studiot

Senior Members
  • Content count

    7573
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

studiot last won the day on December 11

studiot had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1211 Glorious Leader

1 Follower

About studiot

  • Rank
    Genius

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Somerset, England
  • Favorite Area of Science
    applications of physical sciences
  • Occupation
    Semi Retired Technical Consultant
  1. Fantasy beasts and where to find them.

    The thing is they don't have to be big and scary. I have been trying to teach leprechaun who does my washing up to write my posts for Scienceforums.
  2. Fantasy beasts and where to find them.

    Perhaps these responses are a bit harsh and some humility is in order. I have been frankly amazed (along with many others) at the fantastic creatures shown on Blue Planet II by David Attenborough. Remember more people have walked on the Moon than the very bottom of the Pacific Ocean.
  3. As I said, but you didn't acknowledge, when you start using words for the purpose for which they were intended, rational discussion can move forward. You have the germ of an idea which lies somewhere between the Thompson 1904 'plum pudding' model of the atom and the Bohr 1913 orbital model. Probably quite close to the Rutherford 1911 model. However, they all called Helium, Helium and Hydrogen, Hydrogen. That enabled discussion. There was a great deal of head scratching in those days to come up with these three models and the history is quite interesting and pertineent to your ideas.
  4. When you get to the moon, remember to bring me back a pound of green cheese.
  5. Yes the excellent Khan Academy video makes no unsupportable claims and is entirely within mainstream physics. And yes it make good use of the tried and tested Huygen's Principle to do this. I have reported Dalo's two fingers to my question so I will wait for the outcome before I answer your comment Geordie.
  6. In your post#2 you describe Al Khalilli's lecture, But you fail to observe what he hasn't told you about this presentation. Can you see what is missing from this screenshot?
  7. I am not going to waste any more time on your redefining the wheel as a cog. I will be happy to help when you are ready to use well established words conventionally.
  8. Capacitor experiments?

    I don't know if you are talking about the ill fated attempt to replace 'conventional current' with 'electron current' in electric threory. That was a really bad idea and lead to much confusion in the 1990s. The plain fact is that currents can be the flow of either positive or negative charges or both. It is difficult to say which is more common. The issue was resolved by choosing a convention many years ago, now called 'conventional current'. This was neither the right nor wrong way round, but it did allow the whole of electric theory to develop to what we have today. Whatever convention you choose you have to actually choose not one but two sign conventions and you cannot avoid the situation where some quantity seems 'the wrong way round'. Therefore there is no point changing current direction conventions and I strongly recommend you stick with conventional current. Thanks for the vote of confidence expressed about my posts.
  9. The only atom with two protons is called helium. Deuterium has one proton and one neutron. This is basic chemistry that I will leave you to look up as I bid you good night.
  10. Then it is not deuterium, it is helium. So let us model helium with two protons and consider your model of the passage of one of the electrons through the gap. Classically, as you say, the electron will exert a pulling together force on both protons. At some point when it is close enough this force will be greater than the mutual repulsive force of the two positive charges, depending upon the dimensions of the gap. This effect will be greatest when the electron is centered between the two protons. After this point the effect will diminish as the electrons passes the centre. So the passage of the electron will cause the protons to oscillate closer and further in position. Have I understood your model correctly?
  11. Note deuterium has only one electron. Here is my problem. Take the simplest atom, that of hydrogen with exactly one proton and one electron. You say that the electron passes through the nucleus, and the centre of the hydrogen nucleus is smack bang in the centre of its only proton. So the electron must pass clean through the proton.
  12. I don't follow this. You say the protons are pulled back. Why or what do you think pulls the proton(s)? Pulled back from where to where?
  13. A Major software screwup

    Many thanks to Butch for appearing in this timewarp photo. It clearly shows that the new software upgrade has made no inroads in fixing time paradoxes/anomalies in the forum presentation.
  14. Although my question was rhetorical and addressed to swansont, thank you for attempting an answer. I would be more than interested for you to expand on the mechanics of a positive proton hurling a negative electron away as well as electrons herding protons.
  15. Then why is this thread in Modern and Theoretical Physics, not Classical Physics, if we can't use all available to explain/describe something? How, for instance, do purely mechanical charged balls lead to chemical bonding? And why does a classical nucleus, with all that positive charge, not violently tear itself apart?