Atomic Model Editor

.
I should add that as the atom tilts over, it begins taking vertical upward charge into it's horizontal intakes. As the atom tilts over, those neat intakes need to be resolved into the vertical and it's orthogonal, components.

Like you, I believe, I'm not satisfied I understand how the atom orients itself to begin with. Here's my stab at answering that.

I believe our free atoms are perfect little spinwheels. Any significant charge will set them spinning. They may be slowly changing their axial directions. When their spin axii are aligned to the charge source, they spin with maximum balance and gyroscopic stability.

This spin easily nods to the sun. A strong local charge may flip the atom's axis sideways, at which time the earth will provide charge into the horizontal intakes.

An app showing this would be nice.
.

Hmmm. Interesting. I didn't really want to go that way, and I'm not sure it is completely correct. My assumption is that the Earth's charge field, being the dominant field this close to the Earth, channels the direct charge input just like the Sun does for the planet's charge coming back in. This gives us a mostly downward vector. Either way, the atoms will align to the Earth's field but their charge intake may change as the day progresses, as you say. I wonder if there have been experiments to see if time of day affects chemical reactions? It would probably be subtle.

I have updated AV with a few small changes.

The protons in a proton stack have been moved apart a little bit.
The neutrons in a proton stack have been moved in to the center of that stack.
The charge emission of a proton has been spread out a bit. That is, it emits more into the Y dimension, given emission in the XZ plane. This was done to compensate for the extra space between the protons. The emission goes over the neutrons which looks like they are being held in there by that charge.
The through-charge density has been reduced.

These changes were made to bring AV in line with our latest discussions. I am becoming more convinced that the neutrons must be in the center of the stack but am unsure about their through-charge and how that affects the stack.

For discussion, here’s a composite view with three sources:
1) Current alpha - AV image  
2) Jared’s diagram: magenta circles and blue triangles
3) Series of half radius circles roughly centered on the AV protons and neutrons.

Nevyn, You mentioned above that all AV dimensions are based on the proton, and that you didn’t want to expand things vertically for esthetic reasons; I can appreciate the difficulties. We see one proton diameter between the two protons in the current AV alpha. Neutrons and protons have the same diameter making the neutrons about 0.1dia apart. Jared’s diagramed protons and neutrons (both magenta) included here show a two diameter separation.

I think the current AV neutrons are too close together, that they begin to cross the proton to proton through charge stream. I assume we know proton diameter, although we may not know the overall atomic radius. I included additional circles showing other higher possible proton/proton separations.

Also mentioned previously above, you’ve indicated a no top spin rule, which my pinwheels nodding to the sun must violate. It occurred to me if the neutrons were close to the proton to proton through charge current, or the 30deg proton emissions, there would be a tendency to set the neutron spinning about a horizontal axis, spinning horizontally. Would that be feasible?
.

Once I went and had a look in the code, I realised that I had added in a multiplication factor that allowed me to adjust the distance between protons in a stack. So the math is like this:

distance between protons = 2 * proton radius * separation factor

and the distance is measured between the centers of the protons, not their edges. That separation factor used to be 1.5 and is now 2, so we have 4r between the centers. I love it when past Nevyn solves problems for current Nevyn!

I put the neutrons as close together as I could, which I did have to adjust the code to get them that close. I was trying to get the neutrons through-charge some-what lined up with the protons through-charge. You are probably right and they are a bit too close now. Any further out and it doesn't look like the neutrons could take any of the protons through-charge. I'm still unsure how these all fit in there. Miles has contradictory statements about this (separated by a considerable amount of time). If the neutrons do become the path for the protons through-charge, as the Deuterium paper suggests, then they are probably right where they should be. However, if they take the protons emission charge, then they are too close.

With respect to aesthetics, I try to get a picture in my head before I implement something and sometimes I don't think it will work or look very good. When I am working alone I might dismiss ideas right there and then. That is where you guys come in and make me think more about it and I usually find that if I get in there and try it out, I can find some other way to compensate for the changes. As I said in that post, I shouldn't let aesthetics get in the way of physics, but there is a part of me that is an artist and he always wants it to look as good as it can.

I don't think the neutrons would spin that way. For one thing, that would mean their through-charge openings were spinning and we can't have that. They might spin about a vertical axis but that is sounding like a top level axial spin. Actually, either horizontal or vertical spins are an axial spin but at least with a vertical axis, there is a reason for it (the protons through-charge). I'll need a fair bit of convincing to agree to that though.

.
One neutron might feed, or share, the p-p through charge. I don't want to consider one of the two deuterium neutrons sharing the same p-p through charge. I don't think you can get a neutron from outside that stream to feed from the p-to-p through charge without that same through charge kicking the neutron away. I believe the neutrons receive sufficient ambient charge from both protons; there's no need for the neutrons to interfere with the p-p charge.

To avoid the p-p charge, and 30deg streams, I've centered the neutrons within the equilateral triangles. I'm sure you realize that the smaller additional circles amount to more expanded alphas. Have you considered a maximum separation in an alpha's protons yet?
.

My thought on proton separation is that they need to be as close as possible, while leaving enough room for those neutrons if they are in as close as I have currently modeled. I think they need to be close because I don't want to give the through-charge much time to fan out. I want it to stay focused and the wider that gap the less focused it becomes. Now, we are talking about minuscule distances here, and charge moves extremely fast, so I might be worrying about nothing.

Miles has used the neutrons as paths for the proton through-charge to explain charge boosting when one of those neutrons flips as a result of a more singular charge direction. We can't forget about that, because if we decide that the neutrons don't use the through-charge, then we need another mechanism for that charge boost.

Here's an idea about that. What if the neutrons, as a result of a singular direction for the atoms through-charge, start rotating, as I have them doing in AV, not spinning, just rotating around the central axis of the stack. That rotation causes them to sweep out charge trying to get into that central area of the stack. This leaves that central area rather charge deficient with respect to the ambient field (which it already was because of the protons emission, but it is now even more clear). That allows the atoms through-charge to flow more freely and we get a through-charge boost.

.
I like that idea, but you can forget your rule about no new top level axial spin; you need a new top spin and an orbit. I personally believe that the perfect balance of these objects cannot prevent top level axial spins.
.

.
I think I see how a non relativistic top level spin must throw off the B_Photons' tangential lightspeed velocity.

I still like the idea neutrons can work as a set to either augment a single strong current (vertically, parallel), or redirect strong cross currents around the p-p junction - horizontally oriented at a fixed direction (no spin). You didn't reply to that?
.

Did you mean that I can't forget about my no top level axial spin rule? Or that I should forget about it, as in you don't think it is a valid rule?

Either way, I don't need a top level axial spin, but you are right about the orbit. I can explain the orbit.

From the neutrons perspective, there is dense charge on the outside, from each proton, and that holds it in the center of the stack. On the inside, there is the through-charge stream of the protons and that not only pushes them outwards, it also imparts spin. That spin causes the neutrons to rotate around the center of the stack (or orbit if you want to call it that and it is much closer to an orbit than what electrons are doing).

While it does look like the protons emission holds the neutrons in there, it can't really do that by itself because the emission is moving outwards. So what if the charge emission of each proton collides at some distance from the protons and some of that charge gets directed back in towards the center which collides with the neutrons and holds them in place.

That gives us a push from the outside and a push plus spin from the inside which causes them to rotate about the center of the stack. Of course, the outside charge, now moving inwards, also has spin and that may work together with the through-charge spin to get those neutrons rotating.

And all of that is without bringing gravity into it, which would also tend to keep the neutrons in the center of the stack.

LongtimeAirman wrote:.
I think I see how a non relativistic top level spin must throw off the B_Photons' tangential lightspeed velocity.

I still like the idea neutrons can work as a set to either augment a single strong current (vertically, parallel), or redirect strong cross currents around the p-p junction - horizontally oriented at a fixed direction (no spin). You didn't reply to that?
.

I haven't ruled out the neutrons being held in the center by the p-p through-charge by passing it through themselves. I'm not sure about strong cross currents. I'm still trying to visualize that. In my most recent post, I kind of used the idea of cross currents by letting the proton emissions intersect and direct some of that charge back inwards, which would create a cross current. Let me know if that works with your idea.