靜電的疑惑(2)

又是由年幼到現在也想不通的科學問題，小學時自然科學教導我們閃電是由於空氣在受熱澎漲而急速上升時，因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子，累積在雲中，當遇到相反電荷的或當電動勢超過一定量就可以令不遠的物件產生相反的電場，因而放電，多餘電子重新來到欠缺電子的原子。只是我有兩個問題一直解決不了:

1. 因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子的水份已經不可以稱為水份子，化學性質應有所不同;

2. 因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子的水份子本身已有了靜電場，當然最直接的就是吸引空氣中帶相反電荷的離子而放電中和一番，何以非要累積在不帶電的雲不可?

3. 一雲如果是中和的被因為激烈的撞擊而失去或多得了電子的水份子吸附也算合理，但是隨箸依附的帶電水份子愈來愈多，則其他的帶電水份子要依附在這片雲所需的動能愈來愈高，它的動能來自哪裏?

4. 另外，隨箸依附在雲中的帶電水份子愈來愈多，靜電力的同性相斥作用力怎不會比靠氫鍵來接合的不帶電水份子的結合力更強，何以雲能夠累積如此多的帶電水份子而不被撕裂成一小片?

靜電的疑惑(1)

小學時人人都學過什麼叫摩擦生電，理論是當劇烈摩擦時，其中一方的原子的電子被撞離了軌道，於是形成了兩方都是電子和質子數量不相等，結果產生靜電。我一直以來不明白的是，如果真的是一方把另外一方的電子撞離軌道，除非它被空氣中的原子吸收，否則這粒脫軌電子最方便的去處就是另一方的表面，所以理論上應是一方的電子比質子數量多，而另一方就自然電子比質子數量小，由此推導出一方應是正極而另一方是負極，因而兩物件相互吸引。但是我的印象告訴我，似乎實驗出來的結果就是兩物件相互排斥，即兩方面都是同時電子比質子數量小或電子比質子數量多，這麼多餘的電子豈不是無中生有或者無端端消失了嗎?

所以﹐我提議用科學實驗去分辦兩個假說，就是到底兩物件劇烈摩擦生產/毀滅電子而產生靜電現象，還是兩物件劇烈摩擦時的電子被空氣原子吸收而產生靜電現象。我想到的方法是用吸塵機遲遲抽掉一玻璃箱之空氣，在不同的氣壓把兩物件用相同的力量摩擦，看看產生出來的靜電有沒有什麼不同﹐理論上，如果我的假說有根據﹐則隨箸真空的程度愈高﹐靜電量愈來愈少。

My Pipe Dream idea

I remember that water is attracted by electrostatic charge, and since there are many ways to maintain the electrostatic charge without cost much electrical energy, therefore it is theoretically possible to make an overunity water pump. Much like an electromagnet could hinged on wall for years without falling, magnetic attraction itself doesn’t take electrical energy from electrical energy, electrical resistance of the electromagnet does; the electrical energy to maintain electrostatic charges in the object has nothing to do with the electrostatic attraction force between water molecules.
To pump the water upward, we require that object carry the electrostatic charge always on a higher position than water level. (Which we have the options of a fixed position for the charge or that position is dynamically created. The former require greater amount of charges to supplies a higher amount of gravitational potential energy, therefore may have technical issues related to that. Later require lesser amount of charges but a mechanism to separate the water and charge, plus a mechanism to ‘keep the charge at the higher position’ than the water.) And after the water is drawn into desired position, there must a mechanism to discharged the charged object so water could be released to be use. As for the dynamically created charged object, action and reaction pair must be considered so that net rising of water level is physically possible. (i.e. we can NOT have a light metal plate supported by plastic material floating on top of water. Since the upward moving force of the water molecules would be balanced by downward reaction of the charged metal plate.) However, we could have a mechanism that float on top of water which dynamically changing an electrical circuit, which working with electricity flowing outside the pipe created the pull from the outside of the pipe. (i.e. It is the material in the pipe pull the water upward.)
Anyone has any idea how to construct this ‘Dream Pipe’?
Also notice that if we allow the water pumped to a high position, then release the water to operate a turbine, there are more electrical energy produced by the turbine than the electrical energy needed indirectly to pull the water upward. Thus we can use this innovation to potentially solve the energy crisis.

Commentary and my version of ‘How salt dissolve in water’

I am writing this as my own version of Euler’s ‘How salt dissolve in water’. Presumably, when its author is writing that article, he is describing it in the level of electrons since only the outlying electrons of atoms would repel each other. In my opinion, we can describe it in a more appropriate level: Atomic level. Moreover, that article consider only the thermal energy of the water molecules and salt, ignoring the electronic forces between the salt and water molecules. Therefore I attempted to offer a more comprehensive picture of the process by combing all forces.
Consider Salt itself is consisted of chloride ions and sodium ions packed together. As it is dropped into water, it is more likely that salt remove water molecules by displacement than electronic repulsion. As for the consideration of electronic forces, the repulsion and attraction of the same molecules of water by the ions is likely to resulted in molecules turning toward the salt, so the reaction on the ions is thus likely in the outward direction for the ions. Otherwise when the totality of electronic force acting on the molecules are repulsive rather than attractive, it also aid the dissolving process as water molecules would bounce back from the boundary (In case of a cup, it would bounce back from the glass; In case of ocean, it would bounce back from the shore.); thereby this time that water molecule is approaching the ions in the salt with increased kinetic energy. Thus, it speed up the next iteration of interactions between the ions and water molecules.
What are the effect of these interactions on the ions in the salt?
Undoubtedly, there are cases which the interaction resulted in the net repulsion between the water molecules and the ions. However, assume the water molecules are evenly distributed around the salt cube, the chance of ions repelled from the left side of the cube is identical with the chance of the ions repelled from the side of the cube. (If the forces are otherwise unbalanced, the net momentum gained by the cube would likely to erase this unbalance.) Since electrostatic force held the cube tightly, an effect on the left side is immediately felt on the right side of the opposite direction. Therefore the totality of the effect on the ions in the salt by the net repulsive interactions is very likely to neutralized. On the other hand, now, we consider the results of the net attractive interactions. Since there are more spaces outside the salt cube than inside, the pulling-outward effect on the left side of the salt cube is lesser likely to be ‘balanced’ by the pulling-outward effect of the right side of the salt cube. Thus the total effect of the net repulsive interactions between the water molecules and the ions, it is more likely to forcibly ‘expand’ the salt cubes. (which the thermal energy of the ions itself is most likely to aid the process as described by euler.) Combing the two net effect of interactions, the ions are thus stretched. As the distances between the ions increased, the electrostatic forces held them together become weaker. As the electrostatic force between the ions are weaker, the ions in the outermost layer of the salt cube thus has a higher chance of interacting with the water molecules, which resulted in more tearing effect on the salt cube(since the ions in the inner layer of the salt cube is insulated from the electrostatic interactions because the electrostatic force are decreased with distance squared, which it is furtherest from the water molecules.) Therefore, the outermost layer of the ions in the salt cube are gradually being tear away by the water molecules, exposing the next outermost layer of the ions in the salt cube to the electrostatic interaction between water molecules and ions. thereby the whole process happened again and again until the salt is completely dissolved in water.