Talk:Electroscope

Moving nuclei?
I think that the sentence "The positively charged nuclei will move slightly away." must be reviewed or deleted. I don't think that the nuclei move (apart of their natural vibration) due to the displacement of the electonic clouds around them. If in one atom the electronic density moves towards an external (let's say positive) charge, the (positive) nuclei should follow the (negative) electronic density, due to charge attraction, not go away. The induced dipole on one atom would induce other nearby atomic clouds to comb towards it to neutralize in some extension the positive charge that has arisen in the vecinity, while all the atomic nuclei remain in their initial relative positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fepeguinux (talk • contribs) 02:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The nuclei are located at equilibrium positions of minimum potential energy established by the orbitals of the valence electrons in their chemical bonds with neighboring atoms. The external electric field changes the shape of the orbitals and the bond angles in complicated ways, causing shifts in the equilibrium positions, in addition to the simple shift outward caused by the external field at the nucleus.  The end result is that the "positive charge center"  of each molecule or unit cell is displaced outward, away from the external charge, relative to the "negative charge center" which is displaced inward.  Your proposal raises an intriguing point: do we define the "position" of a molecule by the location of the nuclei (your suggestion) in which case, under the polarizing influence of the external field, the electron orbitals move; or do we define it by the position of the chemical bond orbitals, in which case the nuclei move; or do we define it by the "charge center" of the molecule, in which case both move?  Of course, this is far too technical a point for this article.   I think the simple discussion in this article should describe polarization as a motion of both the nuclei and the electrons.  Anything else will be too confusing for nontechnical readers.  That's also the way it is described in reliable sources: 1, 2, 3 -- Chetvorno TALK 21:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Moving charge?
I think there can be some confusion with the sentence "The pith ball can be charged by touching it to a charged object, so that some of the charges on the surface of the charged object move to the surface of the ball." The confusion comes when talking about charging a pith ball positively, because positive charge (or protons) are not moved; rather electrons move from the pith ball to the positively charged rod. Is this something that should be addressed? K of slinky (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

John Canton
According to the Wikipedia article on John Canton, he was the son of a weaver rather than a weaver's apprentice; he was a schoolmaster by profession and an important amateur physicist (although I imagine he would have described himself as a natural philosopher). He was elected FRS (22 March 1750), and not without good cause. Moletrouser (talk) 10:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Electroscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120419225338/http://www.docstoc.com:80/docs/76893329/Electric-Force to http://www.docstoc.com/docs/76893329/Electric-Force
 * Added tag to http://www.journals.royalsoc.ac.uk/content/klgdd0umcmvjqnpr/fulltext.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Electroscope. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140131021101/http://books.google.com/books?id=pPleL5NOtb4C&pg=PA329&dq=%22pith+ball+electroscope%22+induction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UOL_Tr-0GeeRiQK76aTCCg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAQ to https://books.google.com/books?id=pPleL5NOtb4C&pg=PA329&dq=%22pith+ball+electroscope%22+induction&hl=en&sa=X&ei=UOL_Tr-0GeeRiQK76aTCCg&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAQ
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141003090252/http://nedayeoloom.blogfa.com/post/461 to http://nedayeoloom.blogfa.com/post/461

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

What about Coulomb measuring device?
In 1784, four years before Bennet, Charles-Augustin_de_Coulomb, showed his mechanical tensed electro meter. Why isn't it showed here? It wall also inducted electro statically and measured with a higher degree of certainty the electric force applied on the balls? Please add reference, or order me to do so.

My siting is from Heilbron, J.L.,: Electricity in the 17th and 18th centuries. Cal Press, Berkely, 1979.

Change to lead sentence will mislead readers
User:Sdc870 recently changed the lead sentence by removing the word "early" in the definition, from
 * "An electroscope is an early scientific instrument used to detect the presence and magnitude of electric charge on a body."

to
 * "An electroscope is a scientific instrument used to detect the presence and magnitude of electric charge on a body."

I think this should be reverted. I think the new sentence will be grossly misleading for non-scientifically-educated readers, implying that electroscopes are modern instruments still used in electronics. Electroscopes are obsolete 18th and 19th century instruments which had some use as radiation detectors in the early 20th century; their last use was in the quartz fiber dosimeter used 50 years ago in the nuclear industry as a personal radiation monitor, and now long replaced with modern detectors. There is no other indication in the introduction that these are antique historical instruments. --ChetvornoTALK 16:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Should there be a separate section for the needle electroscope?
It's details seem substantially different to the gold leaf electroscope in both other online encyclopedias and school/lab equipment stores. 2A02:C7C:4C00:8500:650F:314:5F6F:B302 (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2024 (UTC)