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
R-0.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. BOOK SYNOPSIS........................................................................................................... 3
2. PREFACE (essential reading)......................................................................................... 6
3. 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
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
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
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
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
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
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-of-
hand 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
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
R-0.1
3. INTRODUCTION
3.1 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
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” space-
Mark Porringa 11
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
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
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
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 pseudo-
science 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 mass-
energy 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
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
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 Zero-
Point field, which neatly encompasses most of our existing science, albeit with a few
theoretical casualties occurring along the way.
Mark Porringa 17
R-0.1
4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE REVISED ATOMIC MODEL
4.1 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 cross-
section 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, wave-
particle 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 non-
existent 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
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
R-0.1
6. THE NEW ATOMIC MODEL
6.1 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 Fig 1b: Trigonal Bonded Fig 1c: Diamond / Amorph
Atom Graphite 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
R-0.1
of intensive inquiry. Without further ado, here then, is the entire head-banging experience
as it currently stands.
Mark Porringa 41
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 non-
spatial 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
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 space-
Mark Porringa 43
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
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
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
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
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
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 billion-
fold 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
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 z-
axis, 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 Top Inside/Outside View
(Positron star facet) (square planar lattice evident) (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
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
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
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
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
R-0.1
Figure 4: Neutron Core Geometries

Tetracores Hexacores Octacores
(half view)
Recoctacores Decacores Cuboctacores
(half view) (half view)

Cuboidoctacores Icosacores Rhombacores
(half view)
Mark Porringa 55
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
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
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
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 X-
ray 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 cross-
sections can therefore be analyzed in a more precise, deterministic manner. Cross-
sections for other types of nuclear reactions are similarly determined.
Mark Porringa 59
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
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
82Pb → 2 48Rh103 accompanied by hydreno development along the newly exposed
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, non-
equilibrium transient between matter and the local ZPF. A precise mass balance on a
thermonuclear reaction would no doubt detect lost nucleons.
Mark Porringa 61
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
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 stress-
induced 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
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
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 self-
organizing 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
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 cross-
sections 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
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
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
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
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
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
R-0.1
8. BUILDING ATOMIC MODELS
8.1 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
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
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
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
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
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 neo-
classical 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
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
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 28
6C 8O → 14Si 2 14Si28 → 26Fe
56
EC
12 16
6C 8O ↔ 2 7N14 2 14Si30 → 28Ni
60
26C12 8O16 → 26Fe

56
2 13Al27 → 26Fe
54
EC
Atomic Reactions 2 6C12 → 12Mg

24
28 12 40
14Si + 6C ↔ 20Ca 2 16S32 → 30Zn
64
EC
16 23 39
8O + 11Na ↔ 19K 2 8O16 ↔ 16S
32
12 15 27
6C + 7N → 13Al Heavy Metal Cold Fission
24 16 40 199 109 90
12Mg + 8O ↔ 20Ca 80Hg → 47Ag + 40Zr
n>p
16 15 31 206
8O + 7N ↔ 15P 82Pb → 2 45Rh103
n>p
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
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
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
Concerning Positrons & Negatrons:
Positron / Electron (Negatron) Structure Yes No
Particle Genesis Y N
Electrostatic Attraction & Repulsion Y Y?
Charge Definition Y N
Non Radiating Orbital Electrons Y N
Ellipsoid Electron Orbitals Y N
Electron / Positron Annihilation Y N
Electron / Positron Pair Production Y N
Particle Mass Y N
Spin Quanta Y Y?
Concerning Nucleons:
Proton Structure and Genesis Y N
Neutron Structure and Genesis Y N
Heavy Electrons (Muon and Tau) Y N
Nucleon Internal Bonding and Stability Y N
Mass Defect Y Y?
Spin Quanta Y Y?
Nucleon Evaporation Y N
Concerning The Nucleus:
Nuclear Structure and Genesis Y Y
Nucleon Bonding (Strong Force) Y N
Void of Nuclear Stability (between Bi83 and Th90) Y N
Limit of Nuclear Stability Y N
Range of Stable Isotopes Y N
Unstable Mid-Range Isotopes Y N
Isotopic Abundance Y N
Missing Elements (Tc, Pr, etc) Y N
Spin Quanta Y N
Concerning Nuclear Reactions:
Thermonuclear Fission Y Y?
Thermonuclear Fusion Y Y?
Cold Fission Y N
Cold Fusion (low energy induced fusion) Y N
Bio-nuclear Reactions Y N
Chemo-nuclear Reactions Y N
Mass Defect Y Y?
α, β, γ and η Radiations Y Y?
Concerning The Atom:
Atomic Structure and Genesis Y Y?
Allotropes Y N
Bond Angles & Isomers Y ?
Catalysts Y Y?
Inert & Volatile Elements Y Y?
Diatomic / Multiatomic Elements Y N
Quantization of Electron Orbital Energies Y Y?
Valence States and Alterations Y N
Concerning Bulk Matter:
Structure and Formation Y N
Bulk Volume and Solidity Y Y?
Mechanical Properties (strength, stiffness, elasticity, stress, strain, etc.) Y Y?
Crystal Structure of Elemental Solids & Compounds (Salts and Minerals) Y N
Intrinsic Properties (conductivity, enthalpy, resistance, etc.) Y Y?
Fluid Properties (Viscosity, Surface tension, Brownian motion, etc.) Y Y?
Atomic Bonds (Hydrogen, Ionic, Covalent) Y Y?
Gravitation & Inertial Forces Y N
Mark Porringa 81
APPENDIX D
TABLE OF NUCLEAR GEOMETRY
Neutron Core Lattice Geometries Neutron Core Cell Count Facets & Corner Adjacent Nominal Crystal Possible Lattice Nested Bond Sites Prospective
(Only certain shapes are permissible due to limits Base Units of Neutron Core Corners & Apex Facet Bond Form Valances Base Units of Neutron Core Elements
of square and trigonal planar packing of spheres) 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 facets corners Angles Angles Angles Options 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Tetracore (Tetrahedral Core) 4 10 20 35 56 84 120 4 4 60 70 70, 110, 120 tet 1, 2, 4, -4 4 12 24 40 60 84 112 C, Si, Ge, Sn, Pb?
1st Corner Truncation (remove 4) n/a 6 16 31 52 80 116 8 12 120 70, 110 bcc 0
2nd Corner Truncation (remove 12) n/a n/a 19 40 68 104 8 12 70, 110
1st Bilateral Edge Truncation n/a 17 36 62 96 12 12 110, 125
2nd Bilateral Edge Truncation 15 32 56 88 12 12 110, 125
3rd Bilateral Edge Truncation 13 28 50 80 12 12 110, 125
o
Hexacore (Hexahedral Core) 30 indexable 5 14 30 55 91 140 n/a 6 5 60 70, 140 40, 120, 180 hcp 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 6 18 36 60 90
1st Apex Truncation (both) n/a 12 28 53 87 136 8 120 70, 140 trigonal 56
1st Base Corner Truncation (remove 3) n/a 25 50 84 133 11 triclinic 48
2nd Apex Truncation (remove 6) 19 44 78 127 11
1st Edge Truncation 32 66 115
2nd Edge Truncation 60 103
3rd Apex Truncation (remove 12) 91
o
Octacore (Octahedral Core) 45 indexable 6 19 44 85 146 n/a 8 6 90 110 110, 180 bcc 0, 1, 2, 4, 6, -4 8 24 48 80 C, Si, Ge
1st Bilateral Truncation (2 corners) n/a 17 42 83 144 10 125 55 3? Ne, Ar, Kr, Xe, Rn
2nd Bilateral Truncation (2 corners) 15 40 81 142 12
3rd Bilateral Truncation (2 corners) 13 38 79 140 14 ccp
4th Bilateral Truncation (2nd stage truncation) n/a n/a 71 132 14
5th Bilateral Truncation (2nd stage truncation) 63 124 14
6th Bilateral Truncation (2nd stage truncation) 55 116 14 Au, Ag
Decacore (Decahedral Core) 7 23 54 105 181 n/a 10 7 108 70, 140 72, 90, 180 orthorho 1, 2, 5, 7 10 30 60 100 Cl, Br, I
1st Base Corner Truncation (remove 5) n/a 18 49 100 176 40, 90 (diatomic)
1st Base Edge Truncation 13 39 85 151
1st Apex Truncation 11 37 83 149
2nd Base Corner Truncation (remove 10) 73 139
2nd Base Edge Truncation (remove 10 ) 129
Rhombacore (Rhombahedral Core) 8 27 64 125 n/a 6 8 60 70, 110 55, 70, 180 rhombic 1, 2, 4, 6 6 24 56 96 V, Tc
1st Apex Truncation (both) 6 25 62 123 120 hcp
2nd Apex Truncation (both) n/a 19 56 117
o
Cuboctacore (Cuboctahedral Core) 60 indexable 13 55 146 n/a 14 12 120 110, 125, 140 ccp 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 14 48 102 176 Rh, Al
1st Apex Corner Truncation (remove 6) n/a 49 140
1st Base Truncation (remove 6) 43 134
Icosacore (Icosahedral Core) 13 55 145 n/a 20 12 108 135 40, 72, 180 orthorho 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 20 60 120 200 Ar
1st Bilateral Corner Truncation n/a 53 143 monoclin
2nd Bilateral Corner Truncation 51 141
3rd Bialteral Corner Truncation 49 139
4th Bialteral Corner Truncation 47 137
5th Bialteral Corner Truncation 45 135
All Corner Truncation (remove 12) 43 133
Recoctacore (Recoctahedral Core) base units >> 1x2 2x3 3x4 4x5 5x6 1x2 2x3 3x4 4x5 5x6
o
No Truncation (90 indexable) 4 10 28 60 110 8 8 120 110 110, 180 bcc 0, 1, 2, 4, 6 2 12+ 32+ 60+ 96+ Pb, Fe, Sn
1st Apex Truncation (both) n/a 6 24 56 106 125 55
1st Bilateral Base Truncation n/a 22 54 104
2nd Bilateral Base Truncation 20 52 102 ccp
o
Cuboidoctacore (Cuboidoctahedral Core) 60 indexable 5 32 97 n/a 14 12 120 110, 125, 140 bcc 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 6 36 84 152
1st Apex Truncation (remove 6) 26 91
1st Base Truncation (remove 6) 20 85
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.
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)
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
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
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 mporringa@lnhatom.com.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
R-0.1
CONTRIBUTING THEORISTS (In no particular order):
T. Beardon [TB] H. Puthoff [HP] A. Sacharov [AS]

K. Shoulders [KS] H. Lorentz [HL] O. Luther [OL]
P. Tewari [PT] A. Einstein [AE] R. Forward [RF]
R. Tessien [RT] D. Cole [DC] J. Sepetys [JP]
M. Planck [MP] I. Newton [IN] B. Haisch [BH]
A. Rueda [AR] H. Casimir [HC]
Mark Porringa 96
R-0.1
REFERENCES
1. L.N. Vauquelin. Annale de Chimie. Vol. 29-30, Nivose, Year VII, pp. 3-26, January 19, 1799.
2. E. Fermi, E. Amaldi, F. Rosetti. La Ricera Scientifica, Serie II, Anno VIII, No 1-2, Luglio, Italy, 1937.
3. L. Kervran, New York Academy of Science, “Biological Transmutations”, Happiness Press, Magalia,
California, 1980.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. G. Oshawa, “George Oshawa’s Transmutation Experiments”, East-West Magazine, March 1965
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. R. Sundaresan, J. Bockris, “Anomalous Reactions During Arcing Between Carbon Rods in Water”, Fusion
Technology, Vol 26, Pg 261, November 1994.
10. R. Taleyarkhan, “Evidence For Nuclear Emissions During Acoustic Cavitation”, Science, Vol 295, Pg 1868,
March 2002.
11. 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.
12. K. Shoulders, “Energy Conversion Using High Charge Density”, United States Patent No. 5,018,180. US
Patent and Trade Mark Office, May 21, 1991.
13. 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.
14. T. Boyer, “The Classical Vacuum, Zero-Point Energy”, Scientific American, August 1985.
15. P. Milonni, Los Alamos Laboratories, “Radiation Pressure From The Vacuum: Physical Interpretation Of The
Casimir Force”, Physical Review B, Vol 38, Pg 1621, 1988.
16. 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.
17. F. Grimer, N. Clayton, “The Diphase Concept, With Particular Reference To Concrete”, Building Research
Establishment, Watford, UK, 1980.
18. J. Schwinger, “Casimir Light: The Source”, 1993 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA.
19. S. Haroche and J. Raimond,”Cavity Quantum Electromagnetics”, Scientific American, April 1993, Pg 26.
20. H. Puthoff, “Ground State Of Hydrogen As A Zero-Point Fluctuation Determined State, Physical Review D,
Vol. 35, No. 10, Pg 3266, May 1987.
21. P. Tewari, “Beyond Matter: A Comprehensive Theory Of The Material Universe”, VAP-Verlag, Weisbaden,
Germany, 1995.
22. R. Mills, “Energy / Matter Conversion Methods and Structures”, WIPO Patent Application WO 90/13126,
PCT US90/01998, World Intellectual Property Organization, November 1990.
23. S. Sarg, “Basic Structures of Matter - Beyond The Visible Universe”, Helical Structures Press, Toronto,
Canada, 2004.
24. H. Maris, “Can The Electron Be Cut In Half”, New Scientist Magazine, October 14, 2000.
25. W. Harkins, Journal Of The American Chemical Society, Vol 38, No. 2, Pg 189, Feb 1916.
26. 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.
27. D. Borghi, D. Giori, “Experimental Evidence On The Emission Of Neutron From Cold Hydrogen Plasma”,
CEN, Recife, Brazil, 1957.
28. A. Crehore. Philosophical Magazine. Series 6. Vol. 42, No. 250, Pg 569, October 1921.
29. 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.
30. W. Harkins, Philosophical Magazine Series 6, Vol 4, Pg 1956, 1920.
31. F. Marques, etal, “Detection Of Neutron Clusters”, Physcial Review C, Vol. 65, 044006, 2002.
32. 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
33. P. Lindemann, “The Free Energy Secrets of Cold Electricity”, Clear Tech Inc. Metaline Falls, WA, 2000.
34. R. Monti, G. Monti, “The Real Einstein” Physics Essays, Received Manuscript PE02988, July, 2002.
Mark Porringa 97
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

Lattice Nested Hydreno

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lattice Nested Hydreno

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hydreno Atomic Model

THE LATTICE NESTED HYDRENO ATOMIC MODEL

Conventional, Indeterminate Ad-hoc Nucleus

A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A THEORY OF EVERYTHING

Original Copyright © 2005 Mark Porringa, PEng

Also Available in a hard copy version published by the

A massive, scientific renaissance is consequently in the works involving an all-encompassing

2. PREFACE (essential reading)

3.1 The Shallow Troubled Waters of Modern Science

In contrast to Einstein’s esoteric ideas, Newton’s monumental theories certainly brought us a

Indeed, it is only through a critical reevaluation and embellishment of the underlying

3.2 A Primer On Low Energy Nuclear Reactions

Puthoff [13]; carbon arc fusion experiments; Sonoluminesence; Cavity Quantum

4. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND TO THE REVISED ATOMIC MODEL

4.1 Zero-Point Energy

4.2 The Casimir Effect

contemporary models invoking mysterious attractive forces of unknown origin, having no

Extrapolating even further to the dimension of bonded nucleons generally conceded to be in

4.4 Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics

4.5 Condensed Charge - High Density Charge Clusters

An EV is a condensed cluster of electrons of approximately 1 micron in diameter, consisting

4.6 Hydroxy Gas Implosion

4.7 Negentropy (Negative Entropy)

Furthermore, Engineers generally prefer to avoid the unpredictable nature of system

5. ATOMIC THEORY RECONSIDERED

5.1 Fractional Quantum States of Hydrogen

A clearer intuitive understanding of electron-positron annihilation is another obvious

5.2 Refinements To The Electron/Positron Model

5.3 Refinements To The Proton and Neutron Model

5.4 Other Objections To The Bohr-Rutherford Model

cross-section of 240,000 barns, yielding an apparent nuclear dimension approaching 10-11m.

6. THE NEW ATOMIC MODEL

6.1 An Overview Of The Lattice Nested Hydreno Model

Figure 2a: Nitrogen Nucleus Figure 2b Figure 2c

In contrast, diatomic nitrogen creates a virtually impenetrable chemical barrier composed of

6.2 Philosophical Considerations

From a more practical perspective, consider the workings of an ordinary automobile.

question of why particle physicists espouse a dramatic increase in complexity at the

Consequently, meticulous analysis of any particular concept is intentionally lacking in favor

Consequently, there is no shortage of unanswered questions and remaining issues that

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

2) The “Dark” matter proposed by Cosmologists should more appropriately be referred to

4) The background ZPE of space when perturbed (compressed, translated or otherwise

6) The photon is simply a single pulse of electromagnetic radiation of finite length as

7) The absolute propagation velocity c, of transverse electromagnetic waves in vacuum is

9) The Universe is not expanding on a universal scale – it is essentially stable. Continuous

7.2 Concerning Electrons & Positrons:

precisely corresponds to the de Broglie wavelength as documented by B. Haisch and

9) Macroscopic electricity universally requires the production of a source dipole composed

7.3 Concerning The Nucleons:

1) The proton is considered to be a composite particle with a geometric shape

lattice arrangement so as to provide stronger coulomb attraction between adjacent,

Figure 3: Proton Model (1/8th Section Views)

13) Massive electron positron annihilation, within individual nucleons, is conjectured to be

7.4 Concerning The Nucleus:

2) Self-organization of the nucleus is evidently accomplished by the complimentary

8) Minor variation in nuclear bond strength is a function of tetrahedral versus pyramidal

Figure 4: Neutron Core Geometries

(half view) (half view)

geometries approach completion through an unstable transition zone requiring the

7.5 Nuclear Reactions And Decay: