Krafft Theory Of The Atomic Vortex

by Robert Cathey

In 1926 a small work appeared called “Spirazines”, which was an attempt by it’s author to explain the reproduction of life forms from a mechanistic rather than a “vitalistic” basis. The author was Carl Frederick Krafft, and his work anticipated and presaged many of the findings and directions of the next five generations of scientific research.

Krafft was a patent examiner who was, apparently, self taught. This might explain, in part, why he had such difficulty getting published or recognized in “official” circles. He writes in his 1931 work, “Can Science Explain Life”, a reworking of his earlier work:

“The Spirazine hypothesis was conceived in December, 1925. During the year 1926 every possible effort was made to obtain publication of it in the scientific magazines, but without success. In some cases the article was returned without any comments whatever, which may have been an expeditious but not a very honorable method of executing the duties which attach themselves to the office of editorship…. In still other cases it was returned with certain evasive excuses, as for example it was “too technical”, although the real reason was probably that the author was not sufficiently noted.”

In his entire career of innovating explanatory theory in biology, chemistry and physics, Krafft was noted only once: an abstract of his work on Spirazines was recorded in Chemical Abstracts, 22, 2584 (July 20, 1928).

Most of Krafft’s works ended up as donations to libraries where, at least, they could be found later by interested researchers in nearly pristine condition.

In that first reprint, Krafft presented for the first time a likely structure for the genetic material, essentially a double helix, which he dubbed a “reversely twisted spiral”, predating Watson and Crick by over 30 years. He also anticipated many modern concepts regarding entropy, information and system theory. As if that weren’t enough, he also outlined a new theory of the atom as composed of vortices which could be visualized, explaining positive and negative electricity and the reasons for the qualitative and quantitative differences between the proton and the electron.

The concept of the atoms as being vortices…smoke-ring like structures in a super-physical fluid called the “ether of space”…was an idea which had been around for a long time. However the earlier hypothetical constructions had been carried out in a frictionless concept of the ether which Krafft held to be untenable. Krafft contended for the ether to support forms it must have something akin to friction, wherein motion would be pervasive, be cumulative, and resulted not in heat but in attraction and repulsion. This property he called “viscidity”.

Earlier models of the vortices in the ether were often as complex convolutions or linked as chains as pictured here. Krafft reasoned that a vortex must struggle to accumulate mass, and couldn’t exist at all in the “pretzel” or chain-link configurations due to this property of viscidity, for such rings would be repulsed by portions of themselves. For that reason, and due to centrifugal forces, single vortices would be nearly always perfectly circular, with a tendency to revert to that form when deformed. As double vortices in matched, face to face and congruent motion, they would more easily accumulate mass, and be permanent structures that were the likely sources for the two distinct electrical charges and atomic units known at that time.

Krafft later came to view single vortices as the likely candidates for the cosmic particles known as neutrinos. The illustration above shows this configuration. The polar current of the single vortice is called a carrier wave, though more accurately it is a jet-stream. The axial rotation is shown as being in a plane which is at right angles to the axis, and the arrow is meant to represent that the vortice can spin in either direction. The red arrows rolling over the edges represents what is called herein “co-axial” rotation.

In Krafft’s later works such as “The Mechanistic Autonomy of Nature”, “Ether and Matter” and “The Ether and its Vortices,” he outlined the three fundamental subatomic particles as being combined vortex rings: The electron is two rings taking ether in through the two polar openings and fluxing out the equator.

The proton is the reverse: In via the equator, out the poles:
Proton, gray scale, deformed:

And the neutron has three co-axially rotating rings:

Two neutrinos impacting face to face will result in an electron. The name for the attractive action of two such vortices is the Bernoulli effect. The electron illustration makes evident that currents approaching from all directions push the two vortices together because the deflected stream of ether at the equator acts as a shield to currents which would push them apart. A neat example of this in the macro-world is to take a playing card and in the center pierce it through with a straight pin. Place a thread spool over this pin. Now holding the card with a finger, blow through the spool while facing the floor. Remove your finger. The card does not fall or blow away. The deflected air currents have succeeded in shielding the card from the impacts of the air molecules directly opposing the same impacts on the opposite side of the card. The air impacting the opposite side is exerting a one sided force greater than the slight angular impacts of the stream leaving the spool.

A drawing of an electron captured by an immature proton:

This drawing is my rather clumsy attempt to render a 1/4 elevation view of the hydrogen atom in an allotropic form in which the relation between the proton (p+) and the electron (e-) is parallel. On the left is the electron, on the right the proton. The appearance may seem counter-intuitive, but the proton is more massive than the electron not due to size, but to speed of ether currents flowing through it. The drawings herein are meant only to indicate the relationships.

A bird’s-eye view of the same atom:

In this drawing the connecting flux from the electron is seen being absorbed by the proton and ejected out it’s pole towards the viewer. This polar jet appears as a small white dot in the proton ring. The dark circular areas around the two particles represents the repulsive fields due to the co-axial rotation of their filaments. These filaments or rings are sometimes called Faraday tubes.

A cross sectional diagram:

This diagram is the same basic atom showing the nature of the rotations mentioned. Where the filament-currents meet is called by Krafft the “equi-potential zone”, and the strength of these fields taper off gradually, but it is to be understood that the entire environment of the atom is in motion determined by the core structural motion. As can be seen the co-axial spins of both particles are contrary to the other, and would yield repulsion, keeping the electron from falling into the proton; while the axial spins can be congruent, resulting in attraction. The fact that the proton absorbs the ejected ether of the electron also results in attraction, since on the far side of the electron, the ether ejected must overcome the inertia of the ether there, and the ether would tend to accumulate, resulting in a repulsion towards the proton, i.e. “attraction”. The term “attraction” is simply a short hand term for ‘the results of repulsion’. It is crucial to know where the repulsions are stronger, for then we will know which way a body will move. There are repulsive components between the elements under consideration, as well as on their remote sides. When remote repulsive components outweigh intervening repulsive factors, there is a union.

It is clear there is a complex or manifold rotation taking place in either particle which would tend to make them gyrostatic, stabalizing the particles horizontally and vertically. In a gravitational field they would tend to exist with their poles facing the earth.

Due to precession, just as in a gyroscope, vertical deflective forces would result in greater axial spin, making the bond – in this form of parallel relation – stronger, while horizontal deflectors would increase the co-axial spin, making the bond weaker by pushing the particles apart. This is called the shear factor. In the co-axial form of hydrogen the enveloping return path of the flux from the electron shields the union junction of the atom. It is for this reason most woods split easier with the grain rather than across the grain. The molecules composing the long grain are formed primarily of coaxial bonds, in which the outside return paths of the ether acts as a shield to horizontal deflection vectors. Parallel cohesions are weak; axial cohesions are strong.

(Note: Referring back to the cross-sectional illustration, black diamonds or dots are shown at the junction of the two rings of each particle. These represent the so-called “zero-point” or “relatively stationary point” of a multi-body problem. As the ether attempts to fill this point, all the laws governing momentum and inertia are obeyed, and so some hold in Newtonian fashion that this may be considered the location of the mass of the whole particle.)

Coaxial hydrogen:

These images represent forms of hydrogen which are rare, since hydrogen is usually found as “double hydrogen”. And as Krafft was wont to use helium groups to describe the buildup of the periodic system, more than illustrative conclusions should not be drawn from these examples. But it should be abundantly clear how suggestive Krafft’s hypothesis is, and useful. By such means many discoveries are possible.

An attempt at a 3-D atom:

Some After-Thoughts

Physicist James Clerk Maxwell, (1831-1879) was the first to come close to proposing double-vortices acting in dynamic interaction when he discussed the possible behaviour of two vortices moving through space one behind the other.

He anticipated some of Krafft’s ether-characteristics as well: The first vortice opening would, he thought, enlarge due to the jet of the following vortice, at which point the following vortice would be sucked through, and this process would repeat continuously. It is apparent he intuited ether having a coordinating property which would not have existed in a non-viscid or frictionless ether.

Some 20th Century Usages of the Ether Concept

Perhaps one of the best explanations of the ether rationale is this one from Principles of Radio, (1942) by Keith Henney:

“The fact that one charge can exert a force…upon another implies that something connects the two. For instance, a rubber comb which has been rubbed on a coat sleeve will pick up bits of paper. Even though the comb does not actually touch it, the paper jumps to the comb while the two are still some distance apart. Evidently something exists in the space between the comb and the paper. That it is not air may be demonstrated by performing a similar experiment under a jar from which all the air has been pumped.

“This leads us to a conception of what is commonly known as the ether. It is simply the place or the substance, or whatever one may choose to call it, wherein the attraction or repulsion of electrical charges exists. The ether is a concept made necessary by our difficulty in conceiving how one body can exert an effect upon another except through some intervening medium.”

The Ether And Its Vortices by Carl F. Krafft (pdf)