Uploaded August 2025 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
Atomic Theory of Niels Bohr
Dr. DeBacco
Context and Development of Bohr’s Atomic Theory
Niels Bohr (1885–1962), developed his atomic model in 1913, during a period of rapid progress in understanding atomic structure and the emergence of quantum theory.
Rutherford’s Nuclear Model (1911): Rutherford proposed a dense, positively charged nucleus with electrons orbiting like planets.
However, classical physics predicted that orbiting electrons would emit radiation, lose energy, and spiral into the nucleus, making atoms unstable.
Thomson’s Electron (1897) and Millikan’s Charge (1913): Thomson’s discovery of the electron and Millikan’s precise measurement of its charge provided critical data about the electron’s role in atoms, which Bohr incorporated.
Atomic Spectra: Scientists observed that elements emit light at specific wavelengths (spectral lines) when heated, which neither Dalton’s, Thomson’s, nor Rutherford’s models could explain.
These lines suggested discrete energy states within atoms.
Quantum Theory: Max Planck’s 1900 quantum hypothesis (energy is emitted in discrete packets, or quanta) and Albert Einstein’s 1905 photoelectric effect (quantized light energy) inspired Bohr to apply quantum ideas to atomic structure.
Balmer and Rydberg Formulas: Mathematical descriptions of hydrogen’s spectral lines provided empirical data that Bohr sought to explain theoretically.
Bohr Atomic Theory of “Orbitals”
Quantized Electron Orbits: Electrons orbit the nucleus in fixed, circular paths (or “energy levels”) at specific distances, each associated with a discrete energy.
Unlike Rutherford’s model, electrons can only occupy these allowed orbits, preventing continuous energy loss.
Breakdown of Bohr Atomic Theory
Nuclear Structure Retained: Like Rutherford, Bohr proposed that atoms consist of a small, dense, positively charged nucleus (containing protons, and later neutrons per Chadwick) surrounded by orbiting electrons.
Quantum Transitions: Electrons can “jump” between orbits by absorbing or emitting a quantum of energy (a photon) equal to the energy difference between levels. This explained the discrete spectral lines observed in elements like hydrogen.
Breakdown of Bohr Atomic Theory
Angular Momentum Quantization: Bohr proposed the angular momentum of electrons orbiting around the nucleus is quantized. He further added that electrons move only in those orbits.
This rule determined the allowed orbits.
Hydrogen Atom Focus: Bohr’s model was most successful for hydrogen, accurately predicting its spectral lines using the Rydberg formula.
The model used Millikan’s electron charge and Thomson’s electron concept to calculate electron-nucleus interactions.
Modern Atomic Theory vs. Bohr:
Electron Behavior: Modern theory uses probabilistic orbitals
Not fixed orbits, to describe electrons, solving the limitations of Bohr’s classical orbits.
Nuclear Structure: The modern model incorporates protons and neutrons (from Rutherford and Chadwick), with nuclear forces explained by quantum chromodynamics
Which Bohr’s model didn’t address.
Spectral Accuracy: Modern quantum mechanics explains fine structure, multi-electron spectra, and relativistic effects
This is far beyond Bohr’s hydrogen-focused model.
Chemical Bonding: Modern theory uses orbital overlap and electron sharing to explain bonding
Building on Bohr’s idea that electrons determine chemical properties.
Quantum Framework: The modern model is fully quantum mechanical, replacing Bohr’s semi-classical approach with wave mechanics and probability.
Link to Lecture Slides: drive.google.com/file/d/1OAeop4rRKw55J3WUSArkL_OTLEwsm2t8/view?usp=drive_link
*Due to the description character limit the full work cited for "Atomic Theory of Niels Bohr" can be viewed at... docs.google.com/document/d/1skc0ctrRjS6Y9edJkfNblBv0U7LA9hsH/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=104237452697237972847&rtpof=true&sd=true
Atomic Theory of Niels Bohr
Dr. DeBacco
Context and Development of Bohr’s Atomic Theory
Niels Bohr (1885–1962), developed his atomic model in 1913, during a period of rapid progress in understanding atomic structure and the emergence of quantum theory.
Rutherford’s Nuclear Model (1911): Rutherford proposed a dense, positively charged nucleus with electrons orbiting like planets.
However, classical physics predicted that orbiting electrons would emit radiation, lose energy, and spiral into the nucleus, making atoms unstable.
Thomson’s Electron (1897) and Millikan’s Charge (1913): Thomson’s discovery of the electron and Millikan’s precise measurement of its charge provided critical data about the electron’s role in atoms, which Bohr incorporated.
Atomic Spectra: Scientists observed that elements emit light at specific wavelengths (spectral lines) when heated, which neither Dalton’s, Thomson’s, nor Rutherford’s models could explain.
These lines suggested discrete energy states within atoms.
Quantum Theory: Max Planck’s 1900 quantum hypothesis (energy is emitted in discrete packets, or quanta) and Albert Einstein’s 1905 photoelectric effect (quantized light energy) inspired Bohr to apply quantum ideas to atomic structure.
Balmer and Rydberg Formulas: Mathematical descriptions of hydrogen’s spectral lines provided empirical data that Bohr sought to explain theoretically.
Bohr Atomic Theory of “Orbitals”
Quantized Electron Orbits: Electrons orbit the nucleus in fixed, circular paths (or “energy levels”) at specific distances, each associated with a discrete energy.
Unlike Rutherford’s model, electrons can only occupy these allowed orbits, preventing continuous energy loss.
Breakdown of Bohr Atomic Theory
Nuclear Structure Retained: Like Rutherford, Bohr proposed that atoms consist of a small, dense, positively charged nucleus (containing protons, and later neutrons per Chadwick) surrounded by orbiting electrons.
Quantum Transitions: Electrons can “jump” between orbits by absorbing or emitting a quantum of energy (a photon) equal to the energy difference between levels. This explained the discrete spectral lines observed in elements like hydrogen.
Breakdown of Bohr Atomic Theory
Angular Momentum Quantization: Bohr proposed the angular momentum of electrons orbiting around the nucleus is quantized. He further added that electrons move only in those orbits.
This rule determined the allowed orbits.
Hydrogen Atom Focus: Bohr’s model was most successful for hydrogen, accurately predicting its spectral lines using the Rydberg formula.
The model used Millikan’s electron charge and Thomson’s electron concept to calculate electron-nucleus interactions.
Modern Atomic Theory vs. Bohr:
Electron Behavior: Modern theory uses probabilistic orbitals
Not fixed orbits, to describe electrons, solving the limitations of Bohr’s classical orbits.
Nuclear Structure: The modern model incorporates protons and neutrons (from Rutherford and Chadwick), with nuclear forces explained by quantum chromodynamics
Which Bohr’s model didn’t address.
Spectral Accuracy: Modern quantum mechanics explains fine structure, multi-electron spectra, and relativistic effects
This is far beyond Bohr’s hydrogen-focused model.
Chemical Bonding: Modern theory uses orbital overlap and electron sharing to explain bonding
Building on Bohr’s idea that electrons determine chemical properties.
Quantum Framework: The modern model is fully quantum mechanical, replacing Bohr’s semi-classical approach with wave mechanics and probability.
Link to Lecture Slides: drive.google.com/file/d/1OAeop4rRKw55J3WUSArkL_OTLEwsm2t8/view?usp=drive_link
*Due to the description character limit the full work cited for "Atomic Theory of Niels Bohr" can be viewed at... docs.google.com/document/d/1skc0ctrRjS6Y9edJkfNblBv0U7LA9hsH/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=104237452697237972847&rtpof=true&sd=true





![How Can You Prevent Hop Latent Viroid (HLVd) From Spreading?
How Can You Prevent Hop Latent Viroid HLVd From Spreading?
Professor DeBacco
Additional Video Sources:
Medicinal Genomics. (2023a, June 8). Understanding and Managing HOP latent viroid in cannabis - Zamir Punja, PhD [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xQTRWQuUCzY
Starts with Testing/Screening
Knowing what you have
How Can You Prevent HLVd from Spreading?
Strict and consistent tool sterilization
PPE for workers
Rigorous testing protocol
Repeat testing of Mother room
Plant Eradication
Removing plants that test positive and removing them, followed by continual testing can reduce the presence of HLVd in a growing operation.
Cleaning Tools and Surfaces
This should be done on a regular basis.
However the product you select as your “cleaner” may make the area look clean but many not have any impact on HLVd
Not Effective Methods
Alcohol
Alcohol + flame
Flaming tools
H2O2
Acetic Acid (Vinegar)
Ammonium cleaners (Ex. Lysol)
UV Light
UV-C exposure on leaves and roots for 5min. And viroid was still present
What Does Work… (On Tools and Surfaces)
Virkon S 2%
Household Bleach 10-20% for 30-60sec.
Common lab saying… 10% bleach for 10min.
Mix and use the same day.
Same Can Not Be Applied to Root (Plant) Tissue
Previous products and recommendations are for tools and surfaces and those effective in those situations are not effective at cleaning plant tissue.
UV-C Irradiation
The viroid is very stable in plant tissue.
This makes it very hard to “clean” plant material which is why it should be bagged and physically removed.
Sap is much more Difficult
The “best” method for sap containing viroids may be Nucleases
Link to Lecture Slides: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bKoKL-iZDk7VL11g46zDLL8cEOAnxuZe/view?usp=drive_link
*Due to the description character limit the full work cited for How Can You Prevent Hop Latent Viroid (HLVd) From Spreading? can be viewed at... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1va7Y3vADzL0X_HS82j2MRWTVNlHf_IFH/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=104237452697237972847&rtpof=true&sd=true How Can You Prevent Hop Latent Viroid (HLVd) From Spreading?](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ekSHtVF5eKo/mqdefault.jpg)




![Nitrogen Fertilizers Impact on CBD and THC Concentrations in Cannabis
Nitrogen Fertilizers Impact on CBD and THC Concentrations in Cannabis
Professor DeBacco
Research Article
Dilena, E., Close, D. C., Hunt, I., & Garland, S. M. (2023). Investigating how nitrogen nutrition and pruning impacts on CBD and THC concentration and plant biomass of Cannabis sativa. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 19533.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-46369-5
Total Biomass and Total Cannabinoid Concentrations
Total biomass and total cannabinoid concentrations in % DW (on the y-axis) versus measured N concentrations in % DW (on each x-axis).
Treatment group labels are indicated by different colors.
The shape of the points (circle or triangle) indicates whether or not the plant associated with the data point was on the sun edge.
For each regression n = 20.
Inverse Relationship of [N] to [Cannabinoid]
The increase in biomass as N concentration increased from 3 to 6 was approximately 100%
Note the y-axis scale
However, the corresponding decrease in cannabinoid concentrations was approximately 67%
This entails a net decline in yield in terms of grams as N concentration increases
Three Key Points
1. Biomass was strongly and positively related to N
2. Cannabinoid concentrations were strongly and negatively related to N
3. Plants on the sun-edge tended to have higher biomass levels and cannabinoid concentrations
High Nitrogen Levels
Higher nitrogen nutrition raised the concentration of N in both inflorescence and leaf plant matter.
For very high levels of N nutrition (500 mg/mL), inflorescence cannabinoid concentrations decreased significantly (with little change in biomass) and leaf biomass increased significantly.
With higher N supply stem diameter also increased.
The net effect of increasing nitrogen nutrition on the total yield of cannabinoids was negative because the increase in biomass (which was only significant in leaves) was not enough to offset the consequent decrease in cannabinoid concentrations.
Take Home Message…
Cannabinoid concentration, as well as cannabinoid yield per plant were decreased with the increase in N supply.
Target Nitrogen Levels
Very high concentrations of fertilizer are not advisable because of lower cannabinoid concentration and yield, and that the optimal N nutrition is likely to be between 60 and 210 mg/L.
0.008-0.028 ounces per gallon
Prunings Impact
Double stem pruning was applied as an additional treatment to investigate efficacy on biomass increase.
Pruning treatment did not increase cannabinoid concentrations or affect biomass when measured at the final harvest.
Study Also Evaluate Sun Edge Plants
Across all treatments, as an artefact of this trial, sun-edge plants that were more directly exposed to sunlight showed a trend towards more biomass and higher cannabinoid concentrations
According to the statistical model developed for this study.
Self-shading of plants can limit the production of cannabinoids, so it is important to consider plant density and light intensity/spectrum.
*However, these results can only be considered preliminary and does warrants further research.
Link to Lecture Slides: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lgV_46bDoXmPwXrAQAhfs7b04vcFISMU/view?usp=drive_link
*Due to the description character limit the full work cited for Nitrogen Fertilizers Impact on CBD and THC Concentrations in Cannabis can be viewed at... https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PAyFcsjILnKWvikPChNQmrt3hFAgH5Vh/edit?usp=drive_link&ouid=104237452697237972847&rtpof=true&sd=true Nitrogen Fertilizers Impact on CBD and THC Concentrations in Cannabis](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/gRAM9e2otLg/mqdefault.jpg)