Capt. NealŪ wrote:
Semantics
....is the only basis of your argument. Thus it's hardly appropriate to
use it as a excuse also.
and an honest mistake
No mistake, in that instance you were correct.
explained in the post above. Here is a cut
and paste for your edification.
None needed, but thanks.
Thanks for pointing out that inconsistency. My bad.
Semantics again, but you are correct. I should have said some of the
electrons
flowing through the circuit (external) will drive the chemical reaction
in the
discharged battery so it's state of charge will be increased.
Even though the positive and negative poles are on opposite ends of an AA
cell, electricity does not really flow through from end to end as there is
no internal circuit as such - just chemical reactions as in a lead/acid
battery.
Look at any electronics reference, closely, and maybe you'll see your
mistake. Quite simply, there is electron transport (i.e. electric
current by classical definition - not to be confused with the
Tricoboxylic Citric Acid Cycle, or Krebs cycle, or oxidative
phosphorylation for e.g.) external to the battery, under load, and there
is a concomitant *ION* transport occurring internal to the battery.
Both currents reverse going from discharge to charge. Now, pay
attention: how do you make an ion? Answer, remove or add electrons. Thus
Ion flow is nothing more than electron transport (i.e. current flow)
using an electrolytic intermediary. That's what redox systems are all about.
So...there is a current flow (via ionic intermediaries) within the
battery. Semantical pretenses aside, electrons are moving both inside
and outside. Get it??? No, I didn't think so.
Keith
|