Talk:Static electricity

Figure caption - charged by contact?

This is supposed to be a non-technical article. I had written that the girl on the playground slide had been "charged by friction", which in my opinion as a physicist is not false. Now User:DJIndica changed this to "charged by contact". In my opinion such a phrase is likely to be misunderstood as "chared by contact to an electrical conductor at high voltage".
Also, it is preferable not to specify the sizes of thumbnails. Users that are logged in can specify the size matching their computer screens under "my preferences" -> "files". /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as the thumbnail size is concerned that's a good point, I just thought it would look good larger. Is there a way to specify it as a percentage of the screen width?

I'm pretty sure the statement "charged by friction" is incorrect. The important point is that a region of the surface of one object is brought into contact with a region of the surface of another and then separated. Rubbing the two objects together ensures this happens many times, increasing the effect. However, the coefficient of kinetic friction does not play a role (unless there is a pyroelectric effect due to heating, but that's unlikely to be significant). Even if the surfaces were entirely frictionless, there would still be charge exchange, provided the two materials are at different points on the triboelectric series.

I see that "charged by contact" could be confusing, although "Contact induced charge separation" is listed (and explained) as one of the causes of static electricity. Perhaps "charged due to contact with the slide" would be better.

Thoughts/suggestions? --DJIndica (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As you say, friction is making contact and separating many times. The separation step may separate charges, and this leads to charging. Such an explanation is too detailed for a caption, and just saying "charged by friction" is adequate. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I say that making contact and separating many times leads to charge separation but that is not the same as friction. There may be friction or there may not, but either way it is the fact of making contact and not friction that is the origin of the charge separation. Do you feel that the current caption: "Charged by contact with the slide" addresses your concern about misinterpretation of the word "contact"? --DJIndica (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the current caption is likely to be misunderstood. It might be read to imply that the girl became charged because she was in contact with a statically charged slide.

Contact is not the essential step, I think. Charge separation occurs when surfaces separate. Friction is a complex phenomenon, but charge separation certainly is a contributing factor to frictional forces. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I take your point that if charge separation is a contributing factor in friction, then friction is presumably a contributing factor in charge separation, however I am not convinced it is of primary importance. There will be charge exchange even if surfaces are placed in contact and then separated with no lateral movement at all (and hence no friction). I have requested further opinions from some people, but so far none have appeared. I don't think that the current caption is confusing, particularly as "charged by contact" is a link to the relevant section. --DJIndica (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction is misleading and confusing

The opening of the article is extremely vague on what static electricity actually is. " imbalance of electric charges" Does not answer the question of what it is, but only brings up more: What are the charges? what is a charge?, What is an imbalance? And no were does it have the word negative electron, which will help answer that question. Also, "The charge remains until it is able to move away by means of an electric current or electrical discharge" Is also confusing: first of all, The reader still doesn't know what that charge is, so they don't know what moves away; And the words "by means of an electric current..." misleads the reader into thinking that the name to the act of moving is a means by it self. For example, I went to the city park by means of a car. The car is not the name of my movement. I had to go to a kids science site to actually learn what static electricity is. Pleas fix this, or i'll do it myself. K thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:774D:2C00:2DB7:3AA6:A7C5:69CE (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph

It's good to see someone taking time to refine and organize this article, however I think there is a problem with the new first paragraph and particularly the first sentence (see Wikipedia:STYLE#First_sentences). The first sentence of an article should clearly and concisely define the subject of the article; to state that static electricity is a term used in a particular field does not fulfill this purpose.

This article was created to give a description of the human experience of static electricity for a general audience without going into the science of electrostatics. The introductory paragraph as it stands just relates static electricity to electrostatics and then continues with a limited discussion of electrostatics. Whatever the shortcomings of the previous introductory paragraph it was simple and to the point.

I propose moving back to something simpler, possibly including some of the new information, but certainly removing the current first sentence. I would be interested to hear any thoughts/counter-arguments.--DJIndica (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the current changes in the intro are more colloquial and understandable. I still think it is important to explain the context. If you believe strongly to remove the first sentence, go ahead and edit. I am not too attached to the first sentence. Shoefly (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutral bodies attracted to charged bodies

This article doesn't discuss neutral bodies being attracted to charged bodies at all! This is a complicated and interesting thing and it's not explained here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.127.131.143 (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This effect is discussed in two sections of the artical: the "Charge-induced charge separation" part of the Causes of static electricity section, and the part discussing charged adhesive tape in the Simple static electricity experiments section. If you feel this needs expanding upon then feel free, or if you feel there are shortcomings in the explanation maybe you can mention them here.--DJIndica (talk) 03:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Charged adhesive tape experiment

In section about charged adhesive tape experiment, instead of "Do this with two lengths of tape and they will repel each other, demonstrating the fact that like charges repel", I think it would be more correct to state "Do this with two lengths of tape and they will repel each other, demonstrating the fact that negative charges repel each other" because this experiment doesn't demonstrate that positive charges repel each other. --Arjen Dijksman (talk) 09:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

What about when scotch tape is peeled off in a vacuum resulting in x-rays? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/science/28xray.html What's going on with that? 192.122.237.11 (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Applications of static electricity

I'm curious to know how static electricity is used in aircraft refueling and the flooring in operating theaters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.97.109 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Static charged space volumes

I have a newspaper image of a static charged space volume is created and then a girl has her head partially inside the static charged space. It shows her hair with a static charge within the space, but still lying down outside the space. How is that explained.WFPM (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor factual correction on balloon example

Under the "contact-induced charge separation" subsection, the article discusses the "static cling" of a balloon adhering to a wall as "appearing to be suspended against gravity." It is not "appearing"; it is literally suspending against gravity. The electrostatic force is stronger than the gravitational force; there is no illusion involved.Jtcarpet (talk) 03:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Change in static buildup relative to humidity and temperature

I was looking for this kind of specific information but I only found a short sentence in the article referencing one link (other link was dead so I deleted it). I was after information on how static buildup changes with humidity in order to provide advice for how to eliminate static as a cause of problems in inkjet printing.

http://www.keyence.com/ss/products/static/resource/solution/insulator.jsp http://www.kirinoikeuchi.co.jp/eng/technical_information/relationship_between_humidity_and_static_electricity.html

Perhaps this information should be considered for addition? I think those two links are for specific, commercial devices and not general guidelines in many situations. In any case, both those graphs seem to agree that static starts to drop off at the 50% humidity mark so I think I will use that as a minimum recommendation for my work and that anything above 80% is not required. Our working RH% is 30%-70% anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.123.199.143 (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015

im just doing a science project bibliography so i want to know the sources of the article. thats all Monkey1212 (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

there's a reflist at the bottom. not to mention every source cited is listed as a footnote. Cannolis (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

NASA dead link

I don't have edit privileges as this article is semi-protected. Mind replacing NASA's Crackling Planets ([21]) URL to https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/10aug_crackling ? Thanks :) https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/10aug_crackling — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.28.101.157 (talk) 18:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Definition of static electricity

I suggest replacing the first sentence “Static electricity is an imbalance of electric charges within or on the surface of a material.” with “Static electricity is type of electrical energy caused an imbalance of electrical charges within or on the surface of a material.”

Convertibility into magnetic or thermal energy are basic characteristics of static electricity. Conversion of static electricity into energy makes static electricity quantifiable. Vze2wgsm1 (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Because of the conservation of energy law, anything that is not energy cannot convert to or from static electricity. Vze2wgsm1 (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)