Charge density independent variable

As mentioned earlier, the Gibbs energy of adsorption can be analyzed using one of two independent electrical variables potential or charge density. The problem was discussed by Parsons and others, but it was not unequivocally solved because both variables are interconnected. Recent studies of the phase transition occurring at charged interfaces, performed at a controlled potential, show that if the potential is... 

There is a cause-effect relationship between electric charge density and electric held, represented by Eq. (10). Since pe = 0, it should follow that E = 0. Such trivial solution, however, cannot possibly represent a photon. There is another alternative. Induction Eqs. (8) and (9) relate to E and B so that, if B were an independent variable, variations of magnetic held could, in principle, induce an electric held. However, magnetic held B is conventionally ascribed to moving charges [66]. Again, pe = 0 forbids B, and a fortiori E. It seems that there is some violation of causality an electromagnetic held represented by E and B (effect) without a source pe (cause). 

Thus, the GAI is now expressed as a differential equation with the electrode charge density and the chemical potential of the electrolyte as independent variables. 

Important differences also exist between plasmas and electrolyte solutions. In the latter, below the critical temperature (374°C for water), the density is not an independent variable at constant temperature, except when the system is pressurized, and even then the density can be varied only over a narrow range. Above the critical temperature, the density can be varied over a wide range by changing the volume, but, except for the work by Franck (18) and by Marshall (79), for example, on ionic conductivity, these systems are unexplored. This is particularly true for electrode and electrochemical kinetic studies. In the case of plasmas, the density may be varied under ordinary formation conditions over a wide range and, as shown in Figure 6-2, this also results in the unique feature that the temperatures of the electrons and the ions may be quite different. Another important difference between electrolytes and plasmas is the fact that free electrons exist in the latter but not in the former (an exception is liquid ammonia, in which solvated electrons can exist at appreciable concentrations). Thus, interfacial charge transfer between a conducting solid and a plasma is expected to be substantially different from that between an electrode and an electrolyte solution. The extent of these differences currently is unknown. 

It is seen that the polarization catastrophe is in fact an innocent artifact, because it is now easily detected and amended. In contrast, there are other artifacts appearing in the adsorption isotherms when is used as the independent electrical variable which are difficult to be identified. Note especially the artifact curve (2) in Figure 18, which does not exhibit any sign of phase transition. However, even these artifacts can be amended either by the use of the generalized ensemble A or the procedure suggested above. At any rate we observe once more that the electrode charge density when it is used as an independent electrical variable, is a difficult variable, which should be handled with much care. 

Surface complexation models of the solid-solution interface share at least six common assumptions (1) surfaces can be described as planes of constant electrical potential with a specific surface site density (2) equations can be written to describe reactions between solution species and the surface sites (3) the reactants and products in these equations are at local equilibrium and their relative concentrations can be described using mass law equations (4) variable charge at the mineral surface is a direct result of chemical reactions at the surface (5) the effect of surface charge on measured equilibrium constants can be calculated and (6) the intrinsic (i.e., charge and potential independent) equilibrium constants can then be extracted from experimental measurements (Dzombak and Morel, 1990 Koretsky, 2000). 

If a semiconductor element with negative differential conductance is operated in a reactive circuit, oscillatory instabilities may be induced by these reactive components, even if the relaxation time of the semiconductor is much smaller than that of the external circuit so that the semiconductor can be described by its stationary I U) characteristic and simply acts as a nonlinear resistor. Self-sustained semiconductor oscillations, where the semiconductor itself introduces an internal unstable temporal degree of freedom, must be distinguished from those circuit-induced oscillations. The self-sustained oscillations under time-independent external bias will be discussed in the following. Examples for internal degrees of freedom are the charge carrier density, or the electron temperature, or a junction capacitance within the device. Eq.(5.3) is then supplemented by a dynamic equation for this internal variable. It should be noted that the same class of models is also applicable to describe neural dynamics in the framework of the Hodgkin-Huxley equations [16]. 

---