Fusion Message Board

In this space, visitors are invited to post any comments, questions, or skeptical observations about Philo T. Farnsworth's contributions to the field of Nuclear Fusion research.

Subject: The electron - related minutia
Date: Jan 04, 3:46 pm
Poster: Richard Hull

On Jan 04, 3:46 pm, Richard Hull wrote:


For those few on this list who really look at the bigger picture of particles and their related physics, and for a breath of fresh air borne on the winds of common sense, you might check out


This is David Bergman's website of Comomn Sense Science. Bergman, a Physicist/mathematician has followed other fellow scientists back out into the hallways of science to discuss, out of earshot of their peers, just where a wrong turn got taken, and how far back. It is a sense of confusion more than a specific cause which is now leading more than a few scientificos to, if not openly question, then quietly study certain concepts which were just theory, that now have somehow seemingly became enthroned, sacred icons of an evermore closely guarded yet wildly expanding particle physics seen to be spiraling hopelessly out of control.

Bergman is no crackpot/propeller head. His stuff is solid, referenced and, oddly enough, sensible, comprehensible and is rooted in observational science. He is a bit more voiciferous as his model is becoming ever more refined. Many of the physicist types I have met who think deeply are familiar with his work.

Bergman's windmill to tilt at is the electron. Actualy he is doing just the opposite of tilting! He is attempting to build a good, solid, physical model of the electron which is based purely on experimentally observed characteristics, common sense physics, and not forcing the model to answer one single, for the most part, accepted theoretical concern. His model is non-radiative and stable!!

I have Bohm's old excellent reference on Quantum Theory. It is still in print and in its umpteenth edition, and to his credit, he constantly points out that almost all of the characteristics of the electron, as used in QT, are arbitraily assigned mathematical conveniences and are not to be taken as a physical model for the electron! Starting with Dirac's point model and moving on into spin, etc. Yet most of these are taken as given's by many in the field now. (mainly because most of the field is mathematical.)

Oddly enough, Bergman's model answers many, many observed characteristics including spectra, atomic orbital stabilities, etc. which QT (Quantum Theory) misses by the hundreds. His model is rebirth and refinwment of Parson's 1915 model. This embodies a rotating ring of charge. Bergman's model is now highly refined. His model even gives a physical electrodynamic explanation of inertia!!!! WHOOA! His model even derives physical constants as part of its consequences. It even validates a few theories and tosses some others away as untenable and or needless complications.

I have followed his work for some years and using his model, Lucas has presented a flawless physical model of electron orbitals which speaks to all concerns in the periodic table of elements, nautrally predicting all of the shells and populations. QT fails to predict many of the ones which the Lucas/Bergman scheme shows to be right on with observational facts.

Bergman publishes a free small journal published as needed and mailed to interested parties which, for me, is a delight to read.

Since fusion, particle physics, nature and we rely heavily on the electron, (which seems to be one of the only truly indivisible natural units of matter), the study of same would seem to more than repay the effort. If one studies "Phils" patents, one is quickly struck by his mastery over and the the bending to useful purposes of this small elementary unit of matter.

The electron may turn out to be the key to everything real and observable with any certainty.... the formative agent of the mysterious inertia associated with bulk matter, etc.

Richard Hull