Cherepanov2020 obsession), ..." ... Explain to me, please, WHAT I am imposing on you? Why did you not notice that for 148 years the idea of the existence of an "electric charge" in nature was imposed on the whole world, an "electric field" and "electric forces" were imposed on physicists ... Physicists were imposed on "strong" and "weak" interaction .. But there is nothing of this in nature! Maxwell was mistaken and imposed his idea - is that understandable? If he had not been mistaken, then a "fake" "electric charge" would not have appeared on the proton - what physicists called a "positively charged particle" - and then there would be no need to invent a "strong interaction" to explain the existence of protons in the nucleus ... This is how one mistake led to another error ... Here is a frame from the video that you presented to us -



    Drawn "+" on protons and "-" on electrons is a fake - there is nothing of this in nature ... For some reason, you are not alarmed by another fact - "magnetic forces" are not represented in these frames in any way - both the proton and the electron have their own magnetic moments, have their own magnetic fields, have their own magnetic poles and, accordingly, have their own magnetic forces - nothing of this is presented in the video ... For me, this is fake physics ... This is a delusion of the physicists who wrote the film ... I also thought like They were 6 years ago and then I was mistaken just like them ... But physics is developing ... Is that clear?

  • Cherepanov2020


    You are in a position where you are right and everyone else is wrong. Maxwell, Millikan, Heavyside, presumably Faraday and co too. You need to understand that if somebody disagrees with you nthey are not attacking your honour, but trying to understand your hypothesis and also to try to determine if the model is useful.

  • Cherepanov2020


    You are in a position where you are right and everyone else is wrong. Maxwell, Millikan, Heavyside, presumably Faraday and co too. You need to understand that if somebody disagrees with you nthey are not attacking your honour, but trying to understand your hypothesis and also to try to determine if the model is useful.

    You don’t want to understand the main thing - I’m not building any new theory! I understand Maxwell's mistakes, I show you these Maxwell's mistakes ... You must decide for yourself what to do with it ... You cannot continue to use what is wrong for obvious reasons ... I urge you to study these errors on your own Maxwell ... Why do I insist on this? But because I communicate with people who want to comprehend the secrets of LENR and who want to understand the mechanisms of LENR ... you want this? Therefore, I try to help you ... But each of you must walk the path on his own - the path that will open your eyes and you will finally see these Maxwell mistakes ... After that you will begin to understand that the physics that you studied at school, does not correspond to the truth.

    You can independently analyze the results of other researchers and make the correct interpretation of these results ... I can repeat many times on this forum - conducting an experiment and obtaining the most interesting results is only 30% of your success - the main difficulty lies in the remaining 70% - this is the correct interpretation of the results experiment ... If you continue to insist that Maxwell did not make mistakes and everything that he wrote 148 years ago is an absolutely correct theory, then you will never be able to correctly interpret your own and other people's results ... Be smarter than Maxwell - it's easy ... You have behind you a 148-year-old result with millions of physical experiments - nothing of which Maxwell had ...