Yes if you stick to the original post , you are right but if you go through the following posts you can see yourself that the " additional work " has been ignored while this is the key point
Finsrud's and Ventilator's device for example do not produce work

I also think that infinite motion mechanisms theoretically exist, such as, plausibly, electrons around a nucleus. In optimal environment conditions I may suppose Finsrud's device is one of these. But in practice I think I can safely say that it is impossible to create an infinite-motion machine. The only true infinite motion system is the universe in its entirety.

Needless to say, I'd love to have that ball machine in my room.

Of course I understood that you meant mercury but you said that the Bohr's atom can predict its energy levels
Sorry it is a nonsense
I guess you made a confusion witn the Hertz experiment




From university, at 14 years old my main interest was soccer



It does.
No it doesn't

Why did you not try to better support your opinion instead of making childish issues ?
Anyway

A mass of hydrogen , same as any other elements, can only absorbs or emit radiation having certains frequencies
The set of fequencies being known as the spectrum of the elemet
At the time it was also well known that :

E = h * f

whereas E is the energy of the photon of the radiation and f its frequency
According to Rutherford's experiment , electrons should orbit about the nucleus
Bohr put the above experimental evidences together
He said
Well there are some energy levels : e0 - e1 - e2 ...en which are stable despite classic electromagnetism
Electrons can jump only from one of these state to an other one, absorbing or emitting a photon whose energy is the difference between the final and the initial energy level
All the other energy levels are forbidden to the electron
Why ?
He did not provide any explanation

The explanation came from the Schrödinger's equation
The solutions of the equation for the atom of hydrogen prove that the energy levels associated with its spectrum are the only ones which allow a stable configuration

However Schrödinger thought that electrons were waves
If so, you can have an intuitive rappresentation of the stable configurations of the electrons

Further experiments and theoratical analysis refuted such interpretation in favour of a probabilistic interpretation

In conclusion
Electrons are particles in perpetual motion about the nucleus even though they dont follow the Newtonian laws

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model#Electron_energy_levels


Hey I study physics. That 14 years old story was a joke (did nobody get that?). What do you study?


Okay, see the above link. It took me like five seconds to find it. I really don't get where you get that claim from. The Bohr model gives you the frequencies. Via E=hf you get the energy levels. You even explained that yourself o.O. But I'll try again: no matter how Bohr came to the conclusion, he sais that angular momentum is quantized. From that or alternatively from requesting a continuous wave circle (with the electron's de Broglie wavelength) you get discrete orbits. The frequency of these orbits give you the energy levels via E=hf. So the explanation for the discrete energy levels in the Bohr model is the quantized angular momentum or, alternatively, the continuous wave about the nucleus (standing wave). Of course you can say that Bohr derived the quantized angular momentum by looking at the discrete energy levels since they were known before. But that doens't matter. The Bohr model requires the quantized angular momentum to describe the energy levels. Whether or not this explanation is true does not matter. Neither does it matter how Bohr developed his ideas. Nowadays, the Bohr model is derived from the quantum rule for angular momentum, and that's where the discrete energy levels come from.


Again, to summarize: I don't know what Bohr did. The Bohr model though gives the explanation. It sais that all other orbits give no standing wave and thus are forbidden.


In fact the Schrödinger equation is a postulate so it can hardly qualify as an explanation, if I follow your argumentation. For me, though, it gives an explanation (why does the Schrödinger equation give you an explanation while the Bohr model does not? Both are just theories...).


What do you mean with stable?
Ok, time to use the knowledge from the book I read when I was fourteen. JOKE
The time-independent SE is a differential equation. If you plug in the hamiltonian for a Coulomb potential, which is spherically symmetric in the case of a hydrogen-like atom (which is the only one you can solve analytically anyway), you can factorize the wave function into a radial and an angular part. The angular solutions for all spherically symmetric potentials are the sperical harmonics Y_lm, where l is just the angular momentum quantum number and m its z-component (or, alternatively, its magnetic quantum number). For the radial part you get laguerre-polynomials P_nl, where n is the energy quantum number. The energy of this state now can be measured with the hamiltonian and are just its eigenvalues.


Of course electrons are waves. This does not conflict with the probabilistic interpretation.


No. Nothing is moving. Hydrogen wave functions are completely stationary, there is absolutely no time dependence involved (see my derivation above, you use the time-independent SE).

Once again an interesting discussion =).

I took a degree in nuclear engineering



It is exactly what I say
Not only
The Bohr's model is more or less valid for the atom of hydrogen only and just a few others atoms ( including mercury)
It is not even compatible with the atom of helium

For this reason it must be understood as semi empirical model



You provided yourself the scientific explanation

Let's translate it into a plain spaghetti English

Generally speaking you can describe a physical model using a differential equation
However it does not mean that all the solutions of the equations must have a physical meaning
Having said that, let's write the Schrödinger's equation for the atom of hydrogen
The equation contains the parameter "E" for energy
If you assign to "E" an arbitrary value then the solutions of the equations do not have any physical meaning
Only for some discrete values of E ( the eigenvalues ) the solution of the equation make sense from a physical point of view
This set of E values comply with the the experimental values
In other words for Bohr the quantization of the energy levels is an input for Schrödinger it is an ouput
I suppose there is a difference



If you mean some stuff such as the collapse of the wave form well there is still a minority of scientists who believe in this theory ( The great Roger Penrose for example ) but it has been refuted by the vast majority of scientists
Electrons are supposed to be particles even though they dont behave same as the normal particle we are used to
Right or wrong this is the state of art of modern quantum physics



I agree, at least for us

i dont think a perpetuum mobile is possible

Just a few words more
The Schrödinger equation is a postulate ...up to a certain extent
The actual postulate is the duality particle / wave
Once you accept this postulate, the equation can be derived by merging the D'Alambert equation ( wave) and the Hamilton equation (particles) via Debroglie
The similarity between rays of light and material particles had already been noticed in the 18° century but nobody dared to draw the logical conclusion

Apart from that the Schrödinger equation can be applied also to the study of the atom of hydrogen but it is not, so to speak, "Hydrogen " dependent
On the contrary
The postulate

m*v * 2PI * r = nh

It has been proposed by Bohr "ad hoc " for the atom of hydrogen due to the fact that Bohr knew in advance the results to be achieved

For this reason the Schrödinger equation is a step forth in the study of the secret of atoms

As a side-note::

Speaking of Schrödinger always makes me think of being cruel to cats.
So this is almost on topic...
Take this Antigravity Machine...
Add a spindle between the cat and the toast...
Connect the spindle to a generator...

Perpetual energy?

Yes, I see your point. But, as I said earlier, we no longer take the energy levels as input for the Bohr model, although Bohr himself might have done that once. What we do say, though, is that angular momentum is quantized. With this prerequisite, discrete energy levels are as well an output from the Bohr model.


Of course electrons are particles. But they're waves, too, in every sense. In quantum field theory, which is the most successful theory so far for the whole matter, electrons are nothing but filled modes in momentum space.
I don't know exactly what you meant with Penrose, but I don't know a physicicst who sais that electrons cannot be described as waves.


Maybe I should stop looking for physical discussions around here. Seems to kill topics

Ok I agree , this is my last post on this topic



Maybe I am rusty, I studied this stuff may years ago, but honestly I dont think that you are right
Both the Bohr's and the Schrödinge's model make use of the duality particle / wave but there is a huge difference
The Bohr's model lacks the equation !
it can not be an exhaustive model, more inputs are needed
The Bohr's model is , relatively speaking, quite a rough one
You even need to introduce empirical parameters taken from the Balmer equation
You can imagine
Unless for Bohr's model you mean some further development which I am not aware of
The original one is not for sure what you have been talking about
It may have an hystorical interest, nothing more




In the past most of the scientists believed that electrons were really both particles and waves
Nowadays the associated "wave" must be understood just as a mathematical entity