There is something seriously wrong with the momentum formula in the Mathematical description part of this article. The units of ${\displaystyle m_{e}v_{e}}$ do not match the units of ${\displaystyle eE}$ - which again do not match the units of ${\displaystyle \partial v_{e}/\partial x}$.

My instincts tell me that the ">" should not be there. So, it's a 1-dimensional version of ${\displaystyle m({\mathbf {v} }\cdot \nabla ){\mathbf {v} }=-e{\mathbf {E} }}$. However, I'm not an expert in the field, I'd prefer someone verify. I'm being bold and making the change, but if someone knows better, feel free to revert. 132.165.76.2 (talk) 10:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. You are quite right. Thank you. --Art Carlson (talk) 10:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference [10] in the introduction no longer links to the .pdf file listed. I believe the file is located here: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/45749/5/02whole.pdf But I'm not too savvy on how that particular link falls in with licensing and all that, so I'll hold off making the edit myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.116.144 (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article uses the term. It appears nowhere else on Wikipedia. Equinox (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The claim made in this article that double layers are particle accelerators is incorrect.

A double layer is a surface covered with dipoles, each having its axis in the direction of the normal to the surface ^[1]. The potential at any external point is equal to the product of the dipole moment per unit area of the double layer and the solid angle subtended at that point ^[2]. Consequently, the potential difference between any two points at large distances from the double layer tends to zero, so a charged particle’s kinetic energy after traversing a double layer is conserved, along with its total energy.

The article, in contrast, makes the mistake of applying an analysis performed in one dimension to the real world, to deduce that there is a net potential difference, and that a double layer is able to accelerate charged particles.

In particular:

The figure presented in ‘Double layer formation’ correctly indicates no change of potential, but is discussed as though there were a change, and that electrons having created a double layer could accelerate themselves away from it! The figure presented under ‘Features and characteristics of double layers’ violates Poisson's Equation by ignoring the external electric field.

The article as it stands is, therefore, self-contradictory and at variance with the basic physics of central-force fields. It requires major revision or removal from Wikipedia.

RAL2014 (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a first step in making revisions to the article as suggested above the following is proposed:

• Edit the introductory paragraphs which should define the attributes of a double layer.

• Remove the mathematical section which is based on too many assumptions and is therefore unhelpful in its flawed treatment. Working with a single dimension and selecting only parts of the structure serves no purpose in describing, explaining, or promoting any understanding of double layers. RAL2014 (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes have been made to the article with the aim of making this double layer article more balanced, and to remove some misleading and inconsistent parts with a minimum of editing to retain the existing structure. These recent amendments have been made in stages, but should be treated collectively to make sense. It is felt that the article could still benefit from further objective scientific editing, to provide a broad but more concise overview of this plasma phenomenon. Importantly, a distinction has to be made between actual observations, theory, and speculation. A few key citations are still outstanding.

RAL2014 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]