http://www.prlog.org/10173358-nanoparticles-that-form-in-peeling-scotch-tape-produce-rays.html

The fact that electrons get separated does not mean they were separated by Mechanical processes – tearing, rubbing, or splitting materials, etc. Again, Mechanical processes cannot separate electrons from atoms.

My point is that the NPs that form in the peeling of tape or crushng of Lifesavers, or ….. produce the EM radiation that gives the impression that this occurred by Mechanical processes. The EM radiation is produced by QED induce EM radiation. See http://www.nanoqed.net

In the peeling of tape, the EM radiation from NPs produces positve charges on both the adhesive on both tape and substrate, the free electrons moving to the opposite positve charged surface and upon collision produce the X-rays.

As you say, “it is not possible to to prove that mica sheets, or…Scotch tape are oppsitely charged as a whole when pulled apart.” Opposing charges are likely local as shown in your second sketch of charge distributions.

The important point is the NPs produce a transient burst of VUV radiation that removes electrons from both the adhesive on the tape and the substrate. Electrons then move in the local electric field to the opposite positive charged surface that upon collision produce the X-rays by Bremsstralung. But the separation of charge occurs by EM and not Mechanical processes.

Similaly, the VIS light observed is produced by the VUV photons exciting fluorescent molecules in the adhesive. The fluorescent molecule in Wintogreen Lifesavers is methyl salicylate.

Perhaps, you can help me out to close this discussion.

I don’t know and cannot find out what the electron rich and fluorescent molecules are in Scotch tape necessary to produce the X-rays abd VIS light, repectively. Can you find this data?

I’m not quite sure what your point is. Charge separation in the peeling process is readily observable with a pair of pieces of Scotch tape. Somewhere in the process, an electron is being pulled from a surface. And, it may not be what you’re saying, but the x-rays are not hypothesized to be created by the ‘tearing’ process, but rather by the recombination process.

“Einstein showed by the photoelectric effect that EM and not mechanical energy is required to remove an electron from an atom. It is now an old wives tale that one can rub electrons off a material.”

If you want to get very technical, all mechanical processes are really EM processes, as that is the force underlying all ordinary mechanical activity. And I’m not sure why you’re discussing ‘old wives tales’. It is an oversimplification to talk about ‘rubbing’ electrons off a material, but again it is readily shown that electrons get separated.

It is unlikely the X-rays are produced by tearing electrons off glass or aluminum substrate. Electrons are more tightly bound to atoms than atoms are bound to each other. Instead, the tearing action likely forms nanoparticles (NPs) comprised of atoms of the adhesive. The X-rays therefore are somehow produced from otherwise neutral NPs.

Indeed, the X-rays in triboluminescence are similar to those formed in static electricity by the early Greeks when amber rods were rubbed by cloth. See http://www.nanoqed.net at links “A Unified Theory of Electrification in Natural Processes” and “Natural Electrification.”

In the production of X-rays by sticky tape, atoms in the adhesives before tearing are not under electromagnetic (EM) confinement and have full thermal kT energy. But in NPs, the atoms are under EM confinement at vacuum ultraviolet (VUV) levels that by quantum mechanics (QM) are restricted to vanishing kT energy. Therefore, as NPs form the atoms have excess kT energy beyond that allowed by QM. But the specific heat of NPs at high EM frequencies also vanishes, and therefore the excess in kT energy cannot be conserved by an increase in temperature.

Instead, conservation proceeds by the quantum electrodynamics (QED) induced up-conversion of kT energy to the EM confinement frequencies of the NPs at VUV levels. Each NP in the many formed therefore emits VUV electrons leaving behind positive charged molecules on both sticky and substrate sides, i.e., a film of adhesive always remains on the substrate. The VUV electrons are then accelerated to high velocities in the vacuum space by the positive charged adhesive on the tape and substrate film. Upon deceleration, the high energy electrons decelerate to produce the X-rays that enable radiographs of human fingers.

Triboluminescence is a variant of static electricity, but neither rely on tearing of electrons from atoms. Einstein showed by the photoelectric effect that EM and not mechanical energy is required to remove an electron from an atom. It is now an old wives tale that one can rub electrons off a material.

It may have uses in developing countries where power sources are scarce or remote regions where carrying a bulky battery isn’t convenient. Your point is well-taken, though; as a theorist, I have a hard time estimating where a need might be filled.

“Could you tune the frequency or something by changing the rate of pull away?”

Possibly; the paper seems to have kept things going at a single rate of peeling, and doesn’t address whether any changes arise for different pull rates.

Could you tune the frequency or something by changing the rate of pull away? I would see an apparatus as two wheels spinning against each other. You could certainly have a fun experimental set up with this though. Keeping the vacuum would be the thing. You would have mechanical things moving inside the container with their vibrations.