Electric current, covalent bound and modern physics absurdities

[sorin]

Electric current, covalent bound and modern physics absurdities

A simple cut off experiment related to electric conductibility of
iodine is provided at the following link:
http://www.elkadot.com/physical-chemistry/Electric%20current%20and%20covale=
nt%20bound.htm

Can a common mind accept that a simple melting produce a self
ionization?
To date it seems that, the chain of absurdities in actual physics is
endless, but a new absurdity is presented: the electrical
conductibility of solid iodine.

A text related to piezoelectricity and pyroelectricity (how electric
charge appears at simple pressure or heating!!!) is in progress for
the next week.
I don=92t have enough time for answering to all received messages.
It is more important to me to present new experiments or to re-think
some old experiments instead of loosing time in some absurd
discussions with some ,,square minds=94 unable to connect two conductors
or to count up to four.
I had an unpleasant experience with naked scientist forum, and I avoid
entering into polemics. As Planck said long time ago: ,,An important
scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over
and converting its opponents; it rarely happens that Saul becomes
Paul. What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out and
that the growing generation is familiarized with the idea from the
beginning.=94
Our leaders keep with all strength of their chairs and I don=92t have
enough energy (money and time) to fight in this way against them. But
I will choose another way, more convenient for me. There is a global
recession, but a lot of money is spent in stupid and without meaning
researches all over the world. Of course we speak of amounts of
billions or more and not pocket money. If there is such availability
to waste money on stupid and absurd researches, when my theory will
be ,,discovered=94, the price for changing the basement of physics will
reflect this fact. I have tried for about 15 years (1995-2008) to
convince any physics journal with a impact factor greater then 1, to
publish articles form my theory; The result: completely negative. I
have tried to convince Physical Societies, Science Academies or other
professional associations; no positive feedback. When the time will
permit, a book with the history of this theory will be available.
If from physics elite the answer was completely negative, it seems
that in the mind of simple physicists, there is, still, a lot
of ,,common sense=94. In fact, I believe that most of physicists had
accepted the actual state of facts in physics because there were not
other alternatives. But, when an alternative theory is able to explain
in a simple and coherent manner all absurdities from actual orthodox
explanation, the end of the later is close.
For me, it is a pleasure to see more then 2000 new visitors on elkadot
site in the month of February. 65 % from these new visitors added me
as favorite site and this is again a good sign.
Thanks to all reader for their effort of reading my not all the time
correct English formulation.
Regards,
Sorin Cosofret

[Autymn D. C.]

loosing -> losing -> losan

Use h=C3=BDphens. You forgot sci.chem and sci.chem.electrochem.

>A simple electric circuit like in fig. 1 is formed. Some common materials =
are necessary: an micro ammeter, some conductors, batteries of 1,5 V and 9 =
V.<

I can't find cells with complex voltage. What alternate reality do
you come from?

>There are contradictions between the up cited texts. One admit a self ioni=
zation at melting (less then 200 C) according to
3I2 =E2=87=8C I3+ + I3-
The reaction was written, by a physicist unable to
understand a little bit chemistry. The entire process can be detailed
as follows:
I2 =E2=87=8C I+ + I-
I2 + I+=E2=87=8C I3+
I2 + I-=E2=87=8C I3-
In order to have positive and negative particle in a first
step a positive and negative iodine ions are formed. The energy
necessary for obtaining these charged particles is greater then
1000=C2=BAC.<

then -> than
admit -> admits (unless you use Latin)

Temperature is not energhy and energhy is not temperature. And
solvated ions are not the same as vapid ions. Above absolute zero,
there are always the former to carry charges, which is why watter's
conductivity is not nouht.

>From chemistry it is known that iodine bound break easily under light expo=
sure because radicals (not charged particle) are formed. I think it is case=
for actual theoreticians to learn what the differences between radicals an=
d ions are and what differences between broken a bound or atom ionization a=
re.<

bound -> bond
Radicals are byproducts beside ions; they weren't in the equations.

>Having in mind the difference between iodine and tellurium electro negativ=
ity, a covalent compound should be formed as result of their possible react=
ion. The formation of this kind of compound does not fit with the increase =
in electric conductivity. The formation of iodine anions or cations, and th=
eir contribution to electric conductibility is a completely absurd idea.
In absence of a chemical reaction, the formation of cations or anions
as result of a mix between two similar elements is simply stupidity.<

There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. Even in materials with
full shells, there is a excited subpopulation at a temperature.

>To date it seems that, the chain of absurdities in actual physics is endle=
ss, but a new absurdity will be presented: the electrical conductibility of=
solid iodine.
As was presented in experimental part, leaving the graphite electrode
into iodine, when I2 become solid, the solid iodine is able to leave
an electric current to pass through. According to actual theory it
should be necessary to have a movement of charged particle inside
iodine crystal in order to explain this comportment.<

No it's not, but your absurdities seem so. After melting, cohesion
and contact with el=C3=A8ctrodes is better; its conductivity then rose over
your meter's threshhold.

-Aut