Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation

[Chromium6]

Not sure if Titan's "lightening" has been verified not since 2008:

http://news.discovery.com/space/thunder ... 110619.htm
-------
ATMOSPHERIC ELECTRICITY ON EARTH AND PLANETS
J.J. BERTHELIER, LATMOS/IPSL

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/docs/09_At ... helier.pdf

page 19
-------
Electrical Activity On Saturn's Moon Titan Confirmed By Spanish Scientists

Date: July 29, 2008
Source:
Plataforma SINC

Summary:

Physicists have developed a procedure for analyzing specific data sent by the Huygens probe from Titan, the largest of Saturn's moons, "unequivocally" proving that there is natural electrical activity in its atmosphere. The scientific community believe that the probability of organic molecules, precursors of life, being formed is higher on planets or moons which have an atmosphere with electrical storms.

Physicists from the University of Granada and University of Valencia have developed a procedure for analysing specific data sent by the Huygens probe from Titan, the largest of Saturn's moons, “unequivocally” proving that there is natural electrical activity in its atmosphere. The scientific community believe that the probability of organic molecules, precursors of life, being formed is higher on planets or moons which have an atmosphere with electrical storms.

The researcher, Juan Antonio Morente, from the Department of Applied Physics at the University of Granada, indicated to SINC that Titan has been considered a “unique world in the solar system” since 1908 when, the Spanish astronomer, José Comas y Solá, discovered that it had an atmosphere, something non-existent on other moons. “On this moon clouds with convective movements are formed and, therefore, static electrical fields and stormy conditions can be produced”, he explained. “This also considerably increases the possibility of organic and prebiotic molecules being formed, according to the theory of the Russian biochemist Alexander I. Oparín and the experiment of Stanley L. Miller”, which managed to synthesise organic compounds from inorganic compounds through electrical discharges. “That is why Titan has been one of the main objectives of the Cassini-Huygens joint mission of NASA and the European Space Agency”, added the researcher.

[Chromium6]

Charging due to a CO2 fogger

When a CO2 fire extinguisher is operated, rapid expansion of the gas causes cooling which manifests itself as a "fog" consisting of dry ice (i.e., CO2) particles and, if the relative humidity is high, water ice formed from moisture in the air. These entrained ice particles move very rapidly and any that collide with the plastic horn of the fire extinguisher are likely to become triboelectrically charged. The charging of these ice particles may seem surprising, but in fact triboelectrification is commonly observed with wind-blown snow during very cold weather.

A simple demonstration of this effect can be achieved with a CO2 bicycle tire inflater with a plastic horn attached to it. The horn can be made out of the plastic cover from an inexpensive report binder, rolled up into a cone. See the figure below. The TESV or the moving charge sensor may be used to detect the charging.

This demonstration reveals the somewhat ironic result that even such a conventional safety device as a fire extinguisher can create a significant electrostatic hazard in certain applications. The hazard arises when an extinguisher is used to inert a shipboard fuel tank. This practice, called "hatch snuffing", is done through an open hatch. If sufficient charge is separated, a brush electrostatic discharge can occur, igniting flammable vapors or mist present just outside the hatch opening. The risk associated with this phenomenon can be avoided simply by removing the plastic horn from the CO2 fire extinguisher [Leonard and Clark, 1975]. Without the horn, entrained ice particles have no surface to interact with and against which to become charged.

---

Charging of nested plastic buckets

When stackable, plastic objects such as chairs, buckets, or funnels are pulled apart, a separation of electrostatic charge often occurs so that opposite sign charge accumulates on the surfaces being separated. This phenomenon, depicted below, has been implicated in a number of ESD ignitions involving flammable liquids [Lüttgens, 1985]. Such incidents are likely to be serious because of the high probability of direct worker exposure in the event of an ignition of flammable material. In the incident mentioned by Lüttgens, a worker was burned when the flammable vapors of the solvent caught fire.



A good question to ask is why buckets made of the same material could ever become charged when separated. The explanation is that plastic is neither a pure nor a homogeneous material, so the two surfaces being separated are NOT identical and thus can become charged. Even if the two buckets were identical, their surfaces become contaminated with dirt, so triboelectrification is still likely to occur.

A plastic bucket with an insulating grip on the metal handle is more likely to stay charged when held by its handle. Note that, if the bucket contains water or has moisture on its inside, then it may behave like a Leyden jar, storing the charge at lower potential and possibly increasing the likelihood that any capacitive spark might be incendive.

http://www.ece.rochester.edu/~jones/demos/charging.html

----------

The TriboElectric Series

When two different materials are pressed or rubbed together, the surface of one material will generally steal some electrons from the surface of the other material. The material that steals electrons has the stronger affinity for negative charge of the two materials, and that surface will be negatively charged after the materials are separated. (Of course the other material will have an equal amount of positive charge.) If various insulating materials are pressed or rubbed together and then the amount and polarity of the charge on each surface is separately measured, a very reproducible pattern emerges. For insulators, the table below can be used to predict which will become positive v.s. negative and how strong the effect will be.

This table can be used to select materials that will minimize static charging. For example, if uncoated paper (with a positive charge affinity value of +10 nC/J) is squeezed by a pinch roller made of butyl rubber (@-135 nC/J), there will be about 145 pico coulombs of charge transfer per joule of energy (associated with pinch and friction). This is about 20 times more than 7 nC/J, which is the static charge per joule that results from squeezing paper with a roller made of nitrile rubber (@+3 nC/J). In general, materials with an affinity near zero (e.g. cotton, nitrile rubber, polycarbonate, ABS) will not charge much when rubbed against metals or against each other. The table can also be used (with other formulas) to predict the static forces that will arise between surfaces, and to help select materials that will create an intentional charge on a surface. See further information on interpretation below the table.


TriboElectric Table

http://www.trifield.com/content/tribo-electric-series/

---

"Saturation", or maximum charge that can be transferred: Beyond a certain amount of charge transferred, additional friction energy (rubbing) does not produce any additional charging. Apparently, two effects limit the amount of charge per area that can be transferred. If the spark E-field (10 KV/cm) is exceeded, the two surfaces will spark to each other (after being separated from each other by at least about 1 mm), reducing the charge transferred below 10 KV/cm. This maximum charge per area is about Q/A = 1 nC/cm2, from this formula. A second, lower charging limit seems to apply to surfaces with an affinity difference of < (about) 50 nC/J. Two materials that are this close to each other in the triboelectric series never seem to reach a charge difference as high as 2 nC/cm2, no matter how much they are rubbed together. Although not yet fully verified, it is proposed that the maximum Q/A (in nC/cm2) is roughly 0.02 x the difference in affinities (in nJ/C) if the two materials are within 50 nC/J of each other. Surfaces that cannot reach spark potential obviously cannot spontaneously dump charge into the air. This is therefore a good reason to select contacting materials such that their affinity difference is small.

Inaccurate information about air being "positive", etc.-- A triboelectric series table has been circulating on the internet, and it contains various inaccuracies. Though attribution is rarely given, it appears to be mostly from a 1987 book. It lists air as the most positive of all materials, polyurethane as highly negative, and various metals being positive or negative, apparently based on their known chemical electron affinities, rather than on electrostatic experiments. (From actual tests, there is little or no measurable difference in charge affinity between different types of metal, possibly because the fast motion of conduction electrons cancels such differences.) In gaseous form, air is generally unable to impart any charge to or from solids, even at very high pressure or speed. If chilled to a solid or liquid, air is expected to be slightly negative, not positive. There are three cases where air can charge matter (in the absence of external high voltage).
1. If contaminated by dust, high-speed air can charge surfaces, but this charge comes from contact with the dust, not the air. The charge polarity depends on the type of dust.
2. If air is blown across a wet surface, negative ions are formed due to the evaporation of water. In this case, the wet surface charges positive, so the air becomes negative.
3. If air is hot (above about 1000°C), it begins emitting ions (both + and -.) This is thermal in nature, not triboelectric.

http://www.trifield.com/content/tribo-electric-series/

-------
(See first post:
Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation
15 May 2014 2:45 pm)

Cause

Although the word comes from the Greek for "rubbing", τρίβω (τριβή: friction), the two materials only need to come into contact and then separate for electrons to be exchanged. After coming into contact, a chemical bond is formed between some parts of the two surfaces, called adhesion, and charges move from one material to the other to equalize their electrochemical potential. This is what creates the net charge imbalance between the objects. When separated, some of the bonded atoms have a tendency to keep extra electrons, and some a tendency to give them away, though the imbalance will be partially destroyed by tunneling or electrical breakdown (usually corona discharge). In addition, some materials may exchange ions of differing mobility, or exchange charged fragments of larger molecules.

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve ... ffect.html

[Chromium6]

Related:

Coulumb's Equation
http://milesmathis.com/coul.html
The Drude-Sommerfeld Model
http://milesmathis.com/drude.pdf
-------

Possibilities of Electro-Static Generators
by Nikola Tesla


Numerous attempts have also been made to generate static electricity by friction of fluids and solid particles but from the earliest records to this day the belt has proved to be the simplest and most convenient means for the purpose. Static electricity from this source gained in importance when evidences accumulated that it was capable of interfering seriously with operations and causing accidents in paper factories, flour mills, and similar establishments. In the early nineties my electrodeless vacuum tubes became extremely popular and were frequently lighted from belts and later Roentgen tubes were operated in the same manner. It is quite easy to improvise such a generator and obtain interesting results under favorable atmospheric conditions.
...
Looking up through one of the insulating columns of the Van de Graaff generator, showing the endless pacer belt.
As the writers of articles regarding the “Colossus” confine themselves to controlling its size, voltage and possibilities, but give little hint regarding its mode of operation and power performance, I shall endeavor to advance the needed knowledge. With this object let it be assumed that the spheres are placed at a distance of 55 feet from center to center and that the potential difference between them is 10,000,000 volts. Ordinarily, the electric capacity of such a sphere is equal to its radius, namely 225 centimeters, but as before explained, 16 percent should be added to this, making 261 centimeters equivalent to 0.00029 microfarad. Consequently, when the regime is established, each sphere being at a potential of 5,000,000 volts, the electricity stored on each will be 0.00145 coulomb. If this quantity were supplied every second, the current would be 0.00145 ampere. An incandescent lamp of 25 watts requires a current 150 times more intense.

In estimating the amount of electricity furnished to each terminal per second, only the sprayer need be considered as it supplies much more than could be generated by friction of the belts. The device used has not been clearly described but it is sufficient for the purpose of this dissertation to know that it operates at 20,000 volts and energizes, through rows of points, the two belts which are said to be four feet, or 120 centimeters, wide. Assuming that they are run at a speed of 100 feet or 3,000 centimeters per second, the area covered in this time interval would be 120 x 3,000 = 360,000 square centimeters. If it were possible to charge the belts uniformly to a surface density anything like that existing on an electrified particle, the output of the machine would be very great. But this can never be realized. The following approximate estimate will show what may be reasonably expected.
...
But first I want to point out an apparent discrepancy in the descriptive reports and photographs showing the apparatus in action, which is illustrated in the accompanying photographs, and consists of two aluminum spheres 15 feet in diameter supported on insulating columns six feet in diameter. Electricity is supplied to the spheres by paper belts charged from a “sprayer.” With terminals of such dimensions much higher voltages should be obtained. In most of the treatises it is assumed that the surface-density, that is, the quantity of electricity stored per square centimeter of a spherical conductor, can not exceed eight electrostatic units without break-down of the surrounding air. As a matter of fact the density can be pushed up to 20 units before power-consuming streamers appear.

This being the case, the limiting voltage of a sphere having a diameter of 15 feet should be 16,964,700 and, consequently, the potential difference between two such oppositely charged spheres, very far apart, is 33,929,400 volts. It may be useful to state, however, that such large spheres placed at a distance of 55 feet between centers, as contemplated, will influence each other to a considerable extent, increasing their capacities. At this distance the increase will be about 16 percent, which should be taken into consideration when estimating the charge.

http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tes ... generators

[CharlesChandler]

When two different materials are pressed or rubbed together, the surface of one material will generally steal some electrons from the surface of the other material.

So when like materials are rubbed together, such as wind-blown snow, or ice particles inside a thunderstorm, is that triboelectricity too, even though the effect is said to be the product of different ionization potentials of differing materials? How about the static electricity that builds up in conductors, such as the potentials supposed built up in the oceans due to tidal flows, and which causes detectable telluric currents, even though triboelectricity should only be possible in insulators? It rather seems that we have a good understanding of triboelectricity, but then there are these other cases where potentials are generated that are not so well understood, and which are simply explained away as triboelectricity, when really, it cannot possibly be that.

[Sparky]

I did not read the "book", but---

the product of different ionization potentials of differing materials?

Seems that I saw an article that stated the transfer of charge was from the actual transfer of matter. Don't remember if electrons were stripped off or not.

[Chromium6]

So when like materials are rubbed together, such as wind-blown snow, or ice particles inside a thunderstorm, is that triboelectricity too, even though the effect is said to be the product of different ionization potentials of differing materials? How about the static electricity that builds up in conductors, such as the potentials supposed built up in the oceans due to tidal flows, and which causes detectable telluric currents, even though triboelectricity should only be possible in insulators? It rather seems that we have a good understanding of triboelectricity, but then there are these other cases where potentials are generated that are not so well understood, and which are simply explained away as triboelectricity, when really, it cannot possibly be that.

That's why I posted that first article. It lends a bit of credence to the theory that electron-bonding is a myth. I saw a glimmer of a connection with the Static Electricity Defies Simple Explanation. They were getting very different expected results. As for the larger picture, I can only surmise that clouds and the earth are the biggest surfaces nearby each other to allow small particles to "roll-strike" and for charges to "form". Of course, rubbing materials together and receiving-recycling charge on global scale are much different. As for Telluric currents, that's one that is valuable if it can be determined how they are sourced and flow through the earth. Some veins or densities in the earth may direct the "charge field" in paths? Gravity is not absolutely the same across all sections of the earth apparently.

http://milesmathis.com/ionic.pdf

Once I remind you of the fact, you can see that we have loads of evidence that atoms do not want to gain or lose electrons. It is ions that want to be atoms, not atoms that want to be ions. And it is positive ions that attract free electrons, as we know, not negative ions or atoms. Once Sodium becomes a cation, it should attract the free electron, not Chlorine. So there is no reason for Sodium to start releasing electrons just to suit theorists. There is no reason for a free electron to move from a cation to a stable atom. But there are lots of reasons for Sodium not to release electrons. This whole theory is upside down from the beginning. Therefore, the bond cannot be caused this way.

Let me say it again: free electrons do not move from cations to stable atoms. That is strictly backwards. 20th century theorists have sold you a contradiction. They give the electron a minus sign and the cation a plus sign and the stable atom no sign, then tell you—as the foundation of a theory— that this free electron moves to the stable atom. If you buy that you will buy anything, and you have.

And this quote:
---------------------

Incredible! NASA wants us to believe that lightning is caused by rubbing raindrops together. Convection theorists, on the other hand, expect us to believe that wind moving down doesn’t blow on electrons and that wind moving up blows only on electrons. AnswerBag thinks that rods work because they are higher, and that a higher point automatically creates a path of least resistance (as long as it is a conductor).

But nothing about lightning can be understood unless you recognize that the Earth is emitting a radial charge field, made up not of electrons, but of photons. All electrical phenomena in the atmosphere must take place in this charge wind. The important aspects of the lightning rod must then be the same as those of the pyramid: shape and density. The lightning rod must also be a conductor, yes, since we want to focus the electrons and conduct them safely away from protected structures and back into the Earth. But it is the shape and density of the rod that creates the path in the first place. The standard model cannot show how this path is created, but I can. It is created by blocking the charge field and thereby creating areas of differing pressure. This differing pressure is what we call potential, and it has the effect of attracting electrons. The lightning rod blocks the charge field only over the area of its cross section, but this cross section is blocked in all the atmosphere above the rod. In other words, the blocked area does not close back up, above the rod. In fact, it increases in area. It does this for the simple reason that the Earth is spherical. The charge field is being emitted radially, so that although the field lines are nearly parallel on the surface of the Earth, they are not completely parallel. The distance between these lines must increase with greater distance from the surface. In this way, the rod acts as a sort of reverse funnel. It creates an area of low pressure above it, increasing in size with greater height. In this way it is able to capture electron flows, even electron flows that are not directly above the rod.
...
Given what we have discovered about the charge field, can we add somewhat to the theory of lightning creation during storms? Yes, since we can see that it is not the rain or the clouds or the winds that create the lightning, it is something else entirely. It is pressure that creates the clouds, the storm and the lightning; but a different sort of pressure creates the lightning, without any rubbing of raindrops or clashing of clouds. Moisture in the air certainly increases its conductivity, but it does not have much to do with the creation of free electrons. Free electrons already exist in abundance in the atmosphere, even on the driest days, so we do not have to explain charge separation or polarization, a la Wikipedia. We only have to explain the focusing and motion of charge.

http://milesmathis.com/pyramid.html

[CharlesChandler]

@Chromium6: I think that there are simpler explanations, which do not require redefining everything in physics. IMO, the problems in modern physics are not with the fundamental concepts of time, motion, inertia, gravity, EM, or atomic forces. How did everybody get convinced that solving the remaining riddles in physics necessarily requires abandoning the existing foundation? The mainstream does this (e.g., GR, QM, CDM, dark energy, etc.), and even the fringe theorists are doing it (e.g., Mathis, Dollard, Distini, etc.). Well, they might be right. But meanwhile, I'm considering the possibility that we already have everything we need, without any charge fields, and without GR, QM, or any other "new" physics. The riddles remain unsolved because everybody is looking outside the box for answers. What if all of the answers are inside the box? Then they'll never figure anything out. In the end, we all lay down our money and take our chances. If we knew how this was going to work out, it wouldn't be research. But good scientific method requires that we eliminate known possibilities before asserting that we've discovered something new, and that's what nobody is doing these days. If I'm right, my method will go the distance. So far so good...

[Chromium6]

@Chromium6: I think that there are simpler explanations, which do not require redefining everything in physics. IMO, the problems in modern physics are not with the fundamental concepts of time, motion, inertia, gravity, EM, or atomic forces. How did everybody get convinced that solving the remaining riddles in physics necessarily requires abandoning the existing foundation? The mainstream does this (e.g., GR, QM, CDM, dark energy, etc.), and even the fringe theorists are doing it (e.g., Mathis, Dollard, Distini, etc.). Well, they might be right. But meanwhile, I'm considering the possibility that we already have everything we need, without any charge fields, and without GR, QM, or any other "new" physics. The riddles remain unsolved because everybody is looking outside the box for answers. What if all of the answers are inside the box? Then they'll never figure anything out. In the end, we all lay down our money and take our chances. If we knew how this was going to work out, it wouldn't be research. But good scientific method requires that we eliminate known possibilities before asserting that we've discovered something new, and that's what nobody is doing these days. If I'm right, my method will go the distance. So far so good...

You do Yeoman's work here and at QDL Charles! Your book is quite good and should be published.

I would say though that we need to be careful with the "fringe".... whose time are we wasting running with the "fringe" -- ours, Standard Theory (though incomplete), or even Thunderbolts-EU's overall? I guess in the long run, IMHO, who has the best "predictability" in theories/simulations/techniques/tools/math that matches the "best" with observations wins. But some paths through the physics of "reality" are better traveled than others with far more evidence to back an argument; just take care with the road not taken.

[Lloyd]

CC said: @Chromium6: I think that there are simpler explanations, which do not require redefining everything in physics. IMO, the problems in modern physics are not with the fundamental concepts of time, motion, inertia, gravity, EM, or atomic forces. How did everybody get convinced that solving the remaining riddles in physics necessarily requires abandoning the existing foundation? The mainstream does this (e.g., GR, QM, CDM, dark energy, etc.), and even the fringe theorists are doing it (e.g., Mathis, Dollard, Distini, etc.). Well, they might be right. But meanwhile, I'm considering the possibility that we already have everything we need, without any charge fields, and without GR, QM, or any other "new" physics.

Charles, if you ever take a little time to look at Cr6's quote of MM on sodium chloride, you'll easily see that some "fundamental concepts" are obviously contradictory. Why would an electron be attracted away from a cation to a neutral atom? And you may be satisfied with "gravity" as a pulling force, but it makes no sense, if you think about it. There can only be pushes in a physical universe, i.e. collisions and repulsions. When someone sucks a drink from a glass with a straw, it's not a pulling force, but a pushing force from the weight of the air. Gravity likewise must be a push, not a pull, and that leads to the need for an aether. And photons are the best candidate for the aether. And it makes no sense for photons not to have real mass and radius. Anything without mass and spatial dimensions is physically non-existent. Energy is a property of matter and can't exist without matter. Anyway, that's how I got convinced that the fundamental concepts still need some serious fixing.

[CharlesChandler]

Charles, if you ever take a little time to look at Cr6's quote of MM on sodium chloride, you'll easily see that some "fundamental concepts" are obviously contradictory. Why would an electron be attracted away from a cation to a neutral atom?

MM sees a paradox in sodium chloride, and concludes that everything has to be redefined. I see a paradox like that and conclude that before I pitch the whole foundation, I have to carefully inspect each piece, to make sure that I fully understand the problem.

[Lloyd]

I don't know what you think you're doing differently than what we're doing. We're looking for explanations for contradictions. It's not like we're avoiding the use of logic. I don't see a whole foundation being pitched, but a shoring up of a damaged foundation. It's still surely not logical for gravity to be a pull, nor for photons or anything real to have no mass or radius.

[Sparky]

It's still surely not logical for gravity to be a pull,

It would be a pull if mass absorbs gravity photons.

[David]

Well, it certainly doesn't take much provication to ruffle the Mathis feathers. Although, I wouldn't have used the word "fringe". A more accurate description would be "lunatic fringe".

[JeffreyW]

Well, it certainly doesn't take much provication to ruffle the Mathis feathers. Although, I wouldn't have used the word "fringe". A more accurate description would be "lunatic fringe".

I think Miles Mathis is a wonderfully creative person, but there are creative tendencies and then there is crazy. His Pi = 4 is where I draw the line myself.

Pi= 4 sure, it could happen in math, by twisting numbers around and making shit up, but in reality Pi=4 is complete horseshit.

[nick c]

David and Jeffrey,
On this forum we would prefer that instead of labeling someone or some idea as "horseshit' or "lunatic fringe," it would be better to simply show why they are wrong.
Please avoid this type of commentary, as it serves no useful purpose.