studiot

I thought that at first, but then I wondered if the circuit elements were more complicated as that is almost a standard symbol for a current source.

Yes you need to know the difference between power and energy. This is very important. As regards your quest for efficiency You are a practical chap so here is a short description of testing a small electrical machine, along with a sample calculation from actual measurements. There are many factors to consider when designing an armature. Have you heard of eddy currents? Materials play an important part so that magnetic saturation does not occur or the device will run out of steam prematurely. Do you know why the windings are buried in slots in the armature ? Here is a chart shown losses in a/c machines. This should provide a start and some food for thought.

Do you understand how and why a magentic field affects the flow of electrons? It is called the Lorenz force. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/magfor.html

Are the 5 amp and 7.5 amp shunts contant current sources or what?

I don't think the OP actually means 'mathematically multiply', I think he wants to improve the generation efficiency. However he is probably unaware that electrical generators are pretty damn efficient already 90% or better so any multiplication factor is going to be less than 1.2.

Yes but it is more usual to use torque and angular velocity when considering shaft work. Torque is (time) rate of change of angular velocity. just as Force is (time) rate of change of linear velocity.

Please be aware the the Navy diver tables have a significantly smaller margin of safety than civilian sport tables. You are correct in thinking that the decompression from 190 feet needs to be done in stages. The time of dive at the max depth is known as bottom time and one hour at this depth would be a huge bottom time. The decompression time is almost always longer than the bottom time. As a comparison, using PADI dive tables I can get only about 4 to 5 minute bottom time at on the wrecks at the bottom of Lyme Bay ( there is a WW1 submarine down there), at a depth of 40 metres (130 feet). This is using plain compressed air. This is also why divers going below 30 metres tend to use special gas mixtures. The decompression tables for these are quite different.

It takes more energy to run a heavy generator up to speed, but once it is running at speed there is only friction to overcome (mechanically) and the difference is insignificant. Furthermore the heavier armature has a better flywheel effect.

Your model involves a one proton-one electron system. As such the one electron must, by definition be unpaired. Any unpaired electron has a magnetic moment. So, by definition your system involves magnetism. I have already told you why, by definition, even one moving electron constitutes an electric current. PLEASE DO NOT PUT WORDS I DID NOT SAY INTO MY MOUTH

As before you don't know what you are talking about. Earnshaw's theorem does not depend upon Coulomb's Law. Coulomb's Law is a sufficent condition because it obeys Laplace's equation. But it is not a necessary condition because many other functions also obey Laplace's equation. So it is very big hearted of you to allow Earnshaw with all the benefit of 21st century knowledge. You have absolutely no idea what an electric current is. And you appear to be denying the observed magnetic effect of moving charge. Are you invoking God for this as well? You have explained nothing, either in principle or mathematically. Yet you have the affrontery to challenge professional spectroscopists to calculate spectra mathematically, and to mock the very real use our modern ability to observe and measure such spectra has brought to modern medicine and its ability in turn to combat plagues. Blame God for the plagues and praise modern medicine for curing them. Because you can't do it, here is a mathematical comparison of the formulae for the kinetic energy of an isolated particle confined to a rectangular box of dimensions a x b x c. Clasically the energy is given by [math]E = \frac{{M{v^2}}}{2}[/math] In Quantum Mechanics the energy is given by integer values of the parameter n which approach infinity in number. [math]E = \frac{{{h^2}}}{{8M}}\left[ {{{\left( {\frac{{n{}_x}}{a}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{n{}_y}}{b}} \right)}^2} + {{\left( {\frac{{n{}_z}}{c}} \right)}^2} + } \right][/math] Can you see why we normally choose the classical equation, which yields sensibly the same results? These formulae are given in mathmarkup language (MathML) or LaTex. There are tutorials on this site about this. You may need to refresh your page for the system to automatically translate the code into maths. As a matter of interest can you maths tell you if the classical energy obeys Laplace's equation?

By the way the planetary/satellite model of the atom is due to Rutherford, not Bohr. https://www.britannica.com/science/Rutherford-atomic-model Rutherford introduced his model as a result of experimental evidence, thus moving on from Thompson's earlier 'plum pudding' model. Bohr introduced a modification of great significance, following De Broglie. Sommerfield made what was probably the last major improvement to this semi classical model by introducing elliptical orbits. So yes, the atomic model we are discussing here is the Bohr model. And yes the Scientific method has been shown by this process to allow for the possibility of continual improvement. On the other hand you have not addressed my comments, whilst continuing to spout nonsense, so I am reporting this and asking for this thread to be closed. If you wish to discuss God, I'm out of here.

Of course it is not accidental both your analysis and the original Rutherford-Bohr analysis are empirical in that theory are adjusted to fit the same experimental observations. What I am telling you is that your analysis is well over 50 years old. Do you contend that we have learned nothing in the last 3/4 of a century? I remember in the 1960s this idea of attraction afar and repulsion at close range was put forward at basic physics level. But it is an overall effect, a combination of many things. You are incorrectly ascribing it to one cause. It is particularly because of this I have been trying, unsuccessfully, to get you to discuss the mechanism of your 'balance point'. You have got this fundamentally wrong because you have completely missed something out here. That is why your analysis does not work for any system more complicated than a one proton-one electron system. This thread has 100+ posts and all wasted because you have made a fundamental error right at the beginning. So where do the particles obtain this thermal energy to have a higher temperature? I see no mechanism available in your proposed system. Fine I await your comments.

I see that you are still not listening. Pity for you. I will try one last time to lay out the logic as to where you are right (yes in some places you are indeed right) and where you are just plain wrong. First of all, classical electrostatics forbids you to have a static system of electric charges, under coulomb forces alone. In particular Earnshaw's Theorem say OK so if we have a system of two or more charges, the charges must be moving. Period. In this case the proton is approximately 1800 times as massive as the elctron so we take the proton reference frame as the basis and refer the electron's motion to it. So the electron is moving relative to the proton. Now an electron in motion is the definition of an electric current. And an electric current has an associated magnetic field. So there is an associated magnetic field, hence the Biot Savart Law is applicable. Note by 'stationary' Wiki means steady. So you have said that the electron would crash into the proton under coulomb forces. Why? For the same reason the Earth does not crash into the Sun under classical gravitational forces. Because it is in motion. So gravitational attraction provides the centripetal force to accelerate the Earth's trajectory into the path of a closed curve. Similarly the coulombic attraction accelerates the electron's trajectory into the path of a closed curve. That is essentially Bohr's satellite theory, as you have called it. However the problem (acknowledged by Bohr and his contempories) is that an accelerating charge must interfere with its own magnetic field (Biot Savart or Lorentz) to generate electromagnetic waves. But the electron in an atom does not do that. An electron in a cathode ray definitely does emit EM radiation. There is no classical explanation for this. The why is where the Quantum Theory enters but I will not pursue that here and now, since this is a completely classical analysis (like yours). Now you have taken empirical measurements and calculated (with your proposal) the simple hydrogen first spectra, as Bohr did, and got pretty good agreement with observation, as Bohr did. Does this graph look familiar? It is the Lennard Jones Potential I mentioned earlier. And it is very similar to your proposal, although the formula is more complicated. This is also empirical. Finally I asked you to look at one more thing. The Madelung constan. This is a method of calculating the combined effect of all other ( than its associated proton) positive charges influencing the electron on the other side to provide what you call your point of balance - the value you admit you can't calculate for yourself. Now tell me again that these four pieces of Physics I recommended are not relevant.

Gas, gas and more gas. In the words of Mick Jagger It's a gas, gas , gas Or the popular TV program It's all gas and gaiters. What about solids? In particular ionic solids. Your explanation is in direct conflict with both observation and existing theory. That is why I asked you to a) Examine the forces acting on an electron accoring to your equation b) Review Madelung constants. You have refused to do either. I think the discussion subsequent to your reply to my definition of dipoles and dipole moments shows conclusively that you don't know what you are talking about. It is a pity that your obstinacy will not accept any helpful comments as that might let you improve your proposals to at least equal those of Lennard Jones, which I also asked you to look at. If you actually managed to achieve this your equation is much simpler than the LJ one so would be a definite improvement.

Your reply has nothing whatsoever to do with my question. Here is my reference for the definition you are clearly trying to avoid.

You said they are at rest. If they are moving along this sphere, they are accelerating, so why don't they radiate? Well caught swansont. John Ye. This is a clear violation the the definition of an electric dipole, even by your proposals. An electric dipole is a pair of coupled charges separted by a distance R. It is defined as the product of the charge and the distance. In what way does your gorund state H not comply with this definition?

When I asked how I was asking for your mechanism. All you have done is restate a claim that it does. Where does the electron get this 'thermal energy of vibration' ? Why and how does it radiate this ? You have provided neither references nor maths to support this allegation. There is no point continuing trying to help if I am having to put in ten times the effort you are doing. That is showing contempt for others (me).

So you wish to pursue your hypothesis without regard to the rest of Science? How?

Judging by the photos in your previous thread, you seem to be a very handy, practical sort of chap. Great but why don't you just ask questions about what you need to know? I am absolutely useless at welding, platering , playing the piano or guitar and I could never paint a picasso, or even soemthing worthy of a competent 10 year old. So I aks somweone else about these things. (Od course speling is my strngest suite. )

It is a really silly advert because I can't remember what it is actually advertising.

Note the rules of speculations towards the top left of the picture. Note also there are half a dozen helpful guides as well at the top of the list. I saw a TV series (Dr Watsons amazing cases if I remember rightly,) which included some truly amazing medical rehab work with vets as well as other frontier medical stuff. I thoroughly recommend it if you can get to see it.

I thought that was the troglodyte with the trident who comes to conquer the Earth on the TV advert,where he turns out to be only 8mm high and the camper van squashes his spaceship under its wheel.

Gosh and there's me still hoping the faries at the bottom of my garden will do my washing up while I'm asleep tonight. They said they would after all.

I expect the OP has camped out sometime in his Arizona desert and received a belt off a metal trailer doorhandle in the morning. I certainly did in Arabia. Static electricity is a subject in itself, at one time it was the only source of electricity so Strange is correct to suggest looking at older devices. The Winshurst Machine is was capable of providing a large store of charge in metal plates. https://www.google.co.uk/search?source=hp&ei=7_-GW7SQA4zGgAaulamwAg&q=wimshurst+machine&oq=wimshurst&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.2220.5182.0.7870.11.8.1.2.2.0.174.902.3j5.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.11.980...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.o1r2YbiFqaU

I was getting to that.