Re: Re[2]: Re IONS/metals pedagogy

[Joseph Bellina <jbellina@saintmarys.edu>]

I'm not really comfortable with the model covertly presented in your 
answer, but I suspect we are saying the same thing.  I don't know what 
you mean by the bond between the surface and the excess charge, since in 
my mind, the excess charge is a real thing, but the surface is some sort 
of imagined plane, in the simplest case, in space.  I'm not even sure I 
want to talk about bond...I note you may not want to either...since we 
are really talking about an interaction between a charge and the induced 
redistributed charges in the metal.  Regarding the idea of shielding, it 
is to me a really suspect concept since the field at any point is space 
is the sum total of all the fields due to all the other changes in space, 
and shielding, as it is commonly used, is a short-hand way for saying 
that, but leads to the notion that the electric field cannot penetrate 
matter.
I hope I am not being to pedantic.

cheers

On Fri, 9 Oct 1998 Zell@act.org wrote:

>      It is possible that distortion of atomic orbitals by the additional 
>      electronic charge will reduce the shielding of nuclear charge by the 
>      bound electrons around atoms.  As the shielding decreases, the 
>      positive charge 'felt' by negative charges on the surface would 
>      increase.  Would reduced shielding contribute significantly to the 
>      'bond' between the surface and excess charge?
>      
>      Philip Zell
>      zell@act.org