A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

An Alternative To The Nuclear Atom (part 2)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 29th 18, 05:31 AM posted to sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22
Default An Alternative To The Nuclear Atom (part 2)

An Alternative To The Nuclear Atom Part 2
Stored here for convenience:
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/balloon.html

This experiment is a re-run of a year 2013 experiment, where
I set up a water filled balloon to represent the proton of a
hydrogen atom while a soft foam pad resting on its surface
represented the electron. The foam pad was driven by a thin
connecting rod attached to a crank which gave a 3mm linear
motion at the balloon surface.

The frequency of oscillation is now measured in 1 second
segments using a DOS based timing program where the BIOS clock
is reset to zero at the start of each timing cycle. The count
is transferred from a computer screen to a mirror mounted above
the top surface of the balloon via an inspection camera so that
the video camera can capture all of the necessary elements.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/bal1.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/bal3.jpg
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/bal6.jpg

The balloon radius is such that the circular support base
contacts its surface at 45 degrees to the horizontal plane. The
intention is to minimize the sources of resonance.

This is a video clip of the experiment (6 minutes).
https://youtu.be/aaOstpg2iRw

In the original video the balloon shape around the points of
resonance appeared to vary, but this was only an illusion caused
by interference between the cycle rate of the balloon resonance
and the camera frame rate. The condition worsened when the video
was uploaded to YouTube and adjusted to a YouTube compatible
format. The effect has become really weird at some frequencies.
The maximum wave heights tell the story.

Comparing frequencies is the only option here because a proper
zero mark can be set. It makes little sense to compare
wavelengths when the zero mark represents infinite frequency.
Which is a far cry from the primary resonance. It's all
completely backwards.

The set of numbers from 1 to 10 listed with the balloon spectrum
image below are allocated to each point of balloon resonance,
indicated by a white dot. 1 being the lowest frequency. The pink
lines are potential beat frequency markers, which are spaced
according to; base frequency *4 *4 *4 etc.. The 4 multiplier is
the product of 2^2, being the required multiplier for three
dimensional resonance.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/h-spec1.jpg

In the image, numbers 1 and 5 are assumed to be linked through
the base frequency '1', which is the primary resonance in this
case. The FreeBasic program which generated the image extends the
pink lines across the page to compare any possible beat scenario.

For the next image the red dots indicate the frequencies relative
to the spectral lines of the hydrogen atom, however they may be
generated. The Lyman series is beyond the scope of the image at
this magnification. The short white lines are the beat frequency
check markers.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/h-spec2.jpg

At 1/3 magnification the Lyman series is included. This time the
base frequency for the beat check markers is set at dot number
10.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/h-spec3.jpg

Multiplying the base frequencies indicated by dots, 4,10,12, by
four gives exactly the same results as those generated by
Rydberg's formula for the dot numbers, 9,13,14, respectively,
within the scope of the math. Dots 1,6 also compare as beats (+-)
of each other, but the result is a little inaccurate according to
Rydberg.

Base frequency________________: Per Rydberg.
(1) 4.023702E+13 *4 = 1.609481e+14: 1.600336e+14 (dots 1,6)
(2) 1.143097E+14 *4 = 4.572388e+14: 4.572389e+14 (dots 4,9)
(3) 6.172724E+14 *4 = 2.46909e+15 : 2.46909e+15 (dots 10,13)
(4) 7.315821E+14 *4 = 2.926328e+15: 2.926328e+15 (dots 12,14)

The two results for base frequency (1) differ by 9.145e11 Hz,
so how could each possibly be considered to be a beat of the
other? But the difference is miniscule if it's compared in a
similar realm to the realm of the balloon.

This can be done by setting a time unit that's equal to 1e-13
seconds. The oscillation rate of (1); (4.023702e+13*1e-13
=4.023702~) times 4 = 16.094808 cycles per time unit, while
according to Rydberg it's 16.00336 cycles per time unit. The
real difference is 1.0057 to 1. Partial resonance would still
occur at both frequencies and the tiny error could very easily
be concealed.

It's doubtful that two resonant states would occur so close
together, so which one is closest to the truth?

---

An electron would not radiate energy while the positive charge in
the proton surface oscillates back and forth with it because the
local charge field isn't changing. The only time it does change
is when the proton body reaches a resonant state. The driving
force applied by the electron is then 180 degrees out of phase
with the proton surface oscillation, as is demonstrated in the
first few seconds of the video clip.

When the electron comes to rest on the proton event horizon, the
stored energy has been expelled. Or if an electron impacts on the
proton surface with a stopping time which aligns with the half
cycle time of one of the resonant states, an electron-proton
resonance will be set in motion. The electron stopping energy
will be stored in the resonance.

The atom described here is exactly as the Zero Origin Concept
predicts.
---

The FreeBasic compiled Qbasic program which generated the images
can be downloaded from
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/spectrl2.exe.
Norton will give it an immediate tick of approval if it's OK to
run. Otherwise, check that the file size is 150016 bytes before
using. Whatever the case, before Windows 10 deletes your
downloaded file you'll need to click 'Details'.
---

Part 1
http://members.optusnet.com.au/maxkeon/q1-q6htm.html

-----

Max Keon

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
An Alternative To The Nuclear Atom (part 1) [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 January 29th 18 01:33 AM
distribution of galaxies points to Atom Totality not Big Bang #176 ;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 November 6th 09 09:29 AM
tentative outline of birth to death of an atom, solar-system, galaxy,cosmos; #170; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 0 August 22nd 09 10:16 PM
conservation of angular momentum only in an atom totality structure#142; 3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 6 August 13th 09 04:00 PM
can solid-body rotation alone prove the Universe is an atom? #131;3rd ed; Atom Totality (Atom Universe) theory Archimedes Plutonium[_2_] Astronomy Misc 1 August 9th 09 05:57 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.