This is provides a summary of eight distinct "failed" models of the hydrogen atom which the preceded the Bohr model. http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/05/27/the-gallery-of-failed-atomic-models-1903-1913/
As I have argued recently, I think the key to explaining cold fusion phenomena depends on a "flawed" model of the atom. The advantage of a failed model is that it describes atomic arrangements which are _not stable_. Only unstable arrangements can produce the observed anomalies. The atomic model provided Quantum mechancis and the standard model is meant to be _stable_. It will never yield the observed anomalies, because it was only intended to produce and reproduce stable matter over time. However, there is more to life and to matter than the reproduction of an existing order. Here is a link by the same blogger on acceleration without radiation: http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/04/19/invisibility-physics-acceleration-without-radiation-part-i/ He concludes by saying: <<Ehrenfest’s prescription made plausible the possibility of a stable atom consisting of orbiting or accelerating electrons. Alas for his paper, by 1913 Bohr had proposed his model of the hydrogen atom which could explain the atom’s unusual emission properties. As time progressed, scientists came to realize that ‘loopholes’ in classical physics were inadequate to explain the observed behaviors on the atomic level, and that a new theory was needed to account for all the new and strange observations: quantum mechanics. Ehrenfest’s prescription seems to have been mostly forgotten in the quantum hubbub which ensued.>> While Ehrenfest's approach can explain a stable hydrogen atom, it is not clear from this if it can explain the spectrum of the hydrogen atom. Anyway, to reiterate we do not need atomic models which are consistently stable. harry On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:22 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: > The planet Saturn comes to mind! > The proton is the planet and the electrons are the rings. > Harry > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Harry Veeder <hveeder...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Dave, >> I did not know that. So, for example, a uniformly charged circular >> ring spinning like a wheel will not radiate? >> Will it radiate if it is rotating about its diameter? >> >> Harry >> >> On Sun, Mar 24, 2013 at 11:26 PM, David Roberson <dlrober...@aol.com> wrote: >>> Harry, it is certainly true that the current flows in a loop. The important >>> issue is that each tiny portion of the loop radiates a signal as it >>> accelerates, but that the integration of all of the individual signals >>> balance out and results in no net radiation. A circular loop of current >>> will thus demonstrate a near field which is the magnetic moment of the loop, >>> but does not generate a far field of radiation. The near field component of >>> the signal does not result in energy loss with time. >>> >>> The motion of a single point charge does result in a far field radiation >>> pattern since it accelerates along the circular path and does not have a >>> balancing mechanism. The trick is in the balance. >>> >>> For the above reasons there would be no energy loss as a result of the >>> current flow if it consisted of a continuous charge distribution orbiting a >>> nucleus. That is not true for a point charge following the same path. >>>
