Talk:Static electricity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] 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 "charged 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)
-
-
-
[edit] Further ideas
Suggestions for additional content can be added here. Do you have a little time on your hands?
- Copied from User_talk:DJIndica/Sandbox3:
"Static electricity is also a major concern in the flour milling industry, and historically in gunpowder-related operations."
[edit] History needs expanding!
What would a medievil person do when they were shocked by static electricity?! 69.220.2.188 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Vandalism
For reasons unknown to me, this article has been vandalized recurringly. I reverted two times in the last couple of days. At what point does an article qualify to be protected?--Romulus (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- It does seem like this page receives a disproportionate amount of vandalism, although of course it's difficult to be sure what a 'proportionate' amount is. I would support a call for semi-protection of the page.--DJIndica (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I have placed a request for semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection.--DJIndica (talk) 03:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
-
