A Unified Theory of Electrification in Natural Processes
Thomas Prevenslik
14 F/G, Wing Kwong Street, Peng Chau, Hong Kong
Electrification in natural processes is explained by photochemical reactions initiated by electromagnetic (EM)
radiation induced in nanoparticles (NPs) by quantum electrodynamics (QED). The NPs ubiquitous to natural processes
produce EM radiation depending on the thermal kT of atoms that at ambient temperature is emitted in the far infrared
(FIR). However, EM radiation at vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) levels is required to initiate photochemical reactions, and
therefore a mechanism is required to increase the frequency from the FIR to VUV levels - the mechanism called QED
induced EM radiation. How the NPs form depends on the specific natural process, but all processes are unified by the
VUV radiation induced in NPs by QED. For example, static electricity comprising positive and negative charges is
produced from VUV induced in NPs that form in the rubbing of dissimilar solids, atmospheric electricity is produced
by hydronium and hydroxyl ions from VUV induced in ice NPs as water vapor freezes at high altitudes, and flow
electricity is produced by cations and electrons from VUV induced in NPs that form as clusters in turbulence. Prior
applications of QED induced EM radiation were based on the EM confinement of FIR radiation in nanovoids (NVs) bubbles in liquids and gaps in solids. But difficulties with NVs in this regard led to the conclusion that NPs whether
liquid or solid are the most likely EM confinement of FIR radiation in natural processes. Compared to NVs, NPs
assure EM confinement of FIR radiation to allow frequency up-conversion to VUV levels. Electrification first occurs
at the instant the NPs form as the thermal kT energy of the atoms forming the NP is released in a burst of VUV
radiation. Steady VUV is then produced as the NP recovers the thermal kT energy lost in the burst from blackbody
(BB) radiation in the ambient surroundings. Either way, FIR radiation from the atoms within the NP is suppressed by
QED because the FIR frequency is lower than the EM confinement frequency of NPs. To conserve EM energy, QED
requires the kT energy loss corresponding to the suppressed IR radiation to be gained at the EM confinement
frequency of the NP – typically in the VUV. In this way, the NPs produce the VUV radiation that by photochemical
reaction with chemical species to produce charge in natural processes.
Keywords: Natural Processes, Static, Atmospheric, Flow, Electrification, QED, Nanoparticles.
I BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
Prior QED induced EM radiation as the source of charges in natural processes [1] found basis in
the EM confinement of the FIR radiation in NVs comprising bubbles in liquids and gaps in solids.
The purpose of this paper is to extend QED induced EM radiation to liquid or solid NPs and show
consistency with historical experiments.
II THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Electrification of natural processes by QED induced EM radiation in NPs is illustrated in Fig. 1.
BB radiation at FIR frequencies produces VUV radiation in NPs that by photochemical reaction
with chemical species in the surroundings produce charged products of ions and electrons.
Electron
VUV
NP
VUV
e-
BB
Radation
AnionCation+
NP
VUV
VUV
Molecule
Figure 1. Electrification in Natural Processes by QED induced EM radiation.
1
The NP under FIR radiation follows the theory [2] for quantum dots (QDs) irradiated by near
infrared (NIR) lasers. The NP is taken to be spherical of radius R having an EM confinement
frequency beyond the VUV as shown in Fig.2. By the Mie theory [3], a FIR photon is fully
absorbed providing the NP has a diameter (D = 2R) far less than the FIR wavelength , i.e., D <<
. Absent specific heat at VUV confinement frequencies, the EM energy of the absorbed FIR
photon cannot be conserved by an increase in NP temperature. Instead, the absorbed FIR photon
momentarily having a frequency lower than the EM confinement frequency of the NP is
suppressed by QED. Lacking specific heat under QED constraints, the NP may only conserve the
loss of suppressed FIR energy by gaining an equivalent amount at its EM confinement frequency.
Depending on the NP diameter, the EM confinement frequencies are in the VUV or higher, and
therefore the suppressed FIR photon is up-converted to at least VUV Planck energies by QED
induced EM radiation.
FIR
Photon
VUV
Emission
R
VUV
radiation
Suppressed
FIR
Radiation
Frequency
Up-conversion
Figure 2 QED Induced EM Radiation in NP
In contrast to NPs, micro particles (MPs) having diameters D greater than the FIR wavelength,
D >  only partially absorb the FIR radiation. In MPs, the absorption of the FIR photon follows
classical theory and is conserved by an increase in temperature. But this is not the case for NPs.
Fig. 1 shows the FIR photon at wavelength FIR absorbed by the NP according to the Mie theory.
However, an increase in NP temperature is precluded by QED. Instead, the FIR photon having a
wavelength FIR longer than the NP confinement diameter D is shown suppressed only to be
conserved by frequency up-conversion to VUV or higher levels. Similar to creating photons of
wavelength  in a box having walls separated by /2 upon supplying EM energy to the box, the NP
diameter D defines the half wavelength EM /2 of the photon created from the absorbed FIR
photon. The EM confinement wavelength is,
(1)
 EM  2n r D
where, the refractive index nr corrects for the lower speed of light c in liquids and solids.
Upon absorption, the FIR photon is confined within the geometry of the NP. Provided the index
of refraction of the NP is greater than the surroundings, the FIR photon is fully confined in the NP
by total internal reflection. For the NP to conserve the absorbed photon by an increase in
temperature, the specific heat must be finite. By the Einstein solid, the NP specific heat depends on
the frequency of each degree of freedom Ndof of the atoms as they respond at the EM confinement
frequency to the absorption of the FIR photon. The harmonic oscillator [4] by the Einstein-Hopf
relation at 300 K is shown in Fig. 3.
2
Avg. Planck Enegy, E avg , (eV)
\
0.1
kT
0.01
0.001
E avg
0.0001
hc


  hc  
exp kT   1
 
 
0.00001
1
10
100
1000
Wavelength,  , ( microns)
Figure 3 Harmonic Oscillators at T ~ 300K
In the inset, h and k are Planck’s and Boltzmann’s constants, and T is absolute temperature
For the NP as a collection of NA atoms having Ndof = 3, the total Planck energy U,
hc

(2)
U  3N A
  hc  
exp  kT   1
 
 
The NP specific heat C is,
U
C
(3)
T
In terms of the dimensionless specific heat C*,
2
Dimensionless Specific Heat C*
 hc 
 hc 

 exp 
C
kT 
 kT 
(4)
C* 

2
3N A k
  hc  
exp  kT   1
 
 
In the limit as the oscillator wavelength   0, C*  0. At 300 K, the specific heat C*
variation with  is illustrated in Fig. 4. NPs with D less than about 4 microns have vanishing
specific heats, and cannot conserve the absorbed FIR photon by an increase in temperature, and
instead, emit EM radiation to satisfy the conservation of EM energy principle.
1.2
1
0.8
Temp
Increase
EM
Emission
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
NP Diameter - D - microns
Figure 4. Dimensionless Specific Heat C*at 300 K
3
1000
For a number of NPs that are not identical, the collective response to FIR irradiation consists of
each NP emitting its own broadband EM spectrum as the FIR photon is absorbed. Both frequency
up and down conversion of FIR photon may occur during EM confinement. For NPs, FIR > EM
and the FIR photon undergoes frequency up-conversion; whereas for MPs having FIR< EM, the
FIR photon undergoes frequency down-conversion. In MPs, molecular bands in the wavelength
interval [FIR, EM] are excited. Since the EM broadband spectrum is continuous, all quantum
states of chemical species in the NP surroundings over the wavelength interval [EM, FIR] are
excited as depicted by the atomic lines in Fig. 5.
Spectra - Arb Units
10
Confinement
WavelengthEM
8
FIR Photon
w avelength P
6
Broadband
Spectrum
4
Atomic Lines
2
0
0
100
Wavelength -  - microns
.
Figure 5. NP Emission Spectrum Induced by FIR Photon confinement in NPs.
The Planck energy EP induced in the NP or MP by the QED confinement,
hc
hc

(5)
 EM 2n r D
The Planck energy EP in terms of the NP diameter D for nr = 1 is shown in Fig. 6. MPs with D >
4 microns increase in temperature. In contrast, NPs having D < 0.25 microns and EP > 2.5 eV
produces VIS and VUV photons.
EP 
Planck Energy - EP - eV
1000
NPs
100
MPs
10
1
E ~ 2.5 eV
0.1
0.01
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
10
100
NP Diameter-D- microns
Figure 6. Planck Energy EP v NP and MP Diameter D
4
A. Burst of VUV at Instant of NP Formation
No matter how the NPs form, the thermal kT energy of the atoms forming the NPs is given by the
Einstein-Hopf relation for the harmonic oscillator that at 300 K is shown in Fig. 3. Prior to NP
formation, the total thermal energy U of the NP is taken to be the full kT energy at wavelengths 
> 100 microns,
3
D
(6)
  N dof kT
6
where,  is the cubical atomic spacing of the NP at liquid or solid density. Since NPs have EM
confinement wavelengths  << 100 microns, the thermal energy U is suppressed, only to be
conserved by Np photons having Planck energy EP,
U
3
U   D  kT
Np 
  
N dof
Ep 6    Ep
(7)
The charge q produced in the burst of VUV of a single NP is,
3
q  N e e  N p Ye 
  D  kT
N dof Y
 
6    Ep
(8)
Planck Energy - Ep - eV.
1000
1.E+07
1.E+06
1.E+05
100
Ep
Ne / NP
1.E+04
1.E+03
10
1.E+02
1.E+01
1
1
10
100
1.E+00
1000
Number of Electrons - Ne / NP...
where, Ne is the number of electrons, Y is the yield / VUV photon, and e is electronic charge. For
Ep > 12 eV, silicone oil [5] is representative of most solids and liquids, the yield Y ~ 0.1. Taking
Ndof = 6, the Planck energy Ep and number Ne of electrons for Y = 0.1 is shown in Fig. 7. For Ep >
12 eV, the diameters D < 50 nm produce Ne < 400 electrons / NP. Hence, the burst of VUV
radiation produces a maximum charge of q ~ 0.064 fC / NP.
NP Diameter - D - nm
Figure 7 NP Formation - Electron Yield v NP Diameter
B. Steady VUV from BB Radiation
Steady VUV radiation may be produced from the NPs by the absorption and suppression of BB
radiation at FIR frequencies providing the NP does not change its EM confinement frequency by
agglomerating into larger NPs or the bulk material.
One may think the suppression of FIR radiation within the NP is a loss of thermal kT energy
that lowers the NP temperature to absolute zero. But this does not occur. For NPs, the temperature
remains at ambient, although the Planck energy Eavg of the harmonic oscillator vanishes, i.e., Fig. 3
shows at  < 6 microns, Eavg < 10-5 eV at ambient temperature.
5
Classically, the flux Q / A of BB radiation between the surroundings and NPs is given by the
Stefan-Boltzmann (S-B) equation,
dT
4
Q  ATBB
 T 4   MC
(9)
dt
where,  is the S-B constant; A is area, M is the mass, and C is the specific heat of the NP; and
TBB is the temperature of the BB surroundings.
However, the S-B assumes EM radiation emitted from a body is in equilibrium with its
temperature, but QED induced EM radiation is a non-equilibrium process that does not depend on
temperature. Thermal emission from the NP is therefore replaced by EM emission,
dN p
dN p
dT
(10)
dt
dt
dt
where, dNp/dt is the rate of QED photons produced in the NP having Planck energy Ep. Since the
specific heat C vanishes, EM emission conserves the absorbed BB radiation,
AT 4  E p
4
 ATBB
 Ep
 MC
dN p
dT
4
 0  EP
(11)
 ATBB
dt
dt
For a NP immersed in BB radiation, the area A = D2 giving the rate dNp/dt of QED photons
produced having Planck energy Ep,
4
dN p D 2 TBB
(12)

dt
EP
The QED induced current I from a single NP is,
MC
I
4
dN p
dN e
D 2 YeT BB
eY
e
dt
dt
Ep
(13)
QED Photon Energy - E - eV..
1000
1.E+01
1.E+00
100
Ep
1.E-01
I / NP
1.E-02
10
1.E-03
1
0.001
1.E-04
0.01
0.1
QED Current- - I / NP - f A. / NP..
For silicone oil, Fig. 8 shows NP diameters D < 30 nm producing I < 10 fA / NP.
1
NP Diameter - D - microns
Figure 8 QED Photon Energy and Current v NP Diameter
C. Summary
Electrification of natural processes by QED induced EM radiation in NPs from ambient BB
radiation may be estimated based on the diameter D and number NNP formed. A rule of thumb is,
Charge q in VUV Burst, q <0.064 fC / NP
Current I in steady VUV, I < 10 fA / NP.
Detailed analysis of NPs in the specific natural process is required for more accurate estimates.
6
III. HISTORICAL REVIEW AND DISCUSSION
A. Static Electricity
Historical Review. About 600 BC, the Greeks discovered static electricity. Amber rods rubbed
with cloth were found to attract feathers, but why this is so has remained a mystery for over 2000
years. Currently, it is generally thought [6] that the mechanism underlying static electricity is
mechanical, the electrons physically removed by the rubbing of material surfaces.
However, Einstein showed that EM and not mechanical energy is necessary to free an electron
from a material. Electrons are more tightly bound to atoms than atoms are bound to atoms. Hence,
a mechanical removal of electrons is unlikely to underlie static electricity because rubbing can only
produce particles comprised of clusters of atoms rather than free electrons, the electrons remaining
bound to the atoms as the particles separate from the materials in the gap between rubbed surfaces.
It is therefore difficult to reconcile the fact that static electricity has been observed since the early
Greeks unless the particles formed by rubbing somehow produce EM radiation.
On this hypothesis, static electricity was explained [7] by the photoelectric effect where
electrons are produced by irradiating the surfaces of the rubbed materials with VUV radiation
produced from a particle by QED induced EM radiation in the gap between the surfaces of the
rubbed materials. At the instant the particle forms it is now in the high EM confinement frequency
of the gap, and therefore the low frequency FIR radiation from all atoms in the particle is
suppressed by QED. To conserve the loss of thermal kT energy of atoms in the particles from the
suppression of FIR radiation, VUV radiation is produced in the gap. For gaps, the EM confinement
is defined by the dimension L between contact surfaces and has nothing to do with the size of the
particles, although the particle diameter D is required to be less than the gap L, D < L.
Discussion Gaps are poor QED cavities because EM confinement of FIR radiation only occurs in
the gap direction. In the lateral direction, there is no EM confinement, and therefore the FIR
photon squirts out giving a low EM confinement frequency that lacks the Planck energy to initiate
photochemical reactions. In contrast, collapsing bubbles in liquids provide full EM confinement of
FIR radiation, but bubbles do not occur in the solid state.
Indeed, attempts [8] to produce VIS photons by QED induced EM confinement of FIR radiation
in opening and closing gaps between flat solid surfaces at ultrasonic frequencies proved
disappointing. What this means is the static electricity produced in walking across a carpeted floor
[9] based on QED [7] is erroneous because VUV radiation cannot be induced from particles that
separate from floor materials and are trapped in the QED cavity formed by the gap between the
sole of the shoe on the person’s foot and the floor.
Because of the inherent inability of NV gaps between solid surfaces to provide EM
confinement, NPs were considered. In 2007, QED induced EM radiation was applied [10] that
showed VIS photons are produced in QDs under NIR laser irradiation. On this basis, the
production of electricity from NPs from BB radiation at FIR frequencies by QED induced EM
radiation is expected as presented in this paper. In NPs, FIR photons are fully confined in 3D to
enable frequency up-conversion to VUV levels, e.g., the static electricity produced as a person
walks across a floor is unequivocal because VUV radiation is induced from NPs at the instant they
separated from the floor by the motion of the person’s shoes. Moreover, until the NPs agglomerate
into larger MPs or attach to the person’s shoe or the floor material, the NPs produce static
electricity by the absorption of FIR radiation by the Mie theory only to be conserved the absorbed
FIR by the emission of VUV that produces more static electrification.
7
B. Steam Electrification
Historical Review In the 1840's, steam boilers were commonplace in England. At Seghill, steam
happened to leak through a cement seal around the safety valve on a boiler. When a workman
placed his hand in the steam while his other hand was on the lever of the valve, a spark discharge
occurred and the workman received an electrical shock. Armstrong [11] in a letter to Faraday
reported the phenomenon of steam electricity. Faraday determined the mine water used in the
boiler was acidic because of the sulfate deposit found on the inside surfaces of the boiler. But the
steam was found not charged at another boiler using acidic rainwater. Faraday at that time thought
the steam electricity was caused by the nature of the water from which the steam was produced.
In 1843, the notion of contact electrification by frictional charging was introduced to explain
steam electricity. Armstrong [12] was of the belief that the source of electricity takes place at the
point where the steam was subjected to friction but had great difficulty with the supposition that
friction was the exclusive cause of the electricity. Faraday [13] was satisfied that steam electricity
was not due to evaporation, or condensation, or a change of state based on the observation that the
charge of the steam could be changed by changing the material of the nozzle while the evaporation
remained the same. About this time, Faraday changed his belief that the source of steam electricity
was the nature of the water in favor of contact electrification - the contact electrification produced
as particles of liquid water carried by the steam rub against the solid walls of the nozzle.
Faraday confirmed Armstrong's findings [13] that steam alone produced no electricity, but
liquid water distilled from the boiler and added to the steam produced positive charged steam and a
negative charged boiler. Positive charged steam ceased by adding small amounts of alkali to the
distilled water. Replacing the distilled water with common London waters removed the steam
charge. Ammonia added to distilled water produced charged steam, the steam able to redden
turmeric paper, but the charge ceased after adding small amounts of sulfuric acid. Except for the
latter, pH measurements of the steam were not reported in the Faraday experiments.
Faraday sought to eliminate steam altogether by testing both dry and common air. Common air
having moisture condensation was found to produce positive charge similar to steam; whereas, dry
air failed to be electrified. Contrary to the contact electrification hypothesis, sulphur and silica
powders in the compressed air experiments rubbing against wood and metal nozzles were found
charged in opposition to their tribo-order. Faraday expressed disappointment in not being able to
explain why the tribo-order was not found in the compressed air experiments.
Discussion Faraday’s hypothesis of contact electrification is tenable for oils and powders that are
physically different from globules of water and suggest different frictional levels and attendant
tribo-electrical charging. But small amounts of acids and alkalis soluble in water could not be
expected to alter the contact potential from that of distilled water and produce different triboelectrical charging. Contrarily, acids and alkalis were found to indeed alter the steam
electrification, a finding supportive of Armstrong’s contention that friction was not the exclusive
cause of the steam electrification.
QED induced EM radiation in NPs is more consistent with Armstrong’s opinion that friction is
not the exclusive cause of steam electrification as thought by Faraday. Rubbing of liquid water
globules against the nozzle is likely to produce momentary NPs distinct from the flowing steam,
but rubbing alone based on the tribo-order of water globules and nozzle materials as thought by
Faraday is not sufficient. Unlike contact electrification that depends on the tribo-order of the water
globule and the specific nozzle material, rubbing only produces NPs that emit VUV radiation that
may excite acid and alkali chemicals in the steam away from the globule contacting the nozzle.
Photochemical reactions are complex and not likely to follow tribo-order.
Faraday’s disappointment with contact electrification not being able to explain the compressed
air experiments may likely due to the fact that QED induced EM radiation does not depend on the
tribo-order, but rather on the relative photoelectric yields of the NP surroundings (gases, liquids,
8
and solids) at VUV levels. Surroundings with higher yields lose more electrons than they gain and
charge positive, while those with lower yield gain more electrons than are lost and charge negative.
Faraday used sulfur and silica powders in compressed air rubbing against metal and wood nozzles.
Indeed, wood and steel are about the same location in the tribo-order, but the yield of steel is far
higher than that of wood, and therefore steel is expected to lose electrons and charge positive while
wood charges negative. Moreover, silica glass is higher in the tribo-order than sulfur and should
charge positive, but the yield of silica is far less than that of sulfur, and therefore silica charges
more negative than sulfur. Photoelectric yield may significantly differ from the tribo-order.
C. Spray Charging
Historical Review In 1950, Natanson [14] proposed the theory of ion fluctuations to explain spray
charging. The liquid was considered to be composed of a large number of positive and negative
charges. Breakup of the liquid into drops was assumed to produce drops having an excess of
positive or negative charge that form in the volume of the drop because of ion fluctuations. Small
concentrations of salts in distilled water were found to increase the symmetrical ionization and
decrease net charge; whereas, larger concentrations were required to reverse the sign of the net
charge. In the ion fluctuation theory, charge separation is statistical and does not require any causeeffect charge separation mechanism and therefore cannot explain how electrification occurs in the
spray charging of neutral ionic liquids.
In 1969, three large crude carriers were sunk or severely damaged by explosions that were
reported by Jones and Bond [15] to be caused from sparks in charged mist produced while their
tanks were being washed with jets of hot and cold liquid water or steam. Since Armstrong, steam
has been known to be electrified, but because of the explosions during ship washing, wet steam
was reaffirmed by Finke [16] as a source of highly charged mists. Hot and cold liquid water jets
also produce an electrified mist, but compared to wet steam do not pose a sparking hazard.
Discussion Finke’s conclusion that wet steam is the source of spray charging follows the work of
Faraday that showed water globules added to steam produced steam electricity, but pure steam did
not. But contact electrification alone was not the source of spray charging in Armstrong’s opinion.
By QED induced EM radiation, contact is necessary only to produce NPs that produce the VUV
necessary to dissociate the surrounding steam vapor into hydronium and hydroxyl ions.
With hot and cold water, NPs form in the turbulent slip-flow region at the nozzle walls. But for
the NP to provide EM confinement of FIR radiation, the refractive index in the NP should be
greater than that in the surroundings. A NP of liquid water in a steam vapor surroundings satisfies
this condition, but in turbulent flow at the nozzle this difference in refractive index is far less
pronounced, and therefore spray charging of hot and cold water produces less spray charging than
that with wet steam.
D. Waterfall Electricity
Historical Review In 1892, Lenard [17] proposed the double layer theory as the explanation of
waterfall electricity. The double layer is formed as the dipoles of water molecules orient on the
surface of bubbles with the negative end pointing outward and the positive ends pointing inward.
The positive inward dipole ends attracting negative ions in the liquid. If the water breaks up into a
spray, the double layer and the attached negative ions form particles in the fine spray are likely to
carry a negative charge, the positive charge remaining with the larger particles. In this way, Lenard
explained how negative charged vapor was found away from a waterfall and a positive charge
vapor remaining in liquid water particles near the splash.
Discussion The double layer proposed by Lenard is only a rearrangement of water in drops that
9
does not alter the overall negative charge basic pH of the river water, and therefore positive and
negative charged vapors will not separate. Only a new source [18] of positive and negative charge
may be separated by background charge of the mountain water.
Indeed, a new source of positive and negative charged vapor is produced by QED induced EM
radiation as NPs form as water drops are shocked upon colliding with the bottom of the water fall.
The NPs produce VUV radiation that dissociates surrounding water molecules into hydronium and
hydroxyl ions forming positive and negative charged vapor, respectively. Since the background
water carries a negative charge water common to limestone riverbeds in mountains having pH > 7,
the positive charged vapor is attracted to the splash; whereas, the negative charged vapor is
repulsed from the splash and found away from the waterfall.
E. Atmospheric and Thundercloud Electrification
Historical Review Lightning based on thundercloud electrification [19] may be described by the
hydronium and hydroxyl ions produced from the dissociation of the water molecules. Earlier QED
induced EM radiation assumed moisture carried to high altitudes supercools to form graupel, a
liquid-ice mixture. Bubbles were then posited to nucleate in the supercooled water because of the
large volume expansion that accompanies freezing. Each bubble nucleation was considered to
produce VUV radiation. Initial freezing of the graupel skin places the graupel interior into
compression, the compression tending to force the bubble vapors through the skin into the
surroundings. Charge separation occurs within the bubbles as water molecules on the bubble walls
dissociate by cavity QED into hydronium and hydroxyl ions. Typically, the moisture in the updraft
has an acid pH, and therefore the liquid wall of the bubbles in the graupel carries a positive charge
because of the abundance of hydronium ions in the moisture. The available hydronium ions leave
the graupel as positive charged vapor, the companion hydroxyl ions remaining to give the graupel a
negative charge. Ice crystal particles are formed by the vapor deposition of hydronium ions from
the bubble, the clouds of particles forming positive charged ice crystal clouds. Cloud-to-cloud
lightning in the upper atmosphere occurs between graupel and ice crystal clouds, while cloud-toground lightning takes place as graupel clouds that escaped discharge as cloud-to-cloud lightning
fall to the lower atmosphere and discharge with the positive charge earth's surface.
Discussion The historical review describes the VUV radiation produced in NVs comprising
bubbles that nucleate in graupel. QED induced VUV radiation induced in NPs differs from that in
NVs. In NPs, hydronium and hydroxyl ions are produced from VUV induced in ice NPs as water
vapor supercools and freezes at high altitudes. Bubble formation in graupel is not necessary.
Charge separation occurs as the hydronium ions form proton-hydrate PH ion H3O+ • (H2O)n
clusters while the hydroxyl ions rapidly combine with nitrogen dioxide NO2 to form non-protonhydrate NPH ion NO3-(HNO3)m • (H2O)n clusters. Separation occurs as the lighter PH clusters form
positive ice crystal charged clouds that rise above the heavier negative charged graupel clouds of
NPH clusters. Otherwise, cloud-to-cloud and cloud-to-ground lightning occur are the same,
although atmospheric electrification by NPs is a far simpler and more likely than that in NVs.
F. Leidenfrost Phenomenon
Historical Review. In 1743, Johann Leidenfrost discovered what is now called the Leidenfrost
phenomenon in which a drop of water is boiled while supported from a heated surface on a layer of
its own vapor. The layer is formed from the flow of vapor through the gap formed in the underside
of the drop. Leidenfrost used a “red hot” spoon to suspend the water drop, the drop evaporating
slowly because the vapor layer acts as thermal insulation from the heated surface. Upon
disappearing, the drop produces an audible "Crack!" leaving behind a powder residue.
10
In 1972, Pounder performed experiments [20,21] that showed particles emitted from the gap
using water containing 3.5% NaCl representative of seawater, but similar results were found with
distilled and tap water. The temperature of the hot surface is above 400 C and heats the underside
of the drop to the 100 C boiling point of water. High-speed photography showed microscopic
particle emission originated from the underside of the drop, the droplets colliding with the heated
surface and constrained to move laterally through the vapor layer. In salt water after evaporation,
NaCl particles were found to be mostly spherical hollow shapes having radii Ro < 2.5 m.
Electrical breakdown did not occur over the full bottom surface of the drop, but rather locally at
surface protrusions. An almost continuous “hissing” noise was correlated with the local breakdown
occurrences, the drop vibrating until it stabilized before fresh particles are next emitted. With
regard to the charge, a 1 gm drop produced about 6 nC. Each drop averaged about 1500 emissions
and each emission contained about 450 particles giving about 6x105 particles per drop. Hence,
every emission neutralized about 4 pC and each particle carried about 10 fC. Despite the charge
build-up the “Crack” heard is claimed to be produced by the shock from prompt thermal expansion
of drop rather than a Coulomb explosion caused by excessive electrostatic forces.
Discussion The Leidenfrost phenomenon describes the electrification of a drop of boiling water
supported from a hot surface by a film of its own vapor and is similar to that of steam
electrification. The difference is that the water drop is stationery relative to the hot surface, and
therefore NPs are not produced by rubbing of the drop against the hot surface. Instead, NPs are
ejected from the drop. Indeed, microscopic particles less than < 5 microns were found emitted, and
although beyond the level of detection it is reasonable to assume NPs were also emitted. Each NP
emission provides a source of VUV radiation induced by QED that initiates chemical
photochemical reactions with the water and NaCl salts on the underside of the drop and the residue
on the hot surface. Hydroxyl ions are produced and promptly combine with the NaCl salt while the
hydronium ions escape the drop to the surrounding. The chemistry is complex, but neglecting the
residue on the hot surface: if the water is acidic having pH < 7, the drop repels hydronium ions and
charges negative with the steam vapor charging positive, whereas, if the water is basic having pH >
7, the drop attracts the hydronium ions and charges positive with the steam vapor charging
negative. But the chemical composition of the residue can readily alter this conclusion, perhaps
providing the reason underlying Armstrong’s contention that contact electrification alone is
insufficient to explain steam electrification.
G. Flow Electrification
Historical Review Over the past 50 years, the electrification of hydrocarbon liquids and oils
flowing in metal pipes has been studied extensively. Today, the mechanism by which the charges
are produced in the fluid is thought caused by corrosion of the pipe surface, the corrosion
producing a flow of electrons from the oxidation of the metal, the electron flow balanced by
streaming currents in the liquid along the pipe length. But the lack of corrosion products [22] to
confirm the electrochemical process in combination with the proportionality of streaming current
to surface shear stress [23] suggests that other flow electrification mechanisms may be at play.
Early applications [24] of QED induced EM radiation to flow electrification were based on the
nucleation and collapse of bubbles in vortices and at the flow boundaries with channel walls. In the
liquid analogy of static electrification with solids, particles were posited to be separated from the
bubble walls. EM radiation at VUV levels is produced as the FIR radiation from the particle is
suppressed in the bubble as a QED cavity. By the photoelectric effect, the VUV radiation then
produces charge from the liquid by the formation of charged cations and electrons, the streaming
current produced from the flow of cations. Unlike electrochemical reaction, photochemical
reactions produce charged cations that rapidly relax leaving no corrosion products consistent with
11
observation. However, the formation of bubbles in flowing liquids is questionable because eddies
in vortices and adjacent channel boundaries lack the low pressure to nucleate bubbles, especially if
the flow is pressurized.
Discussion Recent flow electrification [25] by QED induced EM radiation in the coolant oil of
power transformers avoids the problem with lack of lateral EM confinement of FIR radiation in
gaps and the nucleation of bubbles by the formation of NPs in the turbulence that occurs in the
slip-flow at the walls adjacent the pressboard walls. In this way, the slip-length is not required to
provide EM confinement, but rather only surroundings having a lower refractive index than that of
the NPs, thereby by total internal reflection assuring the EM confinement by which FIR radiation
may be up-converted to VUV levels.
In the slip-length, clusters of oil molecules form in the intermittent stick-slip flow, the fluid
shearing in stick while relaxing during slip. Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations [26] show the
oil clusters to form momentarily as the fluid shears, the oil clusters forming the NPs that by QED
induced EM radiation induce VUV radiation. Flow electrification then occurs by the photoelectric
effect. Cations and of oil molecules and associated electrons form, the cations forming the
streaming current with the electrons transferred to electrical grounds. Relaxation of the cations
leaves no trace of photochemical reactions, and therefore consistent with observation chemical
residues are not found.
H. Sonoluminescence
Historical Review. In 1934, Frenzel and Schultz first observed the phenomenon of
sonoluminescence (SL) described as the production of VIS light during the ultrasonic cavitation of
water. SL is related to steam electrification by the dissociation of water molecules into hydronium
and hydroxyl ions. It is generally accepted [27] that the dissociation of water in SL occurs by high
temperatures produced in the adiabatic compression of water vapor during bubble collapse.
In 1998, the Planck theory of SL [28] was proposed that differed from other SL theories because
the source for producing SL photons is the Planck energy of the stimulated emission from the
bubble wall molecules as the bubble resonant frequency during bubble collapse coincides with the
dissociation frequency of the water molecules. The bubble resonant frequency continuously
increases during bubble collapse, the significance of which is that the discrete dissociation
frequencies of any chemical species in the water can always stimulated, i.e., the bubble acts as a
continuously variable FIR to VUV laser.
From 2004 to 2007, the Planck theory of SL was updated [29] to be consistent with the notion
of QED induced EM radiation. The collapsing bubble was treated as a QED cavity of vanishing
radius or increasing frequency. Liquid water is highly absorptive over the frequency range from the
FIR to VUV. Provided the bubble geometry collapses to dimensions corresponding to this
frequency range, QED resonance always produces hydronium and hydroxyl ions. The bubbles at
the time the water molecules dissociate are not visible because vacuum ultraviolet frequencies
have wavelengths less than 160 nm, the corresponding bubble radius less than 40 nm.
It is important to note that SL by the theory of QED induced EM radiation is a non-equilibrium
condition that does not assume the VUV emission that dissociates water molecules is in
equilibrium with the temperature of the bubble wall. This is consistent with the earlier Planck
theory of SL [28] that asserts the water molecules dissociate on the bubble walls at ambient
temperature by cavity QED resonance in the same way they would dissociate if irradiated by an
external laser. In contrast, if the VUV emission is in equilibrium with the bubble temperature, the
water molecules at Planck energy in the vacuum ultraviolet, say 10 eV, to have an unrealistic
temperature of about 100,000 K.
Discussion For the bubble as a NV, the Planck energy Ep produced in bubble collapse is the same
12
as for a liquid or solid NP of the same diameter D given by Eqn 5. In fact, the only difference
between the EM confinement of FIR radiation a NV and NP is the refractive index nr. For a NV, nr
~ 1 while for a NP nr > 1, i.e., for a spherical bubble of radius R, the EM confinement frequency f
= c / 4R.
QED induced EM radiation is applicable to both NPs and NVs. However, it is far easier to
provide EM confinement by forming NPs than for NVs of bubbles. NVs were first proposed to
explain SL because ultrasound provides a simple way to form submicron bubbles at rates from 20
kHz to 4 MHz. But NVs are not fundamental to natural processes. Indeed, it is far more difficult, if
not impossible to produce collapse bubbles in the flow of liquids, say under pressurized conditions.
In hindsight, the evolution from NPs to NVs is a more fundamental approach to explaining
electrification in natural processes, but that is not the way it happened.
IV. CONCLUSIONS

Natural processes are electrified by photochemical reactions from VUV radiation
induced in NPs from BB radiation at FIR frequencies. The formation of NPs depends
on the specific process, but all processes are unified by QED induced EM radiation.

The VUV radiation is produced in a burst of VUV as the thermal kT energy in the
NPs is release at the instant the NPs form followed by steady VUV as the FIR
radiation in the BB surroundings tends to recover that lost in the initial burst of VUV.

The formation of NPs in various natural process are described including static
electricity, steam electricity, spray charging, waterfall electricity, atmospheric and
thundercloud electrification, Leidenfrost phenomenon, flow electrification, and
sonoluminescence. Each natural process is in itself complex and more study is
required than the brief effort given here.
REFERENCES
T. V. Prevenslik, See ESD Journal papers: See “Bubbles and Steam Electricity”, “Sprites,
St. Elmo’s Fire, and Ball Lightning”, “The Casimir Force – Neutral or Electrostatic”
http://www.esdjournal.com/techpapr/techpaps.htm
[2] T: V. Prevenslik, “Quantum Dots and QED,” Materials Science & Technology 2007
Conference (MS&T 2007), COBO Center, Detroit, September 16-20, 2007.
[3] G. Mie, Beiträge zur Optik trüber Medien, speziell kolloidaler Metallösungen, Leipzig, Ann.
Phys., Vol. 330, pp. 377–445 (1908).
[4] R. W. Christy and A. Pytte, The Structure of Matter: Introduction to Modern Physics,
Benjamin, New York, 1965.
[5] H. Koizumi, K. Lacmann, and W. F. Schmidt, “Electron emission form silicone oils and
hydrocarbons by vacuum-ultraviolet light,” Inter. Conf. on Conduction and Breakdown in
Dielectric Liquids, 19-23 July 1993; and by same authors “Light-induced electron emission
form silicone oils,” J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. Vol. 25, pp. 857-61, (1992).
[6] C.K. Adams, Nature's Electricity, Tab Books inc., Blue Ridge Summit, PA, 1987.
[7] T. V. Prevenslik, “Cavity QED Induced Photoelectric Effect,” ESA Proceedings,
Northwestern University, June 25-28, 2002.
[8] T. V. Prevenslik, C.D. Beling, and C. K. Cheung, “Ultrasonic Ionization Spectroscopy,”
WESPAC IX 2006, Seoul, Korea, June 26-28, 2006.
[9] N. Jonassen, “Charging by Walking,” Compliance Engineering, vol. 18, pp. 22-26, 2001.
[10] T. V. Prevenslik, “Quantum Dots by QED,” International Conference on Materials for
Advanced Technologies (ICMAT), July 2-6, Singapore, 2007.
[1]
13
[11] W.G. Armstrong, “On the electricity of a jet of steam issuing from a boiler,” in Letters to M.
Faraday, Phil. Mag. XVII, 370-374 (1840).
[12] W.G. Armstrong, On the Efficacy of steam as a means of producing electricity, and on a
curious action of a jet of steam upon a ball, XXII (1843).
[13] M. Faraday, Experimental Researches in Electricity, Vol. II, p106-126, Dover, 1965.
[14] G.L. Natanson, “The problem of balloelectric phenomenon,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk, SSSR, 73
(1950) 975-978.
[15] M.R.O. Jones and J. Bond, “Electrostatic hazards associated with marine chemical tanker
operations,” Chem. Eng. Res. Des., 62 (1984) 327-333.
[16] J. Finke, “Electrostatic effects of charged steam jets,” J. Electrostatics, 23 (1989) 69-79.
[17] P. Lenard, "About the electricity of waterfalls", Ann. Phys. (Leipzig ), 46, (1982) 584-636.
[18] T.V. Prevenslik, “Niagara Falls: ion emission and sonoluminescence,” ESA 2000, Brock
University Niagara Falls Ontario June 18-21, 2000.
[19] T. V. Prevenslik, “Sprites and Bubbles,” 27th General Assembly of URSI , Maastricht,
August 17 – 24 , 2002.
[20] C. Pounder, “Charge-carrying particles from Leidenfrost boiling (an aspect of saline contact
charging) Part I. Investigation of the Leidenfrost phenomenon and the discovery and
examination of particles,” J. Electrostatics, 9 (1980) 159-175.
[21] C. Pounder, “Charge-carrying particles from Leidenfrost boiling (an aspect of saline contact
charging) Part II. The electrical properties of Leidenfrost drops and associated particles,” J.
Electrostatics, 9 (1980) 177-182.
[22] G. Touchard, “Flow Electrification: Review of the Process,” Proc. Int. Symp.
Electrohydrodynamics, Buenos Aires, December 4-6, pp. 365-81, 2006.
[23] O. Moreau, G. Touchard, “Experimental Study and Modeling of Static Electrification in
Power Transformers,” IEEE IAS Annual Meeting, October 5-9, New Orleans, 1997.
[24] T. V. Prevenslik, “Flow Electrification by cavity quantum electrodynamics,” IEEE CEIDP
Proceedings, Albuquerque, October 19-22, 2003.
[25] T. V. Prevenslik, “Photochemistry in Flow Electrification by Nanoparticles,” International
Conference Dielectric Liquids (ICDL), Poitiers, June 30 – July 4, 2008.
[26] T. V. Prevenslik, “Nanoparticles in Stick-Slip Flow,” International Conference Dielectric
Liquids (ICDL), Poitiers, June 30 – July 4, 2008.
[27] A.J. Walton and G.T. Reynolds, “Sonoluminescence,” Adv. Phys., 33 (1984) 595-630.
[28] T.V. Prevenslik, “Dielectric polarization in the Planck theory of sonoluminescence,”
Ultrasonics-Sonochemistry, 5 (1998) 93-105.
[29] T. V. Prevenslik, “Sonoluminescence at Ambient Temperature?”
http://www.geocities.com/sonoluminescence2004/SLrev4.PDF
14