Re: The piezoelectric effect and other absurdities in modern physics

[Autymn D. C.]

For Sorin's spamlist: Project Virgle, Theoretical Chemistry, Science
Physics, Fisica sem medo, SETI@home, astronomiaaficionados,
PLANEX2007, Celestron Telescopes, linux astro, QCAS, Centro
Astronomico Caronte, astronomie100%, Cosmic Peepers, TMUastronomy,
optix, space and time, LifeScienceInformatics, LCROSS Observation,
Grupo de Astronomia - 100% brasileira, Distant Suns, ASTRONOMY101 -
Astronomy 101, Stellar Evolution: Interstellar Medium, University of
Toronto Astronomy & Space Exploration Society (UTASX),
Astronomycatalan, Modello del Sistema Solare, NZAstrochat, partiview,
sci.chem.moleculardynamics, Che 201, Rohan Chemical Engineering,
Bioinformatics, Pharmaceuticals, next_generation_grid, Sacred
Geometry, cecyt15practicas, Synthetic organic chemistry and chemical
biology

On Mar 23, 4:32 pm, sorin <sorincosof...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The piezoelectric effect and other absurdities in modern physics
>
> The array of absurdities in actual physics continues with a new one:
> the explanation of piezoelectric effect.
> A detailed discussion of how piezoelectric effect is incompatible with
> actual explanation and with quantum hypothesis:http://www.elkadot.com/physical-chemistry/Piezoelectric%20Effect.htm
>
> The dielectric problems and other absurdities are in working.

Sorin Cosofret is as retarded and ineducate as shit, and he and his
site belongs in the sewers.

>In actual orthodox explanation, it is not clear what does it mean a charge separation in a crystal, and where this charge is generated.<

It's perfectly clear, a displacement of charges.

>In any material (piezoelectric or not), electrons are bound on nucleus with strong electric forces. In order to remove an electron from an atom, it is necessary to give at a specific atom an energy greater then ionization energy. Considering a quartz crystal, which is simply a variety of silicon dioxide, in order to produce a charge separation it is necessary to give a ionization energy greater then 13,6 eV for a oxygen atom or greater then 8,15 eV for a silicon atom.<

(No, the IE is not complex, retard. There is no such 13,6 or 8,15
eV.) The IE is for the atomic or vapid state of the element; it's
much greater than the IE for the solid or liquid states, as the
molecular orbitals shield and buffer lone charges' potentials. Which
is why it's so much easier to rub charges off a film than a gas.
Moreover, IE is for removal of a charge on a lone atom toward
infinity, not toward another atom which relieves much of the
potential.

>An easy to follow math (entire demonstration in the book), will show that external pressure exerted on faces of quartz crystal does not produce the ionization of quartz material.
The actual physicists are not able to explain how is possible to
furnish a smaller energy like ionization energy to a quartz crystal,
and to obtain a charge separation. Maybe in the meantime, the
ionization process is produced as result of quantum tunneling effect?<

Dolt, they never said charge separation was ionization.

>Are the charges appearing only at the surface of compressed material or they appear in entire volume?<

The charges gather among the whole bulk of their cells. Do you even
know what a cell is?

>A second possibility regards generation of charges in the entire volume of piezoelectric material as in fig. 4. With such distribution, an electron generated somewhere inside piezoelectric material, with an energy greater then ionization energy, will leave its nucleus and …. will be soon attracted by another nucleus. There is an equal probability for electrons to arrive on a face of crystal; again no potential differential should appear on crystal surface.<

then -> than
As it has nothing to do with ionization, the charges do not leave the
slab at all; they squish in one way as the framework squishs to fill
in holes the new cellular dimensions leave behind.

>Of course, there is a possibility for generated electrons to groups and to travel to one of crystal surface, but in this case actual theoreticians should provide a mechanism able to produce an electron grouping in a region of piezoelectric material. For a common sense mind, it is completely absurd to believe that such charge distribution permit a grouping of positive charge into a spatial region and negative charge in another region.
In proposed theory, there is no reason for a charge separation
apparition on a crystal surface and in fact, in reality, there are no
such phenomena as result of a mechanical force action.<

Cretin, look at the kinds of molecules thas exhibit piezoelèctrism, or
elèctrostriction. They are a compound of two sizes, the greater size
crooked. The two submolecula are analoghic of a diahodèt (diode)
which imposes a natural elèctric slant (bias) on. one side. Work
against their main axis then shifts their partial charges.

>The case is not a singularity in actual physics… When two materials are rubbed one another, actual physics suppose a charge generation. The problem is … rubbing does not produce enough energy to remove an electron from a nucleus. But who cares? For actual physics it is important to have an explanation and not a coherent one.<

You mean for your fantasy.

>Another problem regards the charge acceleration and electromagnetic wave generation. As result of a mechanical force, in actual explanation some positive charges are supposed to be separated by negative charges. This separation means in fact charge acceleration (electrons or nuclei). In the same time a well known postulate of classical electrodynamics affirms that an accelerated charge emits electromagnetic waves. What kind of electromagnetic waves emit a piezoelectric material?
In microwave? In radio? In infrared, VIS or UV ?
Does the emitted photon is correlated with the applied force? With
other words a smaller mechanical force produce a microwave photon and
a greater force produce a VIS or UV photon?<

"Does.. is" is illiterate giibberish. The piezoelèctrèt emits waves
in any band, but far infrared mostly.

>if the quantum hypothesis is valid, the potential difference should appear only when the pressure acting on crystal overpasses a certain limit. Does this thing happen in reality? It is well known from the time of Curie’s experiments that generated potential is related to applied pressure, without a threshold pressure for generated potential. In the book, the experiments are repeated and described in details, and no threshold pressure for piezoelectric potential apparition was observed. Therefore, a ,,common mind” explanation of piezoelectric effect will ruled out either quantum hypothesis<

You never took a chemistry class I guess. Look up "molecular
orbital", "band theory", and "continuum radiation".

>The same discussion made for piezoelectric effect is valid for pyroelectricity. It is absurd to believe that a temperature of 200 C is able to produce ionization in a material.<

Why?

-Aut