Talk:Triboelectric effect/Archive 2

Triboelectricity and friends
A comment for editors. Unfortunately the terms triboelectricity, triboelectric effect, tribocharging, contact electrification are a big mess in sources. You can find everything, many bad definitions. Hence a second paragraph is needed to try and avoid chaos. We already had someone confused about triboelectricity and static electricity. While I wanted to ignore this, alas there are dictionary definitions of triboelectricity as a type of electricity (!). In all probability a few other terms will need to be added. We also have to careful as, for instance, gases don't contact or slide the same way solids do. Most sources only deal with solids, and ignore the more than a century documentation of comparable effects in fluids. Ldm1954 (talk) 21:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I just added contact electricity, as this is in Websters. I think we need redirects for all of these. Ldm1954 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the factual error was tribocharge was. I'm not sure why mentioning tribocharging can also occur between combinations of solids, liquids and gases. or even solids is important.. I also don't get the difference between Static electricity due to sliding or contact is sometimes called triboelectricity. and [static electricity generated through the triboelectric effect when the charge stays on an object] is sometimes called triboelectricity, plus when the charge stays on an object is way simpler than when the charge stays on one or both of the objects and is not conducted away. On an unrelated note, could we finish the above discussion on bolding? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The differences are subtle:
 * That a liquid flowing past a solid, air past a solid or liquid can lead to charge transfer should be mentioned, to clarify that it is not just for solids. Also contacts. This is general context.
 * Your sentence structure was wrong. It implied that static electricity came from sliding or contact, but it is (here) the triboelectric effect that is the cause.
 * You get static electricity from triboelectricity iff it is not neutralized somehow. I prefer the more specific form.
 * N.B., I used a couple of your other edits. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Just remove solid from the entire thing altogether then like what my version did. contacts is also already in there in my version It said "It generates..." with the context being that the entire paragraph started with triboelectric effect, I don't see why you think that. Isn't the charge staying on the object not neutralized? MOS says leads should be succint Aaron Liu (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I thought about removing solids, but I don't think people will realise it is for liquids/gases as well. The idea of contacts for liquid or gas would be too complicated for an introduction.
 * We need to be more careful than normal in this article, both because of the conflicting views and the unscience.
 * The second paragraph on terms is critical, and it is a paragraph as the topic is different. I added some redirects, did you add some?
 * Please, focus on a graphic or three. That is what matters.
 * Ldm1954 (talk) 03:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Things are stuff. At most we can add "between all kinds of matter", the current version overcomplicates the entire thing. And putting "solid" between "all" and "materials" does not make sense I'm not sure how the rest addresses anything I said, and we still haven't resolved the dispute about bolding. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:30, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Bolding is resolved by a 2:1 vote against you.
 * The current version is clear. Please stop. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is determined by WP:CONSENSUS, not votes, and you have not rebutted my argument yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The "all" is deliberate. Some unscience is that it is only some materials. Please also note that the text says "There is evidence.." which is deliberate, and very different from claiming that it is everywhere the same. For instance Workman-Reynolds is different physics which never occurs with just solids, please look up the effect. Words matter, please leave the lead alone. Ldm1954 (talk) 09:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not talking about the "all", I think that's fine, I'm talking about the adjective "solid" between "all" and "materials". I think just saying "all materials" is way better than "all solid materials". Aaron Liu (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I remind you of a statement you made about a month ago which is in the archive:
 * "Isn't "insulator-insulator", "insulator-metal" and "metal-metal" contact all three types of contact in this context? Why is this sentence worded this way? Isn't it just saying "Triboelectric charging often occurs when two objects come in contact and almost always when multiple insulators contact each other" (which I also doubt, when I rub my hand against my wooden table repeatedly, which are both insulators, I don't think static has been generated.)
 * The current wording is to try and answer the sort of query you raised back them; I think you now accept that it is always there. Similarly the second paragraph is to answer a reader's query about the difference between static electricity and triboelectricity. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how that answers my query, and insulators and metals can be fluids. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that mechanism is a path. For instance, the mechanism of a chemical reaction involves the trajectories of the atoms. There is debate in triboelectricity about what moves, why it moves, what are the energy drivers etc. These are "details" not "mechanism". Ldm1954 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no chemistry-specific definition for mechanism. The most subject-specific definition says it's a process, which includes what moves why it moves and where it goes. Aaron Liu  (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Terms can matter, and if used inappropriately they lead to chaos. You can find definitions in DOI:10.5006/2555 albeit in a different context, reproduced here by permission:
 * A Driver is the relevant free energy term that ontrols the thermodynamics. By definition, a Driver must correspond to a reduction in the free energy of the system, either in a closed thermodynamics sense or open thermodynamics, where the total system is considered including the environment.
 * A Trigger is the local process which subsequently leads to a change such as breakdown of the protective oxide film. This is associated with some local morphological change, often a morphological instability that leads to a runaway process such as breakdown.
 * The Mechanism is the atomistic or nanoscale process that leads to the change. It frequently is associated with a specific structural Trigger, and has to be in response to some Driver.
 * The Dependencies are how all of the above depend upon the external environment, for instance the pH, temperature, and applied potentials.
 * For triboelectricity the mechanism is transfer of electrons and/or ions. The driver is some combination of contact potential, electromechanical and others such as probably electrohydrodynamical for fluids and maybe heating. The dependencies are surface roughness, curvature, crystallography, the material, environment. I am not certain whether triggers matter in this context, although they might. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why isn't this content in the article. Seems helpful. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot add it due to COI -- you or someone else could (should?) Ldm1954 (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That statement was perhaps too conservative. I will ponder. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not have access to that paper, but I'll trust that that is what it says. Thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, Isn't triboelectricity what is generated by the triboelectric effect? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please look at https://www.google.com/search?q=triboelectricity+defintion and be horrified! Many of these are unscience, for instance there is no science to the Google definition "electric charge generated by friction". Ldm1954 (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Addendum: triboelectric effect and triboelectricity are the same thing, triboelectricity is not a type of electricity and not the consequence of the triboelectric effect. This is the question that Chris J Evans asked about. Similar terms are piezoelectricity & the piezoelectric effect, flexoelectricity and the flexoelectric effect (and probably a few more). Ldm1954 (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Besides merriam webster, I counted a couple of sources' mentions of triboelectricity:
 * University of Wisconsin MRSEC: Triboelectricity, more commonly known as static electricity
 * ScienceDirect, a science publication search tool: Triboelectricity is a particular case of the general phenomenon of charge storage exhibited by electrets.
 * Finally, this conductive hydrogel was reported to generate triboelectricity in contact with the PDMS film 8 A (g).
 * "Tribonet" has "wiki" in the URL so I skipped it. "Physics Classroom" doesn't sound reliable and has no mention of triboelectricity. "Science Daily" has no mention.That was all page 1 of your Google link had. I skipped all dictionaries, but if you would like to know they all say "triboelectricity is electricity". Aaron Liu (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you really need to look more carefully at the science:
 * Friction is an energy dissipation process associated with elastic/plastic deformation and phonon/electron excitation. It does not cause anything. Read the current page and the book by Harper where there the role of sliding is mentioned
 * Read static electricity where it is listed as one of many sources.
 * Read the rest of the MRSEC advertisement -- that is what it is.
 * This is going nowhere. If you send me a direct email I will send you pdf copies of various books etc. Please read up before trying to challenge me on science. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * My point is that Google supports my side, not yours, and I saw nothing to be horrified about, especially with ScienceDirect which brought up a lot of papers that mention triboelectricity as electricity. I did not mention friction, I don't know why you're saying this. I'm not sure what your "it" is. If you mean the part where it talks about generators, I don't see how that means it's an advertisement. Wikipedia also introduces other articles on its articles, and they don't sell anything; the linked page details a procedure that can be constructed out of everyday objects. I have my sources, you can just say the titles and the pages that say triboelectricity is the triboelectric effect. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please look at your earlier claim about the Google definition "electric charge generated by friction."
 * It is charge transfer
 * You cannot generate electric charge, it is conserved
 * Friction does not do anything, it is a consequence not a driver
 * Read the literature. As you might not have good access, I know the following are available and have some information that would be useful:
 * http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/thesis/mizzi_chris_thesis.pdf
 * http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/thesis/Alex_Lin_Thesis.pdf
 * http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/thesis/Hoffman_thesis.pdf
 * http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/thesis/merkle_thesis.pdf
 * http://www.numis.northwestern.edu/Presentations/Tribology.pptx
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=BGXmCAAAQBAJ Ldm1954 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you were talking about the webster definition, I get it now. Friction is a force (supported by multiple online forces such as brittanica khanacademy etc), and even if it is an "energy dissipation process", it can cause things (for example, energy dissipation). I have good access. I have access to WP:TWL along with several piracy resources. Thanks for the links you provided. Professor Mizzi's does say that the triboelectricity and the triboelectric effect are the same thing. However, all of the numis sites are for a research group, which like you said before counts as a primary source unless they make an overview. For the book, I've obtained a copy for it through my sources and couldn't find any mention of "triboelectricity" through my find tool.As this is going nowhere, I propose we start an RfC, just for triboelectricity. I also want the bolding and the lead to be resolved but these can be saved for later. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you read the book, or just use a search tool on it? You need to read and understand it before you try to comment on the relevant science. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think I'll have time or commitment to read the entire book just for Wikipedia, and the part that says triboelectricity is the triboelectric effect should be in a short range. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have not read it then you are disqualifying yourself from making science statements. My current library on triboelectricity is 413 pdfs, tribology 1401 pdfs. Yes, I have read all of them, and I have a good memory. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * And I am saying that since this is going nowhere we should start an RfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere, you do not listen to anything I or others have said about the science. All good PhD's contain unbiased overviews, I make sure that my students do, even representing work that disagrees with theirs. Friction is a consequence of an applied force where energy dissipative processes leads to a retarding force that is called friction. You are wrong, I have worked in tribology for 20 years and published extensively.Ldm1954 (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant review article, not overview. I don't understand what you mean by "friction is a consequence that leads to a force called friction". Aaron Liu (talk) 19:42, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The sentence was wrong, I corrected it to "Friction is a consequence of an applied force where energy dissipative processes leads to a retarding force that is called friction." If you have read Harper's book (and, better, Bowden & Tabor) you will know this. (There is in fact a component of friction due to triboelectricity, not the other way around.)
 * All thesis from strong R1 universities contain review sections. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a draft of the RfC opening statement below. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I do not agree with this. Triboelectricity is the noun, triboelectric is an adjective to the noun effect.
 * Piezoelectricity = piezoelectric effect
 * Flexoelectricity = flexoelectric effect
 * Photoelectricity = photoelectric effect
 * Magnetoelectricity = magnetoelectric effect
 * Triboelectricity = triboelectric effect
 * There is no "static electric effect". Static refers to stationary, as against time-varying as in current.
 * If you add all of these then I might. Without this then you are biasing everything. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, as the section states from the start, it is charge transfer which is not the same. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you reply this to the wrong thing? I'm trying to hear what you think on the opening RfC statement below. Also, isn't your view that triboelectricity=triboelectric effect, which is the same as "triboelectricity is an alternative name for the triboelectric effect?" <span style="color: rgb(6,69,173); text-decoration: inherit;">Aaron Liu (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2023 (UTC)