Rutherford Bohr Model by alwaysnforever

VIEWS: 3,282 PAGES: 23


                                        Johann Marinsek1

Energy balance in U-235 fission would be in disorder if binding energy were mass defect times c2.
In U-235 fission the alleged electronic shell structure must collapse, a self-resurrection of new
electronic shell structures for fission products is impossible. Missing electrons in α-decay; missing
electron in plutonium shell after transmutation of uranium. The Rutherford-Bohr atomic model is
based on a nucleus with proton and neutron constituents and exterior electrons, is untenable. The
atomic number Z does neither determine the number of protons and neutrons in the nuclei nor the
number of exterior electrons.
Derivations of E = mc2 must be fallacious. Inert mass and energy are conceptually
incommensurable. Inert mass is not convertible into binding energy. U-235 fission is a disproof
that a mass defect can be converted into binding energy. Cockcroft’s and Walton’s experimental
result for a nuclear reaction was for Einstein an empiric confirmation of the formula E = mc2, but
there is a difference of 2% between experiment and theory and energy conservation is violated.
Explanation, why atomic binding energy is sometimes proportional to the mass defect. No
empirical evidence for rest mass energy E0 = m0c2.
Prout’s thesis in 1815 that all atoms are made up of H-atoms is correct. Crucial for Prout’s thesis
are 1. Stoichiometry, which proved that elements in compounds are present in whole number
ratios. 2. Inert masses of the elements, which are nearly integers. 3. The discovery of isotopes
which showed that the mass of Cl (= 35.5) is due to a mixture of Cl-35 and Cl-37.
The m in F = ma is a dimensionless proportionality factor. m = dEl-A A where A is the number of
H-atoms and dEl-A is a drag coefficient depending on the configuration of the H-atoms for the
specific chemical element El. Drag force R = dEl-A A a is due to motion in an all-pervasive
electromagnetic medium. Classical inertia is a misconception. Mass spectrographs measure ‘inert’
masses of ions. Exact inert masses of neutral atoms and of neutron unknown. Neutron conceivable
as a defective H-atom. Proton not an elementary particle.
Axiomatic of mechanics: force is the undefined fundamental concept and not mass.

  Sulzerweg 19a, A-8530 Dt. Landsberg
1. In U-235 fission the electronic shell structure must collapse
Uranium fission: Usually the prevailing nuclear physics states the U-235 fission as empirical
evidence that nuclei are made up of protons and neutrons according to the Rutherford-Bohr atomic

      U-235 fission                                                    Xe:[Kr]4d105s2p6
             3   1   2                           ≠≠≠≠>
   U: [Rn]5f 6d 7s                  collapse
                                    of electron
                                    configuration                  electron configuration:
                         n                                       aufbau following collapse
                                                                       = impossible

                                    fragment      ≠≠≠≠>                Sr:[Kr]5s2
  •   n
          fission => collapse!
                                       collapse of
                                   electron configuration
From the above sketch it becomes evident that the shell/nucleus model cannot be a true model
because of its impossibilities and contradictions.
When U-235 (electron configuration [Rn]5f36d17s2) decays and yields two big fragments
(Xe140:[Kr]4d105s2p6, Sr94: [Kr]5s2) and 2 n, the complete electron shell of U-235 with its
complex quantacized structure breaks down. The electrons (or the orbitals) should crash into the
atomic fragments. A true resurrection of the electronic shells for the fission products would be a

2. Missing electron in plutonium shell after transmutation of uranium:
Transmuting uranium into plutonium refutes the Rutherford-Bohr model: missing electron
in the plutonium shell
When a non-fissible nucleus captures a neutron a transmutation of the chemical element begins:
 92-U-238 + n ==> 92-U-239 + β ==> 93-Np-239 + β ==> 94-Pu-239
U-239 emits a β –particle to become neptunium that in turn also emits a
β –particle to become plutonium 94-Pu-239.
Look now for the example at step #3: 93-Np-239 + β ==> 94-Pu-239.
One neutron of the Np kernel decays. The fragments are a proton and an electron. The proton
remains contained in the nucleus whereas the nucleus emits the electron (β-radiation). For the
resultant element 94-Pu-239 the number of electrons is 93 (like for Np) but there should be 94
The missing electron is the electron from the decay of the neutron. The nucleus emits it into the
void. Since the occurrence of Pu-239 is a fact, the alleged law that determines the number of
protons in the kernel and the number of electrons in the surrounding shells is untenable.
Then consider the necessary rearrangement of the shell structure:
Np has allegedly the structure Np: [Rn] 5f46d17s2 and Pu: [Rn] 5f6 7s2.
For the elemental transmutation the following shell transmutation should occur:
 [Rn] 5f46d17s2 ==> [Rn] 5f6 7s2
In any case the 6d1 electron of Np must jump to the 5f-shell. Then the electron of the neutron
decay should not disappear in the void but travel from the kernel through the complex Rn structure
(86 electrons!) to its correct position on shell 5f. This is mere science fiction!
Another example is the ß-decay of cobalt, where the ß-emitter is the Co nucleus:
27-Co-60 ==> 28-Ni-60 + ß
This implies a shell transmutation: [Ar]3d74s2 ==> [Ar]3d84s2
There is a missing electron in the 3d shell of Ni! The missing electron disappeared in the void or
collided with something. So, it cannot save the theory.
We are taught that the Co-atom is in an excited state and drops down to its ground state by
emitting β-rays. Obviously the emitted electron should be the cause of a disturbance in the shells!
But miraculously the emitted electron does not collide with shell electrons (or orbitals), it
disappears. Its duty towards the theory would be a soft landing on 3d shell!

3. Missing electrons in α-decay:
empirical evidence for the impossibility of electron shells
Take for example:
92-U-238 ==> 90-Th-234 + α ...
According to current theory the uranium electron configuration consists of 92 electrons.
In α-decay the number of electrons should be conserved. But the thorium shells consist of 90
electrons. So there are 2 missing electrons.
Don’t say the little electrons are negligible! Here an alleged natural law, namely that the number of
protons and electrons is identical with the atomic number Z shows an anomaly.

4. Nuclear γ -rays would destroy the fragile shell structure
We are taught [31]
that gamma rays are a type of electromagnetic radiation that results from a redistribution of
electric charge within a nucleus. A γ ray is a high-energy photon.
Take for example the following γ-decay
60             60
   28Ni* ––>      28Ni + 1,173 MeV + 1.332 MeV
where 28Ni* denotes an excited Ni atom. The two γ -photons with about 1 MeV each are high-

energy bullets emitted from the nucleus. They must pass on their path the wonderfully arranged
electron shell or electron wave structure made up of 28 electrons.
High-energy γ photons/waves would surely destroy the fragile quantum mechanics complex of
shells or orbitals. But according to current theory the Ni shell structure remains unaffected by the γ
bombardment. This survival of the atomic shell structure could be possible only by a wonder.
1. Atomic weights? This means that by mass spectrographs the inert masses of the atoms are
specified. But the inert mass is not identical with the amount of stuff or quantitas materiae!
And yet another error is that the mass spectrograph is a device to measure inert masses of the
neutral atoms.
What we do is: We deduce mass of ionised atoms electromagnetically. Therefore the results we get
are the inert masses of ionised atoms. And we do not know exactly the inert mass of the neutral
atom because we cannot simply add the inert mass of the electron to get the mass of the neutral
A look at the table for all masses of ionised atoms shows that inertia is not an additive property,
there is no linear increase with increasing mass number A. This outcome is inconsistent with
classical and relativistic theory of inertia, which stated that inertia is proportional to the amount of
mass or stuff.
If atoms are different associations of the same building blocks, say hydrogen (Prout 1815,
[17],[18]), then, if C has the relative mass 12.0 (corresponding to 12 H) and He has 4.0026
(corresponding to 4 H) the inert mass is not an additive property.
The explanation with the laziness of stuff is wrong. The cause of inertial forces is a resisting force
of a medium.
The magnitude of that counter force depends on the shape of the body. Therefore this drag is not
proportional to the number of the constituents of the atom. Think of a minute shielding.
It is historically interesting that in 1920 (!) Rutherford [23] theorized on inert mass similarly:
The fact that the mass of the helium atom 3.997 in terms of oxygen 16 is less the mass of 4
hydrogen atoms, viz., 4.032, has been generally supposed to be due to the close interaction of the
fields in the nucleus resulting in a smaller electromagnetic mass than the sum of the masses of the
individual components.
Rutherford never explained that the mass defect is due to binding energy but due to an
electromagnetic resistance that depends non-additively on the number of components of the
Why did current physics deviate from the right way to knowledge? I propose the following
explanation: The (fallaciously derived) famous formula E = mc2 was interpreted as convertibility
of mass into energy. So the mass defect was interpreted as binding energy.
So, what are then the exact inert masses of neutral atoms? We don’t know.
Tables list up the inert masses of the corresponding ions of the atoms – with one exemption,
namely for neutral hydrogen:
The value that you can find in textbooks and handbooks is a calculated one. It is wrong because it
was supposed that inertia is additive.
It is not the case that m(H0) = m(p+) +m(e-) = 1.00727647 + 0.00054858 = 1.00782505
2. So then, why isn’t the atomic mass of Hydrogen exactly 1?
This is a didactic question in the following excerpt from a textbook. [29]
If a hydrogen atom has only one proton, and carbon-12 has 6 protons and 6 neutrons to make up
its mass of twelve, why isn’t the mass of hydrogen 1/12 of that of carbon-12?

     Mass of 1 hydrogen atom Mass of sub-atomic particles            Mass of 1 C-12 atom
                                6 protons =
                                6 x 1.007277      6.043662
                                6 neutrons =
     1.00794                    6 x 1.008665      6.051990           12.0 exactly
                                6 electrons =
                                6 x 0.000548      0.003288
                                Total            12.098940
Dice continues:
If you think about it, Hydrogen at 1.00794 is more than 1/12 of the weight of carbon-12 (as you
can see from the above table, if you multiply 12 times the mass of a single hydrogen atom it comes
to more than 12); the reason for this effect is nuclear binding energy. After all, the protons in the
nucleus are all positive, and so the nucleus should just repel itself apart. It doesn’t of course, so
something must be ”binding” it together. This nuclear binding energy makes the mass of all
atoms (except hydrogen-1, which only has 1 proton) slightly lighter than what you’d get by adding
up the mass of the sub- atomic particles. Einstein’s famous equation E = mc2 shows us that we can
get the necessary binding energy from the mass of the sub-atomic particles. So the mass of any
multi-nucleon atom is less than the sum of the weights of its separated parts. Is this change in mass
when the nucleus changes size that is the source of the enormous amount of energy in nuclear
In the above table the mass of H should be: m(H0) = m(p+) +m(e-) = 1.00727647 + 0.00054858 =
1.00782505, whereas the figure 1.00794 is the average mass of the isotopes H-1…1.007825
(99.99%) and H-2 …2.014102 (0.015%).
Annotations: Inert masses are not additive properties. Therefore the addition of the masses of proton
and electron to get the mass of 1H is erroneous! The inert mass of 1H and the masses of all elements
and their isotopes are unknown.
Taken for granted that C-12 would be an association of 6p, 6n and 6e, then, according to the
doctrine of inert mass, the inert mass of the association should be the total of the masses of the
constituents. Because the vacuum cannot affect inertia, intrinsic inertia depends only additively on
the amount of stuff.
Now compare the total of the masses of the sub-particles, 12.09894, with 12.0, the mass for a
complete 12C+. In the conceptual frame of inertial physics this is an inconsistency! Therefore the
famous mass defect ∆ m = 12.09894 – 12. = 0.09894, namely the obvious difference between the
inert mass of the atom-ion and the sum of the masses of its constituents must have a revolutionary
resolution. By the most famous formula of physics, E = mc2, it seemed to be possible to explain the
mass defect as the binding energy of the nucleus. Because the protons of the nucleus are repelling
each other, nuclear binding forces are necessary. But a natural cause for binding forces between the
repelling protons was not mentioned: where is the clamp to hold together the protons? So, the
conversion of the mass defect into a binding energy has no rationale. All later inventions of nuclear
forces (the strong force, gluons for quarks etc.) are ad hoc. For the carbon example, the claim for the
binding energy is: EB = 0.09894 x 931.49 MeV = 92.16 MeV.
Considering other atoms, the mysteries of the mass defect increase. Take for example Ar-40 and
Ca-40. According to the prevailing atomic physics Ar consists of 18 protons, 18 electrons and 22
neutrons, for Ca the numbers are 20, 20, 20, respectively. The mass sum of the subatomic particles
is for Ar: 40.33148, for Ca: 40.3298, therefore mAr> m Ca. The results of mass spectroscopy are Ar:
39.962383 and Ca: 39.962591, therefore mAr< mCa!
For the 18 repelling protons in the Ar-nucleus the binding energy is allegedly 343,8 MeV whereas
for the 20 protons of Ca the calculated binding energy is only 342,1 MeV! There is no rationale for
these discrepancies.
Regarding Ar-40, K-40 and Ca-40 as 3 different three-dimensional configurations of 40 constituent
H-atoms (Prout’s hypothesis in 1815) then the minute differences for the ‘inert’ masses are
explainable as the result of different ‘ether-drags’ for the moving isomers.

An example of the well-known U-253 fission is:
U-235 + n --> … --> Ce-140 + Zr-94 + 2n + energy released.
According to the prevailing theory, the release of binding energy of the uranium atom during the
disintegration process can easily be calculated: When fission occurs, the disintegrated products have
less inert mass than the reactants. This famous mass defect is allegedly convertible into energy in
accordance with the equation: Ereleased = ∆mc2, whereas the energy released is a part of the binding
energy EB of the uranium atom.
The energy released = ∑ (masses of reactants)c2 – ∑ (masses of products)c2
In a textbook [16] we find the following calculation:
Ereleased = c2 {(mU235 +mn) – (mCe140 + mZr94 + 2mn)} = 208.2 MeV
Now we calculate the binding energies of U-235, Ce-140 and Zr-94: For example U-235 has 92
protons and electrons, 143 neutrons. The sum of their masses is 236.95899. The mass of U-235 is
235.04393. We obtain from the mass defect the binding energy EB = 1784 MeV. For Ce-140 the
binding energy is 1173 MeV, for Zr-94: 815 MeV. So, the potential energy of U-235 is 1784 MeV.

                    subunits    U-235              Ce-140              Zr-94        Ce + Zr
                    mass      # mass         #       mass          #     mass      #  mass
   p+e              1.007825 92 92.7199     58       58.45385     40     40.313   98 98.76685
   n                1.008665 143 144.239095 82       82.71053     54     54.46791 136 137.17844
   ∑m                             236.958995         141.16438           94.7809        235.94529
   minert                         235.04393          139.90528           93.90614       233.81142
   ∆m                             1.915065           1.2591              0.87476        2.13387
   EB       [MeV]                 1783.87            1172.84             814.83         1987.68
When the U-235 atom breaks into smaller pieces, 208 MeV binding energy are released.
But, surprisingly, the disintegrated pieces have 1173 + 815 = 1988 MeV binding energy! The energy
balance is in disorder. An U-235 binding energy of 1784 MeV produces a binding energy of 1988
MeV for the fragments plus an energy release of 208 MeV! So in uranium fission energy excess or
energy creation of 412 MeV (1988 + 208 – 1784 = 412) violates the sacred energy conservation law.
Therefore the conversion of the mass defect into binding energy is a mistake.
It is a category mistake. ‘Inert mass’ is just a number. It is the proportionality factor for ‘ether’ drag.

     E=mc2 => Energy Balance Disorder Ce: 130321 MeV rest energy
                                                         Ce-140             neutron rest energy
                                                                         n: 940 MeV each
                                                         1174 MeV
               U-235     n                                   b.e                    208 MeV
              1784 MeV +                                                               heat
                                                                     n       released binding
                                                           Zr-94             energy
           U: 218942 MeV rest energy                       815MeV
                                                            b.e    Zr: 87473 MeV rest energy

A counter-argument might be that we must always calculate total energy for the energy balance;
therefore we must take into consideration also the so-called rest mass energy! According to current
theory we have two possibilities to do this:
(1) For the rest masses we take into account the number of nucleons and neutrons. For the reactants
we have 235 nucleons + n, from the table their total rest mass is 237.96766. For the results we have
the mass of the Ce + Zr nucleons (235.94529) plus the mass of 2n --> 237.96262. The mass of the
reactants is 0.00504 (= 4.7 MeV) greater than the mass of the results. So the energy balance remains
in disorder!
(2) We can compare the inert masses of U-235 (235.04393) + n with the inert masses of Ce-140 +
Zr-94 (233.81142) + 2n: --> 236.052625 versus 235.82875. So the results have less mass (0.223875)
and therefore a 208,5 MeV rest mass energy defect!.
 It would be an error to say that the energy balance is in order because the missing rest mass energy
of 208 MeV was converted into the 208 MeV heat energy of the process. This would be a ‘double-
entry’ bookkeeping.
The claim of current theory is that the 208 MeV heat are released due to a conversion of binding
energy into heat. Therefore the 208 MeV cannot be the result of a conversion of rest mass energy
into that heat energy!
Conclusion: the energy balance is in disorder both for binding energy and for rest mass energy!
It is remarkable that for U-235 the inert mass is greater than the mass number 235, whereas for Ce
and Zr the inert mass is less than the mass number, i. e. inert mass is not linearly increasing with
mass number A. Regarding the masses with respect to the mass number, two main trends are
remarkable: up to Bi- 214, the increase in inert mass is not a linear function of the increase in the
mass number. For example: C-12: 12.000; O-16: 15.994915; … Fe-56: 55.934939;
Bi-214: 213.99869866; Po-214: 213.99518595.
If mass times acceleration is conceived as resistance of an electronic medium then a shielding effect
may be responsible for this pattern.
But approximately with Bi-215: m = 215.00183234 a trend breaking is obvious: for heavier atoms
the inert mass is greater than the mass number.
In terms of the prevailing theory the mass defect becomes smaller and so does the binding energy.
A causal explanation for this trend breaking is not possible in terms of the current theory.
In terms of current theory it is well known that at neutron number N = 90 a change in the nuclear
shape occurs. The transition from more spherical or more compact configurations to more prolate or
‘dipolar’ configurations must lead to a change in the ‘inertial’ reaction phenomena if the resistance
is due to the electromagnetic reactive properties of a medium.

Derivation of E = mc2 impossible because inert mass and energy are conceptually
Consider a single electron being accelerated in a linear accelerator. You need energy to accelerate
the electron because against a resisting force work must be done. The movement of the electron
in an electromagnetic medium, formerly called the ether, causes the resisting force.
The electron’s inertia or laziness according to Descartes and Euler cannot explain that resistance!
The textbook definition of inert mass: it is the measure of an object’s resistance or reluctance to
change a motion is an ontological mistake.
So-called inertia is not the intrinsic resistance of the object to change a state of motion but the
resistance of a medium. The object experiences an exterior resistive force!
Experiments may show that the resistive force R ≈ d (mv)/dt, where
m ≈ m0/√1-v2/c2 = γ
Now the work E that must be done by the accelerating force F is equal to the force applied times the
distance moved: 1∫2 Rds. We obtain for the energy between the lower and the upper limit 1, 2:

–––––•–––––––––––––•––––> s                           • = e-
        1                      2
                                     E ∆s 1 – 2 ≈ m0 c2 (γ2 - γ 1) or E ∆s 1- 2 ≈ ∆mc2

No energy was converted into mass or vice versa. The energy necessary to translate the electron
from point 1 to point 2 is expressable by the difference of the respective velocity-dependent ‘inert’
masses at 1 and 2! With another formula for the resistive force you also get another formula for the
work E1 – 2 done!
The above-mentioned mass defect for atoms has nothing to do with this difference of masses at
different locations!
The atom or its sub-atomic constituents show one ‘inert’ mass in the mass spectrograph and not two!
Take for example the mass spectrograph of Bainbridge: Ions from a discharge tube enter a velocity
filter. By crossed electric (E) and magnetic (B) fields all ions are filtered out except those with
v0 = E/B. In the magnetic analyser ( BA) the ions are deflected according to the formula
m/q = r BBA/E… where q is the charge and r is the radius of the deflection. Because v0 is a low
speed the measured masses are roughly the so-called rest masses m0.

Therefore, the mass spectrometer measures for one and the same               Mass spectrograph
velocity the rest masses of the atomic ions or of the sub-atomic
particles, whereas in the above mentioned acceleration process one                     B
electron had at the locations 1 and 2 different velocity-dependent
‘relativistic’ masses m1 and m2!
                                                                                           E            BA

Confused axiomatic of mechanics mixed up with fallacious derivation of E = mc2
Some ‘proofs’ for E = mc2 claim that F = d(mv)/dt is the definition of force, this is an error. (In the
axiomatic of mechanics force is an undefined basic or fundamental concept.) d (mv)/dt is an ansatz
for the resistive force a medium exerts on the body due to the motion through the medium.
 F ∝ d (mv)/dt is not a definition of force, is it then a natural law? It is only a law-sketch because
we don’t know till now the structure and the states of that medium!
Regarding the ‘derivation’ of the energy of the rest mass E = m0 c2 you should pay attention to a
disastrous mathematical error: The above-calculated energy to accelerate the electron on the path s
from 1 to 2 was:
   E ∆s 1–2 ≈ m0 c2 (γ2 - γ 1) or E ∆s 1–2 ≈ ∆mc2
Again, the calculated ∆m 1–2 has nothing to do with the so-called mass defect ∆m, namely the
difference between the rest mass of the atomic ion and the sum of the rest masses of its constituents
when the sub-atomic particles rest masses are measured separately.
So, from a logical standpoint of view the application of
E ∆s 1–2 ≈ ∆mc2 for the conversion of the so-called mass defect into a binding energy is a simple non
sequitur (it does not follow logically from the premise).
Here, pay attention that the outcome
m0 c2 γ2 - m0 c2 γ 1 ≡ (final XY) – (initial XY) is a difference of two terms
which represent the values for the upper or final and lower or initial limits of the integral. It is a
question of mathematical logic that the terms (final XY) and (initial XY) have no physical
If the result of a definite integral (here it is an energy) is necessarily a difference of terms then this
difference is not a difference of energies but serves only to calculate the energy. Therefore this
difference of terms is not a difference of so-called kinetic energies at the locations 1 and 2 that
authors erroneously write as:
∆E = m0 c2 γ2 - m0 c2 γ 1 = E kin 2 - E kin 1
Conceptually, the particle cannot have a quality referred to as kinetic energy at the distinct locations
1 and 2 because the correct integration shows that the entire term {m0 c2 (γ2 - γ 1)} is the work done
by the accelerating force and not an energy stored inside of the particle. That would be a potential
energy. This conceptual confusion is common in textbooks.
So, authors erroneously claim that E = m0 c2 γ (v) is the kinetic energy of a body at the velocity v.
(In classical mechanics the claim is that mvi2/2 is the intrinsic kinetic energy of the body at point i,
whereas the work done between two points is m∆v2/2)
Next step in the conceptually confusing ‘derivation’ is the entirely arbitrary change from kinetic to
potential energy.
If the initial velocity is v = 0, then γ1 = 1 and it turns out that the alleged energy difference is
∆E = m0 c2 γ2 - m0 c2 γ 1 = m0 c2 γ2 - m0 c2 = E kin 2 - E kin 1
It is a matter of logic that if the first term of the difference is a kinetic energy, then the second also
must be a kinetic energy.
Not so for an expert of ScienceNet [35] who tries to answer the question
Where does E=mc2 come from?
The relativistic kinetic energy is
E kin = m0 c2 γ2 - m0 c2
The term m0 c2 is independent of the speed of the particle, so we say that it is the ‘rest energy’, i.e.
the energy a particle has even when it is not moving. The total energy of a particle is then:
E = E kin + E restmass
Where E kin is the kinetic energy and E restmass is the rest mass energy.
The rest mass term depends only on the mass of the particle and relates to the energy such that rest
mass energy E = m0 c2. This is the mass-energy relationship… from this equation we deduce that
mass must be a form of energy.
In this ‘deduction’, and in many similar in text books [36] a not existing kinetic energy for a
particle with speed v = 0 was transmuted into a intrinsic rest mass energy, e. g. a potential energy
stored in the particle.
This is hocus-pocus and not a scientific derivation! Obviously, rest mass energy or a potential
energy in the body exists but the derivation above is wrong.
We are taught by Reed [38] that according to the formula E = m0 c2 the rest mass energy of a US
(2.5 grams) is equal to about 2 million gallons of gasoline!
The annual US electricity consumption of 3240 billions kWh probably cannot be stored in 130 kg
water! Fantastic science fiction!
To the author, the confusing arguments with respect to the ‘immortal’ formula E = mc2 show a
horrible ignorance of logic and philosophy of science.
See Marinsek [14] for a more formal disproof of mass-energy conversion: If one accepts the premise
that moving charges radiate then E ≠ mc2 follows logically.
Because inert mass is a measure of the resistance of a medium exerted on the object due to motion
through the medium, inert mass is conceptually incommensurable with energy.
Therefore inert mass and energy cannot stand in an equation with the status of a natural law and all
alleged derivations must therefore be fallacious.
Einstein’s derivation of E = mc2 is fallacious
Ives [42] showed that Einstein’s derivation of E = mc2 is fallacious because he supposed what is to
prove, thus this is a classical petitio principii. Jammer in his Concepts of Mass [10] reviewed also
Einstein’s alleged proof and offered his own derivation of E = mc2.
Jammer derived that the kinetic energy
EK = mc2 – m0c2 when m = m0γ
From this derivation Jammer concluded the identity of mass and energy! Therefore mass and energy
are synonyms for the same physical substratum! The term m0c2 he interpreted as rest energy or
energy of constitution.
1. m ≈ m0γ because it is an empirical law-sketch (it works!) and not m = m0γ
2. To accelerate a particle from the location 1 to location 2 the work done (or kinetic energy) must
be EK ≈ c2 (m – m0)
The result is a difference due to the lower and upper limits of the energy integral. Jammer’s first
flaw is to assign to the term m0c2 the quality of energy or rest energy. So he made the erroneous
proposition that the kinetic energy is a difference of two kinetic energies, namely the difference
between the kinetic energy of a particle in motion and its kinetic (!) rest energy. This means that
kinetic energy is an innate or intrinsic property of the particle. This is not the case.
Kinetic energy is a relational concept. Only the whole expression {c2 (m – m0)} is kinetic energy,
not the parts for themselves! To equate ‘kinetic’ energy with rest mass energy is not possible.
To equate kinetic energy with atomic binding energy is also impossible. Moreover, that the so-called
mass defect times c2 is the atomic binding energy does not follow from the premises; it is a non

Did Cockcroft and Walton
demonstrate experimentally E = mc2? No!
E = mc2 violates conservation of energy in nuclear reactions
Go to
And listen to Albert Einstein explaining his famous formula:
It followed from the special theory of relativity that mass and energy are both but different
manifestations of the same thing…Furthermore the equation
 E = mc 2 …showed that very small amounts of mass may be converted into a very large amount of
energy and vice versa. The mass and energy were in fact equivalent, according to the formula
mentioned before. This was demonstrated by Cockcroft and Walton in 1932, experimentally.
Cockcroft’s Nobel lecture is now available online [].
Cockcroft and Walton made the first successful attempt to split the atom. But it becomes meanwhile
a myth that Cockcroft demonstrated experimentally the mass/energy convertibility according to
E = mc2.
Here is the author`s comment on Cockcroft’s Nobel lecture: With an ingenious new accelerator
capable of producing high energetic protons, Cockcroft and Walton bombarded lithium atoms with
these protons and split the lithium atoms into two alpha particles.
The nuclear reaction was:
H+ + Li(7) --> 2 He++(4) + 17.2 MeV released energy.
Cockcroft explicitly annotated that the α-particles were emitted in pairs. So, the proton bullets did
not really split the lithium atom but transmuted it to a new (ionised) atom that indeed decays
quickly. The results are 2 He++(4).
After mankind could rearrange the atomic structure of molecules in chemical reactions, since 1932
the goal of alchemy, namely to rearrange the atom itself in order to convert one element to another
seemed to be within reach.
In fact, Rutherford [33] showed earlier such a transmutation. He transmuted nitrogen by an α-
particle to oxygen:
N(14) + He++(4) --> O(17) + H+

Now let us consider Cockcroft’s ‘experimental’ proof of E = mc2! For him
it was obvious then that lithium was being disintegrated into two α-particles with a total energy
release of 17.2 million volts. This energy could be provided by a diminution of 0.0184 mass units.
 The mass balance at that time was 7Li: 7.0104 (Costa) +1H: 1.0072 = 8.0176
Minus 2 4He: 8.0022 = Mass decrease 0.0154
Then Cockcroft introduced the more accurate mass of Li to be 7.0130 into the calculation. This
changed the mass decrease to 0.0180 mass units, in very good agreement with the observed figure.
Meanwhile, with recently re-determined masses for Li: 0.016005 and He: 4.002604, the mass
decrease changed to 0.01811847. For a better understanding, I show the different outcomes for the
binding energies or mass defects in a table:

            Experiment              Cockcroft Cockcroft/recent mass Calculation for nucleons
      ∆m 0.018465 calculation 0.018            0.01811847              0.0180557
     MeV 17.2 experiment            16.767     16.877                  16.819
In the last column the sum of the masses of the lithium sub-particles (3p + 4n + 3e) was compared
with the mass of the entire lithium atom.
The mass defect per nucleon is
 ∆m = 0.04213/7 and for the 3 disintegrated Li nucleons ∆m = 3 x 0.04213/7 = 0.0180557. This
calculation is in accordance with the usual one for the determination of nuclear binding energies by
the famous mass defect.
Because 3 Li nucleons became disintegrated, the factor 3 was used to calculate the binding energy
(or released energy) and the corresponding mass defect.
All calculated energy values differ around 2% from the experimental outcome. So, mass-energy
conversion according to E = mc2 is not empirically confirmed.
But there are also systematic errors: A mass balance is impossible because inert mass is not an
additive property and a rationale for the mass/energy conversion is not mentioned. The mass of Li-7
is unknown! The Li mass mentioned above is the inert mass of the lithium ion because a mass
spectrograph is a device to measure the inert masses of charged particles only.
The conservation of mass/energy is wrong. There must be a conservation of quantitas materiae,
namely the number of the elemental building blocks in all reactions and transmutations. Below I
show that all elements are made up of hydrogen. What we measure as inert mass of an element is the
resistive force during a movement in an electronic medium. This resistive force is not additive; it
depends not only on the number of constituents but also on their configuration, which can be
Maybe for empiricists this line of subtle reasoning is not convincing. One might argue that the
formula E = mc2 is o. k., only the instruments are not perfect!
So I must turn my heavy guns on them: I will show again that E = mc2 violates the energy
conservation law. Above Cockcroft applied the well known recipe for the calculation of the energy
release: Energy release Q = ∑ (masses of reactants) c2 – ∑ (masses of products) c2
Considering the binding energies of both the reactants and the products we get for the following
 H+ +         Li(7)              -->    2 He++(4) + 17.2 MeV released energy.
So, 39.24 MeV binding energy of Li --> 2 x 27.3 Mev binding energy of helium + 17.2 MeV
released binding energy
1. No binding energy for H+ because it is an ultimate particle and does not undergo a disintegration.
2. Calculation of the binding energy according to the recipe: inert mass minus the sum of the masses
of the constituent p, n, e is the mass defect ∆m. ∆m x 931.49 = binding energy in MeV.
The energy balance is obviously in disorder! There is creation of binding energy! The conclusion
can only be that the formula for the calculation of the binding energy: EB = ∆m c2 is false.
Both nuclear transmutation and nuclear fission disprove the mass-energy conversion according to
the formula E = mc2.

   TO THE MASS DEFECT: EB ~ c2 ∆m?
The problem is resolved when the atom or its parts are moving in an electromagnetic medium. The
drag force for the whole atom may be smaller than for the sum of its constituents due to a tiny
shielding effect.
The binding forces of the atom may also compress the sub-atomic constituents to a smaller volume
and therefore reduce the resistive force of the electromagnetic medium during accelerated
movements or during movements at high velocity.
Therefore the carbon atom has a smaller ‘inert’ mass than the sum of its constituents. So, we can say
that this mass defect is proportional to the binding       energy: EB ∝ ∆m and we can find by
experiments that sometimes EB ∝ c ∆m. (The nature of the sub-atomic particles is an open

So, Einstein’s question in 1905 Does the inertia of a body depend on its energy content? becomes
plausible. But Einstein denied the existence of an ether and never proved E = mc2. If accelerated
electrons cause radiation and if the electron’s own potential energy is increasing during motion, then
it is not possible to deduce E = mc2 (see [14]).
Note very well what’s the difference between the two formulas EB ∝ c2 ∆m and EB = c2 ∆m. The
first formula is an empirical one, the second is the outcome of an erroneous derivation with the
claim that any mass and any mass defect is convertible into energy, especially that the so-called rest
mass is 100% convertible!
It’s obvious that a body at rest stores energy as potential energy like a compressed spring, but to
what amount? Again, that nuclear binding makes the mass of the atoms ‘lighter’ than the total mass
of the separated parts of the atom.
This is inconceivable in terms of classical inertial physics. There is no sufficient reason for this
explanation in the conceptual framework of inert masses in the vacuum.
Take for example a spring.               (a)                                    (b)

Case (a), the spring is not compressed; case (b), the spring is compressed. Accelerated in the
vacuum, the inert mass is for (a) and (b) the same. Binding force cannot affect inertial force or inert
Only if the atom is an electrodynamic elastic oscillator moving in an also electrodynamic medium,
the storage of potential energy by the atom is possible when the atom will be compressed by drag
forces. See [14].
Now, I found in the www a similar thought like my personal views. [27]
This author (Byers) argues for inertial mass shielding and against mass defect and mass/energy

According to the prevailing doctrine the neutron’s mass can be calculated as follows:
Take the measured masses of the free electron and the free proton. Then take the energy of the
β-decay of the neutron and transubstantiate the decay-energy Eβ according to the conversion
formula m = Eβ /c2 to the inert mass of decay energy.
Add masses of electron, proton and mass of decay!
Thus: mn = me + mp + Eβ /c2
As substantiated formerly inert masses cannot be added up like stuff. In the conceptual frame of
inertia and vacuum an inert mass of the decay energy is inconceivable, m ≠ Eβ /c 2! See above the
given example of inert mass for a compressed and for a not compressed spring.
The calculated inert mass of a proton is erroneous as a matter of principle; the magnitude may be
approximately accurate.
There are attempts to measure the gravitational mass of the neutron by free-fall experiments. Russell
Gilmartin at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory [40] gave an answer to the question what are
experiments confirming an existence of gravitational mass for „elementary“ particles? and listed
some references on that topic.
Inert masses are not conserved. Inert mass is just a number without a ‘dimension’
Conclusion: In nuclear or chemical reactions the number of atomic constituents must be conserved.
Creation out of the void or annihilation is impossible. This was meant with the conservation of
quantitas materiae or quantity of mass.
Inert mass should not be confused with mass as amount of stuff. Inert mass is a measure of the
resistance that a medium exerts on a moving particle or atom. This resistance depends on the
atomic structure and is not an additive property. Inert masses are not conserved.
We cannot convert an inert mass defect into energy according to E = mc2, this is ontologically
Below the author demonstrates that Prout in 1815 was right that all atoms are made up of
hydrogen. So, the unit of quantitas materiae may be hydrogen. Carbon has 12 hydrogen
constituents. During motion through the all-pervasive cosmic medium a force is exerted on the
carbon atom (exactly speaking it is C+). This force is for low velocities proportional to the
acceleration a.
By convenience we set the resistive force for carbon R = 12 a. Oxygen has 16 hydrogen
constituents. Now the resistive force is empirically not R = 16 a but R ≈ 15.999 a because
resistance is not additive due to a minute shielding effect. So we can write
R ≈ dEl-A A a,
where A means the amount of hydrogen constituents or mass number and dEl-A means drag
coefficient for the specific chemical element with mass number A.
Because the drag coefficient depends on the number of hydrogen atoms (A) and on the
configuration of these atoms, isomers have different drag coefficients.
 Take for instance C-14 and N-14 with their respective masses 14.003241988, 14.003074005. Both
atoms have 14 hydrogen constituents but their configuration and therefore their drag coefficient is
different: dC-14 ≠ dN-14
(Misnamed) inert mass or m = dEl-A A is just a number or a proportionality factor without a so-
called dimension. It depends mainly on the number of hydrogen constituents or mass number A
but differs slightly on the atomic configuration that is specified by the chemical element (El).
For carbon C-12 we set dC-12 ≡ 1. (Exactly speaking we can only measure the inert mass of the
carbon ion.)
Again: Inert mass m = dEl-A A is in reality a force coefficient when a field exerts a force F = ma
on the atom during motion.
From this it is comprehensible that inert mass is not an intrinsic or innate property of the atom,
something like the laziness of the atom. Inert mass is a relational concept.
Haisch/Rueda/Puthoff [9] explained the role of inert mass correctly:
The m in … F = ma is nothing more than a coupling constant between acceleration and an
external electromagnetic force…
To put it simply, the concept of mass may be neither fundamental nor necessary in physics…
Inert mass is only a name for a force coefficient or force proportionality factor. Obviously, inert
mass is a misnomer because there is no innate property of inertia in the body!
Undefined basic concepts: space, motion, time, force and quantitas materiae or number of
H-atoms (H-quanta). Inert mass cannot be an undefined basic concept.
Energy is defined: E ≡ 1∫2 Fds
F ∝ ma is a law-sketch for low velocities and not the definition of force.
Inert mass is the proportionality factor of a force-law and therefore a number without a dimension.
In classical (inertial) mechanics mass has the dimension m [M] because mass was erroneously set
as an undefined prime concept. Force was erroneously assumed to be a defined (derived) concept
according to F = ma.
Therefore the dimension of force in classical mechanics is F [ML/T2].
This epistemological error has troublesome consequences: The gravitational force for instance is
F = Γm1m2/r2. If the dimension of force is F [ML/T2], then you must assign to Γ the dimension:
Γ [L3/MT2]! But Γ should be just a number because it is a proportionality factor.)
Because for higher velocities F ∝ d(m(v) v)/dt and not F ∝ ma there is no conservation of
momentum. Maintenance of uniform motion in a resisting medium is impossible.
Kinetic energy is not an innate property (mv 2/2) of a particle moving with velocity v in the vacuum
but the work done to overpower the resistance of the all-pervasive electromagnetic medium:
W ≈ m ∆v2/2 if the resistance is R ∝ ma.

            v1                      v2 v3 = 0          Example: Force F accelerates a body from v1
                                                       to v2. The medium exerts a force R upon the
                                                       body. The work of F done = m∆v2/2.
       F          R                     <<     S       Regarding an inelastic impact (v3 = 0), we
                                                       obtain m v2 = ∫S dt for force S and mv22/2
                                                       for the energy of deceleration or impact.
Kinetic energy is a confusing misnomer. Acceleration energy or deceleration energy would be
better. But naming is not necessary.
It is conceptually not possible to derive E = mc2 because m = d El-A A is only a force coefficient and
energy is defined as E =∫F ds.
It is not possible to mix up concepts with a different ontological status.
An ontological conversion is not possible. For instance you cannot convert apples into bananas.

There is no natural law that the nucleus is made up of protons and neutrons according to the rules
of the Rutherford-Bohr model. Moreover, there are not such things as nuclei and extra-nuclear
electronic shells. Geiger’s and Marsden’s well-known scattering experiments are no crucial
experiments for the existence of a nucleus made up of protons and neutrons. For instance, nobody
has shown the nucleus of gold with its alleged 79 protons and 118 neutrons.
In [14] the author argued that the atom must be an oscillator. I hypothesized that chemical
elements are built up of hydrogen atoms. One of the greater building blocks may be helium, an
association made up of 4 H.
The so-called mass number is in reality the number of the hydrogen-‘bricks’ of the atom.
It is a conjecture of mine that the neutron is a hydrogen atom with a structural defect so that it must
decay. In the confinement of a greater elemental structure the neutron can exist, in spite of its
structural defect. But during nuclear fission there is a disintegration process and some H-atoms and
neutrons break away. The number of the building blocks (hydrogen and neutrons) is conserved.
The number of the defective hydrogen atoms (neutrons) is purely accidental like the number of
crystal defects. Some few of the disintegration products can also be stable H-atoms.
The so-called atomic number Z does neither determine the number of protons and neutrons in the
nuclei nor the number of electrons surrounding the nuclei.
The atomic number Z has no physical meaning.

Prout [30] suggested in 1815 that hydrogen is the prima materia or πρωτη υλη , namely that
hydrogen is the sole constituent of all atoms. The ratios of atomic weights of atoms and compounds
known in 1815 were expressable in whole numbers (or nearby).
This striking feature made it plausible to Prout to conclude that the atomic weights are integers
because each atomic weight is an exact multiple of the atomic weight of hydrogen.
Prout: Indeed, I have often observed the near approach to round numbers of many of the weights of
the atoms…
 The author would like to quote some round numbers of Prout: H =1, N =14, C = 6 (!). O =16, Na
=24 (not correct), Ag =108, I =124 (not correct) etc.
One round number became fatal for Prout: …the specific gravity of chlorine will be found 36 times
that of hydrogen.
Indeed, it was found that the atomic weight of chlorine was 35,45 – 35,5! At the time isotopes were
unknown and one counterexample brought this fine theory in troubles. Therefore, Stas [24], after
several attempts to save the theory, could say:
 I conclude then by saying: as long as we hold to experiment for determining these laws which
regulate matter, we must consider Prout’s law as pure illusion, and regard the indecomposable
bodies of our globe as distinct entities having no simple relation by weight to one another.
And Mendeleev [30]:
the compound character of the elements and…the existence of primordial matter … must be classed
amongst mere utopias…
There are other speculations of Prout, like: That all the elementary numbers, hydrogen considered
as 1, are divisible by 4, except carbon, azote, and barytium, and these are divisible by 2, appearing
therefore to indicate that they are modified by a higher number than that of unity or hydrogen. Is
the other number 16, or oxygen? And all substances compounded of these two elements?
The first ardent supporter of Prout was de Marignac. Marignac [13] himself deduced from his
experiments of 1843 the following numbers:
Ag = 107,924, N = 14.02, S = 16.029…
For chlorine Marignac found 35.456, but this was no reason for him to abandon the theory.
He wrote: It seems to me permissible to conclude, that if, after fresh improvements have been made
in the method of purification of the substances or in the experimental methods, some chemists at
future date take up the same series of experiments with still greater guarantees of accuracy…
I confess that I shall not be convinced of the accuracy of an atomic weight determination…
 unless this weight has been obtained by several absolutely independent methods, based on the
analysis of a number of compounds altogether distinct from one another…
Then Marignac cited as evidence for better experimental results
from the analysis of silver salts of organic acids, which gave me the figure 107.968 as the atomic
weight of silver.
…by different methods, I mean methods which depend on the analysis or synthesis of absolutely
distinct compounds…
(According to Prout, 108 is the mean of Ag 109 and Ag 107 if Ag 109 : Ag 107 = 50:50)

Aston in 1919 established that the isotopes are not restricted to radioactive atoms but he did
not have the insight that therewith Prout’s programme was fulfilled
The results of mass spectrograph measurements made it clear to Aston that neon, mercury and
chlorine are unquestionably “mixed”.
The mass spectra of chlorine appear to prove conclusively that this element consists of at least two
isotopes of atomic weights 35 and 38. Their elemental nature is confirmed by lines corresponding to
double charges at 17.5 and 18.5, and further supported by lines corresponding to two compounds
HCl at 36 and 37, and in the case of phosgene to two compounds COCl at 63 and 65…
Should this integer relation prove general, it should do much to elucidate the ultimate structure of
matter… (The Constitution of the Elements, Nature 104, 393 (1919) in [30])
Aston was near by the truth. Hear the tragic story of science: Aston… found some minor
discrepancies with the whole-number rule. Thus the atomic weight of hydrogen is given not as 1 but
1.008, of oxygen-16 as 15.9949…
Aston attempted to show why these values are so tantalisingly close to the integral values of Prout –
why the isotopes of oxygen are not simple 16 and 17 times as massive as the hydrogen atom. [39]
In reality, these isotopes are exactly 16 and 17 times as massive as the hydrogen atom, namely their
constituents are 16 H and 17 H, respectively.
The quantity of matter ratio is therefore 16 or 17, respectively. Inert mass measurements from the
mass spectrograph do not determine stuff ratios because they measure non-additive forces caused by
an accelerated motion in a medium.
I don’t know who was the first in applying the magic mass/energy conversion formula E = mc2.
Anyway, Aston
…argued that the missing mass is in fact, by the mass-energy equivalence of Einstein, not really
missing but present the binding energy of the nucleus. [39]
Stoichiometry: The ratios in which the reactants in chemical reaction combine to form the
products. For example two moles of hydrogen react with one mole of oxygen, giving two moles of
water. The stoichiometric equation summarizes this as 2H2 + O2 => 2H2O
In stoichiometric compounds, the elements are present in simple whole number ratios; for
example, the ratio is one to one in hydrogen chloride, HCl.[41]
(In nonstoichiometric compounds there is no integer ratio for the elements due to point crystal
defects, for example when extra or interstitial atoms of the same species as the lattice atoms are
between them. This is irrelevant to Prout’s thesis because the atoms themselves are not defective.)
In the tradition of chemistry, atomic inert masses had nothing to do with stoichiometry. Take for
example the famous case of chlorine. By different methods stoichiometry found out that the ratio
for chlorine is 35.5, H being 1. This number you can find in traditionalistic handbooks [15],
resulting from the relative chemical masses (not inert masses!) of some chlorine compounds.
Probably the majority of chemists are ‘heretic’ and use 35.45… for chlorine, a number that they
calculate as an average of the inert masses of 37Cl+ and 35Cl+. This is a flaw, the reason given above.
It is a striking feature that the inert masses of 37Cl+ and 35Cl+ (and of all other atoms) are nearby
integer values. According to Prout’s hypothesis 37Cl and 35Cl are different structures with 37 or 35
H-atoms as building blocks, respectively. If the 37Cl / 35Cl ratio is 1:3 the average is exactly 35.5,
the ratio that stoichiometry found out. [15]
Therefore, stoichiometry deals with the conservation of matter, or conservation of the H-quanta
and their ratios in compounds. (Relative abundance of isotopes is not constant, it depends on
location… The ratio 1:3 mentioned for the chlorine isotopes may be called the result of a natural
Stoichiometric constant proportions of quantities of matter and mass spectroscopy are a
confirmation of Prout’s hypothesis that all atoms are associations of H-atoms. We don’t know the
relative inert masses of the neutral atoms; therefore we don’t know the inert mass of hydrogen. But
we don’t need this knowledge! We want the relative amount of stuff of the atoms and compounds.
The quantity of matter of the atoms is identical with the number of the H-constituents of the atoms!
Therefore, the unit of matter (not the inert mass!) is H ≡ 1! The quantity of matter of C = 12 etc.
The recent Periodic Table is based on the physically impossible Rutherford-Bohr atomic model.
I propose a Proutian periodic table that shows the number of H-atoms of the elements.

In the present proceedings are the contributions of Glen C. Collins and Joseph Lucas on sub-
atomic particles and atomic structure. For further details see this proceedings and [26]. In [14] the
reader can find the author´s atomic model. The following are the problematic topics of the Lucas
atom and the Bergman/Lucas sub-atomic particles:
From stoichiometry and mass measurements we have multi-dimensional empirical evidence that
hydrogen is the building block of all atoms. So Cl-35 and Cl-37 are made up of 35 or 37 H-atoms,
respectively. HCl is a compound of Cl and one hydrogen atom. Also an instable H-atom may be a
molecule-constituent in a stable HCl, but it is more plausible that the single hydrogen in this
compound is stable itself. Lucas and Bergman claim that the monoatomic, single, stand-alone
atoms of hydrogen are instable and therefore do not exist in nature as gas. As a matter of fact,
hydrogen is found in diatomic form, commonly known as H2. But the reason for the diatomic form
of hydrogen existence is not the instability of monoatomic hydrogen. It is a strong attractive force
that combines most stable monoatomic H-atoms to H2!
For Bergman and Lucas the proton is an elementary ring particle. So in their model a monoatomic
hydrogen cannot be stable because it is not possible to combine the electron and the proton ring in
a stable way.
 H2 is found in two different set-ups: para- and ortho-hydrogen (see [14]). How are these set-ups
explainable in terms of the Lucas-Bergman atomic model? There is no empirical evidence that the
proton is an elementary particle. Hofstadter’s scattering experiments are not crucial for this claim.
One can also interprete this experimental result as due to a non-elementary proton.
In the Lucas atomic model the number of the sub-atomic particles (electrons, protons and
neutrons) is the same as in Rutherford-Bohr’s. I argued above that the atomic number Z is not the
key for an aufbau principle of the atom, namely for the number of its exterior electrons and the
number of its nuclear bound protons and neutrons.
The neutron was invented to fill a gap: The kernel of argon for instance has allegedly 18 protons
but the atomic weight is about 40. So 22 nuclear neutrons have to fill the gap. There is no
empirical evidence for the occurrence of exactly 22 neutrons in the nucleus!
During atomic fission daughter elements and neutrons are the fission products. Neutrons are not
stable and decay. So, why do they not decay at the same time? At the workshop Collins explained
this behaviour by a changing environment. This is a causal explanation but I propose a more
reasonable one:
If atoms are made up of H-atoms then in fission the fission products may include H-atoms. I
distinguish between stable H-atoms and H-atoms, which sustained some defects during fission so
that they decay. The speeds of these decays depend on the nature of defects and of changing
environment. Inside of an atom also a defective H-atom can exist because the stable H-atom
groups surround it and decay cannot occur. During fission it decays. So the half-life of the so-
called neutron is explainable: neutrons are in reality H-atoms, stable and unstable ones.
An open question is the nature of the H-atom. It should be an oscillator with many degrees of
freedom and therefore with many eigenfrequencies. Spectral lines are due to an interaction of this
oscillating atom with the surrounding electromagnetic medium (“ether”).
The author agrees that inert mass is a derived property due to a reaction force on a charged moving
I disagree that this force is only due to the own field of the particle. Only if there is something like
an electromagnetic ether, accompanying and advanced waves of this medium can produce a part
of the resisting force, the other part is due to the medium itself.
The author´s atomic model for hydrogen has 4 constituent elementary magnetic rings. If there are
empirical counter-indications the model is untenable. (Maybe modification makes the model
acceptable for a time.) But remember the fate Prout suffered: the odd atomic weight of chlorine
was incompatible with his theory, about hundred years later the discovery of the isotopes made
plain that chlorine is compatible.
 I              II               III              IV                V              VI                  VII      R
Period                                                                                                          O
         +16           +16              +48               +48               +48              +48                U
 –>       H            H                 H                 H                 H                H                  P
               Be 9          Mg 25            Ge 73             Sn 121            Tm 169           217          1a
               B 10          Mg 26            Ge 74             Sn 122            Er 170           218          1b
               B 11          Al 27            As 75             Sb 123            Yb 171           219          1c
               C 12          Si 28            Se 76             Sn 124            Yb 172           220          1d
               C 13          Si 29            Se 77             Te 125            Yb 173           221          1e
               N 14          Si 30            Se 78             Te 126            Yb/Lu174         Rn 222       1f
               N 15          P 31             Br 79             I 127             Lu 175           Fr 223       1g
               O 16          S 32             Se 80             Te 128            Yb 176           Ra 224       1h
H1             O 17          S 33             Br 81             Xe 129            Hf 177           225          2a
H2             O 18          S 34             Kr/Se 82          Te 130            Hf 178           Ra 226       2b
He 3           F 19          Cl 35            Kr 83             Xe131             Hf 179           Ac 227       2c
He 4           Ne 20         Ar 36            Kr 84             Xe 132            Hf 180           Ra 228       2d
               Ne 21         Cl 37            Rb 85             Cs 133            Ta 181            229         2e
Li 6           Ne 22         Ar 38            Kr/Sr 86          Xe 134            W 182             230         2f
Li 7           Na 23         K 39             Rb/Sr 87          Ba 135            Re/W 183         Pa 231       2g
               Mg 24         Ca/Ar 40         Sr 88             Ba 136            W 184            Th 232       2h
                             K 41             Y 89              Ba 137            Re 185            233         3a
       Legend                Ca 42            Zr 90             Ba 138            W 186            Pa 234       3b
  C 12 ...Carbon:            Ca 43            Zr 91             La 139            Re 187           235          3c
 12 hydrogen                 Ca 44            Zr/Mo 92          Ce 140            Os 188            236         3d
 (H-) constituents.          Sc 45            Nb 93             Pr 141            Os 189           Np 237       3e
 Period: +16H or +48H        Ti 46            NbMoZr94          Nd 142            Os 190           U/Pu238      3f
 = building blocks           Ti 47            Mo 95             Nd 143            Ir 191           239          3g
 B number.       Ti 48            Mo 96             Nd/Sm144          Os 192           Pu 240       3h
 Be 9...relative             Ti 49            Mo 97             Nd 145            Ir 193           241          4a
 abundance: 100.             Ti/Cr 50         Mo 98             Nd/Sm146          Pt 194           242          4b
 Ar 40 and Ca 40             V 51             Ru 99             Sm 147            Pt 195           Am 243       4c
                             Cr 52            Mo/Ru 100         Sm/Nd148          Pt 196           Cm 244       4d
 are isomers: 40 H-
 constituents each           Cr 53            Ru 101            Sm 149            Au 197           245          4e
                             Fe/Cr 54         Ru 102            Sm 150            Pt/Hg198         Cm 246       4f
 but different shape!
 Therefore Ar 40 and         Mn 55            Rh 103            Eu 151            Hg 199           Bk 247       4g
                             Fe 56            Pd/Ru104          Sm 152            Hg 200           248          4h
 Ca 40 have different
 ‘inert’ masses (drag        Fe 57            Pd 105            Eu 153            Hg 201           239          5a
 coefficients).              Ni 58            Pd 106            Sm 154            Hg 202           Cf 250       5b
                             Co 59            Ag 107            Gd 155            Tl 203            251         5c
 Not all isomers are
                             Ni 60            Pd 108            Gd 156            Pb 204           Cf 252       5d
                             Ni 61            Ag 109            Gd 157            Tl 205           253          5e
 Construction schedule       Ni 62            Pd/Cd 110         Gd 158            Pb 206           254          5f
 for noble gases:            Cu 63            Cd 111            Tb 159            Pb 207           255          5g
 Ne20 + 64H = Kr84;          Zn 64            Cd 112            Gd/Dy 160         Pb/Po208         256          5h
 Ne20 + 20H = Ar40.          Cu 65            Cd/In 113         Dy 161            Bi 209           Fm 257       6a
 (Ar36: only 0.34 rela-
                             ⇓                ⇓                 ⇓                  ⇓               ⇓           ⇓
    tive abundance)
                             Ge 72            Sn 120            Er 168            Bh 216                 264    6h
  1. Aspden, H., Discovery of Virtual Inertia, New Energy News, vol 2, no 10, Feb 1995,
      pp 1- 2, See also Hal Fox, The Aspden Effect, pp 2-3.
  2. Chadwick, J., Possible Existence of a Neutron, Nature, Feb. 1923
  3. Chadwick, J., The Existence of a Neutron, Proc. Roy. Soc., A, 136, p. 692
  4. Descartes, Princ. Philos., II, 37. 39. Heimann, Berlin 1870. Euler made inertia plain in his :
      Briefe an eine deutsche Prinzessin
  5. Geiger, H., The Scattering of the α-Particles, Proc. Roy. Soc.,vol A83, p. 492 (1910)
  6. Geiger/Marsden, The Laws of Deflection of α-Particles trough Large Angles,
       Philos.Mag. series 6, vol. 25, no 148 (1913)
  7. Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, Cide, ed. 79. Ed. 1998-99, Boca Raton,…
  8. Harré, R. The Philosophies of Science, Oxford… 1972.
      Good survey of epistemology and metaphysics.
  9. Rueda/Puthoff, Beyond E = mc2, The Sciences, vol. 34, no. 6, pp.26-31, 1994
  9a. Koester, L., Verification of the Equivalence of Gravitational and Inertial Mass for the
      Neutron, Phys. Rev. D, vol. 14, nr 4, 15 August 1976
  10. Jammer, Der Begiff der Masse in der Physik, Darmstadt 1964 (translation)
  11. Lakatos, I., Philosophical Papers, vol 1, The Methodology of Scientific Research
      Programmes, ed. Worall + Currie, Cambridge Univerity Press 1978
  12. Lakatos/Musgrave, ed., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge,
      Cambridge Univ. Press,1970 ff. ([11, 12]: Lakatos’ criticism of the Bohr model.)
  13. Marignac, J. de, Researches on the Mutual Relations of Atomic Weights by J. S. Stas, Bull.
      Acad, Roy. de Belgique, 2nd ser., vol. x, no. 8, also in Alemic Club Reprints #20, Prout´s
      Hypothesis, from Bibl. Universelle (Archives) 9, 1960
  14. Marinsek, J. Non-convertibility of Inertial Mass into Energy and Vice Versa. Conjectures
      Regarding an e+e–-Pair–Cluster Atom Model in Connection with an e+e–-Cosmic Lattice.
      Proceedgs 2nd Cologne Workshop “Physics as a Science” 2000,
      Journal of New energy, vol. 5, no. 3 (2001)
  15. Nylen/Wigren/Joppien, Einführung in die Stöchiometrie, 19. Auflage, Darmstadt 1996
  16. Paus, J. P., Physik… München/Wien 1995
  17. Prout, W., On the Relation between the Specific Gravities of Bodies in their Gaseous State
      and the Weights of their Atoms, Ann. Philosophy, 6, p. 321, 1815,
      Also in: Knight, D. M., ed., Classical Scientific Papers – Chemistry, 2. ser., 1970, N.Y.
  18. Prout, W., Correction of a Mistake in [17], Ann. Phil. 7, p 111, 1816
  19. Roboz, J., Introduction to Mass Spectrography, N. Y.… 1968
  20. Robson, J. M., Radioactive Decay of the Neutron, Phys. Rev., vol. 78, pp 311-312, 1950
  21. Rocke, A., Chemical Atomism in the Nineteenth Century: From Dalton to Cannizzaro,
  22. Rutherford, E., The Structure of the Atom, Phil. Mag., series 6, vol. 27, 1914, p.48
  23. Rutherford, E. Bakerian Lecture: Nuclear Structure of Atoms,
      Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 97, 374, 1920
  24. Stas, J. S., Researches on the Mutual Relations of Atomic Weights, Bull. Acad. Roy. de
      Belgique, [2] 10, 208 (1860, also in Alemic Club Reprints # Prout’s Hypothesis
25. Simhony, M., The Electron-Positron Lattice Model of Space, Jerusalem, 1990 (Physics
    Section 5, The Hebrew University). Simhony discovered by a rationale interpretation of
    some phenomena (inertia, Anderson effect,) the cosmic medium as a carrier of
    all electromagnetic processes.
26. Bergman, D., Common Sense Science, Foundations of Science: vol. 3, nr. 4, Nov, 2000:
    The Real Proton; vol. 4, nr. 1, Feb. 2001: Hydrogen – Element #1; vol. 4, nr. 2, May
    2001: Notions of a Neutron.
27. Byers St. V + M. D., 1995: Gravity Concepts – Gravity, Inertia and Radiation.˜sybers11/inertia/index
    Offers Chadwick’s papers etc
29. Dice,D.,
30. Giunta C., Here Prof. Giunta has placed the
    classic papers of: Aston, Avogadro, Cannizzaro, Dalton, Doebereiner, Gay-Lussac,
    Petit/Dulong, Marignac, Mendeleev, Newlands, Prout, Ramsay, Rutherford, Stas,…
32. e.g. /1922/Bohr-lecture; /1918/Planck-lecture;
    Cockcroft-lecture; …
33. Nuclear Reactions,
34. Simhony, M. Simhony’s website. Explanation of
    the electron/positron lattice as the medium for electromagnetic processes
35. ScienceNet:
36. E = mc2:
37. World Nuclear Association,
38. Reed, M. A., Mass-Energy Relationship: E = mc2,
39. Dictionary of Scientists, Oxford Univ. Press, xrefer, Aston,F. W.,
40. Gilmartin, R.,
41. Oxford Paperback Encyclopaedia 1998, Stoichiometry,
42. H. E. Ives, Derivation of the Mass-energy Relation, J. Optical Society of America, vol 42,
    pp 540-543 (1952)

To top