# Talk:Triboelectric effect

Normal useage of many science terms is a noun and the corresponding adjective for instance ferroelectric and ferroelecticity. Other examples are for the adjective pyroelectric, piezoelectric, ferromagnetic, electromagnetic (and more).
It has been suggested that triboelectricity is the electricity produced by the triboelectric effect, instead of being the noun with triboelectric the adjective. For completeness, note that triboelectricity is a charge transfer, and there is common use of triboelectric as an adjective.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:43, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest you rename the article "Triboelectricity".  The "effect" is not helpful. Johnjbarton (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I believe that my version of the opening statement is clearer:
Should "triboelectricity" be treated as an alternative name for the triboelectric effect or as the electricity produced by the triboelectric effect? Aaron Liu (talk) 23:03, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Electricity. There is a plethora of online, secondary, reliable sources that support that it is electricity,s ee the section above.
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.
Aaron Liu (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
It is unfortunate that you do not want to pay attention to the science, but still feel that you are an expert. To quote what you said:
"I don't think I'll have time or commitment to read the entire book just for Wikipedia" Ldm1954 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't see where I have claimed that I'm an expert, and I believe that I should not need to finish reading a 250+ page book just to see if there is anything in there that claims that triboelectricity is the triboelectric effect without using the word "triboelectricity" Aaron Liu (talk) 00:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, please read Dunning–Kruger effect, I am afraid this is relevant. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Having read through the above discussions, I'm going to have to side with Ldm1954: "You need to read and understand it [the applicable literature] before you try to comment on the relevant science." I think we have here a case of someone who "knows just enough to get into trouble" as the saying goes. Even Liu's understanding of what "noun" means seems off to me. E.g., all three of "triboelectricity", "electricity", and "triboelectric effect" are nouns (or a noun phrase in the third case), yet Liu says "triboelectricity is the electricity produced by the triboelectric effect, instead of being the noun with triboelectric the adjective", which is a statement that makes no sense if you known what a noun is. At most, we may have a case where the term "triboelectricity" is used multiple ways, and the solution to that is to explain both definitions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:56, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Thankyou. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:08, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@SMcCandlish "instead of being the noun with triboelectric the adjective" is not what I said at all, I agree that all three of these are nouns and have no idea why Ldm's talking about parts of speech. I don't think I should be required to read an entire 250+ page book to comment on what triboelectricity means, especially when I found no mention of "triboelectricity" in the PDF. I've read all the other sources Ldm has provided (save for DOI:10.5006/2555 which I can't access), and while the numsis.northwestern.edu ones do say it's the same thing as the effect, it's from a research team, none of them are review articles, and it counts as a primary source and should have less weight than secondary sources. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Also on a side note I prefer "Aaron" instead of "Liu". Aaron Liu (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
The thing most closely related to the nonsense about parts of speech was when I opposed Ldm's overexpanding of the opening statement in the RfC draft in the "RfC draft" section above. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I quoted the wrong party, sorry about that. Anyway, I stand by the gist of what I wrote: If we have multiple uses of the same word, we explain them, and explaining them is done by reading and summarizing complex source material. It's work. And it can't be faked by skimming a little of the source material and then saying "I should not need to finish reading a 250+ page book".  Those who won't do the work need to stand aside.  I should know; I've just spent 3 months of my free time researching another topic, and it has involved reading thousands of pages of complex source material. Our matter on that topic is now vastly better than it was before, but it required doing all that reading, and accurately summarizing that material – including in light of conflicts between different authors, and different shades of meaning being attached to particular words, and figuring out what weight is due to each source. There is no shortcut. PS: It's clear just from the two source quotes above that different authors are using "tribolectricity" very differently. The first is using it to mean the static electricity that arises from the triboelectric effect, and the second is using it to mean the tribolectric effect itself. So, moving this article to Triboelectricity may present an ambiguity problem. And WP:RFC is not the process by which we move articles anyway; that's WP:RM.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:06, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Firstly this RfC isn't about moving things, that was only suggested by John and not in the opening statement. Secondly I really don't think the book can offer any useful information on the meaning of triboelectricity if the word "triboelectricity" isn't in it. The book seems to be about the details of how the triboelectric effect works and I don't see anywhere discussing the terms. I don't think I need to read the entire book and understand how it works to understand what word I should use, and I would very much like it if Ldm told me the page numbers that discussed the terms. Lastly I agree that we could just put them in as disputed though I would really like it if we had secondary sources backing "it's an alternative name". Aaron Liu (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
How do you know the book doesn't mention "triboelectricity" if you've not read it?  Who said anything about "disputed"?  A word having multiple meanings or shades of meaning isn't a dispute, it's just different patterns of usage. Honestly, I don't know why this discussion is so long and so ranco[u]rous.  I'm of half a mind to just go edit the lead, using the sources already cited above, demonstrating that the term triboelectricity is used in two different ways, and move on.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a digitized PDF of it and I used a search tool on it and all mentions of "tribo". When I said "disputed" what I meant is that it has multiple ways of usage, and I can agree to make the lead like that and then try to resolve the other disputes, though I'd still really like to see a secondary source backing the "alternative name" usage. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's research for you to do, then.  I've done what I can to satisfy you, and to bring all the above silly pissing match (four whole threads worth of it) to an end. Also did a bunch of citation cleanup.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Lol, only the last three threads (including this one and the RfC draft wasn't really a thread so just one other thread) have been about this, the other ones were about other things. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Also when I said bolding I meant italicizing, my apologies. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
It was italicized per MOS:WAW. If you have not internalized our manual of style yet, then you should not be edit-warring with people over style matters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Also the ScienceDirect source doesn't appear to support the idea that "triboelectricity" is the same thing as the triboelectric effect to me, see the above mention of ScienceDirect. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

That cat photo is genius, kudos.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D08:127F:5000:44E4:B601:E417:23C4 (talk) 05:29, 30 August 2023 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Triboelectric effect/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 01:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks User:RoySmith for the very careful edits and suggestions. I have clarified the text, accepting and/or rewriting for almost all of them --- a few are personal style or are not really appropriate. My responses etc are in italics. Please let me know your opinion. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Note: I'm reviewing Special:Permalink/1173165084.  Reference numbers refer to that revision.


### Lead
The statement There is evidence that tribocharging can also occur between combinations of solids, liquids and gases.  Use of the phrase "there is evidence" implies significant uncertainty that this is true.  But Liquids and gasses" says, this is well established.
The liquid and gas section described the definitive evidence for liquid-liquid. The evidence for solid-liquid and liquid-gas is less definitive. I think it is best to not do what would be in effect original research, and leave it a little vague.
This is still a little confusing: It occurs with differing amounts of charge transfer (tribocharge) for all solid materials and all contacts and sliding. There is evidence that tribocharging can also occur between combinations of solids, liquids and gases. Does "all solid material" mean when both materials are solids, or any combination as long as at least one of them is a solid? It's also not clear how the "all contacts and sliding" should be interpreted. It seems like there's two orthogonal concepts here: 1) the phase(s) of the two materials and 2) if the contact is stationary or sliding. Does it happen, for example, at the stationary interface of oil floating on water?
I have edited to try and be clearer, adding that it is ubiquitous. I left the sliding versus contact to a couple of paragraphs later. You are correct that there are two orthogonal aspects, these are discussed more later. While I suspect that there is transfer between oil floating on water, I am not sure if it has been measured. This is why I am more reserved and use the term "evidence".
The lead mentions "xerography", which is not covered in the main body.
Removed, it is less directly connected.
Likewise, the main body says nothing about "planetary formation"
Added at end of main body.
The lead says triboelectric charge plays a major role in dust storms.  The main body only says it can occur
Sorry, I think you misread the body. It says that the Coulomb forces can match gravity, which to me is major.
MOS:LEADCITE discourages citations in the lead.
References 1-6 need to stay, this was an issue of some dispute. While I could remove 7-10, it is only discouraged so I think it is OK to leave them. I can if you really want
It's not clear what in the main body supports significant disagreements remain in the current literature about the underlying details
There is masses! It ranges from the order in a triboelectric series to whether it is ions or electrons, everything about the the mechanisms, role of friction, humidity, surface states and more. These are all mentioned, being careful to be balanced and neutral.
The caption for File:Cat demonstrating static cling with styrofoam peanuts.jpg states that the peanuts are clinging to the cat because of triboelectric effect.  That seems likely, but the first mention of triboelectric effect in the commons image description was added six months after the image was uploaded by a different editor.  So that statement is an assumption.
I agree, and shortened the caption.


### History
The sentence The prefix tribo- (Greek for ‘rub’) refers to sliding, friction and related processes, as in tribology. needs an in-line citation.
Added
From the earliest days is vague.  How early is early?  Also, I think you need a comma after "days".
I added Axial Age and when that is
Reference 12 is a 600 page book.  You need to provide a specific page number for the information you're citing.
Done, p16 although there are other relevant parts
You added it to the first place it's used as {{rp}}, which is fine, but it's also used in several other places (ref #11 in the latest version).  So you need to either do the {{rp}} thing on all of them, or if they all refer to the same page, include page=16 in the reference itself.
The book ambles around a bit. The relevant content is in pages 1-45 (Chapters 1-2), so I added this. The supporting (secondary) source for most of the earliest history is those two chapters.
Archbishop Eustathius of Thessalonica, Greek scholar and writer of the 12th century, records that Woliver, king of the Goths, was able to draw sparks from his body. The same writer states that a certain philosopher was able, while dressing, to draw sparks from his clothes, a result seemingly akin to that obtained by Robert Symmer in his silk stocking experiments, an account of which may be found in the 1759 Philosophical Transactions. is word-for-word from the source.  This either needs to be presented as a direct quote, or rewritten.
Rewritten
The effect was mentioned in various records from the medieval period.  You've presented one such record.  What others make up the "various"?
For simplicity I have removed the "various"
An important step was in 1660 when Otto von Guericke invented a machine the cited source (16) doesn't mention the year 1660.
I have changed it to "around 1663" with a specific cite; the source at the end describes other machines.
The use of the terms positive and negative for types of electricity grew out of the independent work of Benjamin Franklin around 1747 where he ascribed electricity to an over- or under- abundance of an electrical fluid.[22]: 47 the cited source does not appear to support this statement.
I rechecked the source; it is in there and the pages are roughly correct; I edited them to be 43-48 so more inclusive.
At about the same time Johan Carl Wilcke published in a 1757 paper a triboelectric series. ref 23 (The Owls) does not appear to be a WP:RS.  Why not just cite the underlying 1757 paper directly?  Also, the citation here should be at the end of the paragraph.
Done, although it is a thesis in latin.
The first systematic analysis of triboelectricity is considered to be the work of Jean Claude Eugène Péclet in 1834. Why was this the first?  Why not Wilcke's 1757 or Franklin's 1747 work?
Jean Claude analyzed triboelectricity systematically and scientifically. Franklin was not focusing on it, more on comparing different types of electricity, and Wilcke just gave an observational list. I think the current text is appropriate.
(I'll stop here for now and pick up probably tomorrow)


### Basic characteristics
The entire first paragraph is sourced to a 826 page textbook.  Please provide a more specific citation, i.e. page number(s).  The book is available on-line via the Open Library; it would be useful to add a link to it (i.e. https://archive.org/details/solidstatephysic00ashc/)
In fact polarization is the word where the book is sourced, and I have added the relevant chapter. I have moved the reference inside slightly to clarify, and added a citation to the video (which was a link at the end). I an not going to include the Open Library link as I am not sure whether that is a copyright violation, as it was uploaded by someone in China, not the authors. The text is still standard for physics teaching.
Nit: you now have two adjacent links: "dipoles (polarization)".  Is there a way to rephrase this to avoid the MOS:SEAOFBLUE problem?
I removed the polarization. Dipoles is good enough I think.
The triboelectric effect can be very unpredictable, delete "very"; unless the source is explicit that "unpredictable" isn't a strong enough description, adding "very" is WP:OR.  While I'm here, the same comment applies in multiple places ("considered to be very similar", "flexoelectricity may be very important", "very little humidity depedance", so consider if those uses are appropriate as well.
These are issues of personal style. I have deleted many of them.
Jaimeson observed ... whether the it was bent missing word between "the" and "it"?
The "the" did not belong, so it should be "whether it was bent". Changed'
Richards pointed out that for colliding particles the velocity and mass played a role, I only have access to the abstract, but that indicates he was specifically studying metal/dielectric collisions; I'm not sure if adding that detail would be valuable here, but consider it.
It would not be, as elsewhere there is information about same material collisions, so mentioning specific materials like this could mislead.
Shaw pointed out that the sign of the charge transfer could change with time Again, only going from the abstract, I'm not sure that he's describing something that's a function of time.  If I perform the experiment today, and then come back and perform it again next week, time has passed; will the result be different?  It sounds like the variation being observed is not so much due to time, but due to the state of the materials imposed by previous actions.
I made it more specific, using " the sign of the charge transfer from "rubber" to "rubbed" could change with time". I am certain that you are correct in your interpretation, but I do not think we are allowed to make that inference. What I am trying to make clear as that simple ideas were known to fail a century ago.
There are other more recent experimental results... I think this would work better if the previous paragraph was framed as something like, "Different, and at times apparently contradictory phenomena were observed in the early 20th century"
On the topic of Different, and at times apparently contradictory phenomena, it's not clear how the observations described here contradict each other.
I removed the "Different and at times", and changed it to "Phenomena which do not have a simple explanation" In terms of some of the simple, well-nkown models (triboelectric series) the idea that if you bend a piece of cellulose you change the sign of the transfer is strange. I am trying to get that across gently.
For instance the work of Burgo and Erdemir, "For instance" is just puffery.  Not to mention this is a run-on sentence.  I'd just list themindividually: "Burgo and Erdemir showed that ... (new sentence) Lee at al; Forward, Lacks and Sankaran; and other investigators measured the charge transfer ... zirconia of different sizes... (new sentence) Baytekin et al performed a similar experiment with a Kelvin probe force microscope..."
This is a personal style issue. The "For instance" refers back to the "simple explanation" of the prior sentence so I consider it appropriate. I prefer not to change this, I don't like unconnected sentences without flow.
are not as yet established science -> "As of 2023..."
Changed, good idea
As has been known for some time -> "As has been known since (year)"  I guess since 1953?
I have put in "at least 1953". There are other papers which questioned it earlier, but the theory they used was flakey until band structure was sorted out in the 50's, plus I have not cited them
such as the apparently contradictory ones mentioned above again, it's not clear which of the above results are contradictory.
I changed it to "the ones mentioned in the last two paragraphs"
Many studies have pointed out issues with the work function difference as a complete explanation This is confusing.  Perhaps, "Many studies have shown that the differences in the work functions of different materials is not a complete explanation"?
I added a (Volta potential) to try and clarify. Remember that charging occurs between to pieces of the same material, so I don't want to limit it.
Surfaces have many nanoscale asperities, as with my comments about "very", delete "many".
Sorry, no. A surface has nanoscale and larger asperities depending upon preparation, roughness etc. If I delete the "many" it implies that they are all nanoscale, which is wrong.
Instead of citing Harper, W. R. (1961), why not cite the original Volta and Helmholtz papers, or at least note what years those studies were done, so it's clear that these studies laid the groundwork for later investigators?
The Harper book is a well-respected source to this day, so I think it is better. Also secondary versus primary?


### Explanations and mechanisms
From early work starting around the end of the 19th century, Above you cite Volta, who died in 1827, so apparently the early work is earlier than the end of the 19th century.
I meant that of Owens, Jones and Shaw. I added the cites, although some may say it is overkill.
An empirical approach to triboelectricity is via a triboelectric series, delete "via".
OK
It is known that this approach is too simple and unreliable how does "too simple" differ from "unreliable"?  Consider dropping one or the other.
Sorry, I don't agree. "Too simple" indicates that it does not include everything, "unreliable" means that sometimes it works, sometimes it fails. Both are relevant.
Cyclic triboelectric series example, illustrating that the approach does not work in practice. This image caption makes no sense in isolation.  Clarify that "the approach" means a linear series.
Good point, changed.
materials which do not have inversion symmetry would it be appropriate to link inversion symmetry to Point reflection? I think (but I'm not sure) these are the same concepts.
While they are the same, the term "Point reflection" is not used in crystallography or the physical sciences so would be confusing. I edited the lead of the Point reflection page on this, someone had put in a redirect and not made it clear. I don't know enough geometry to add refs to that page.
It has recently been suggested that flexoelectricity may be very important[60] in triboelectricity, hmmm, reading this in context, maybe this is a place where "very" is correct (see my earlier comments about "very").
I will leave the "very"


### Examples
the wheels elastic deform "elastically"?  Or maybe just drop the word completely?  Also, wouldn't the wheels deform even if they went over a perfectly smooth road?
I changed it to "elastically deform as they roll". The elastic is needed to differentiate it from plastic (irreversible).
whereas Harper[109] has argued that it is small. put the citation at the end of the sentence.
That could be confused to indicate that the whole sentence is from Harper, when it is only the second part of the sentence.
I've always used the rule that a citation covers only back to the closest preceeding citation, so that shouldn't be a problem.  I can't find where this is actually written down, unfortunately.  I assume somewhere in MOS:CITE, but I'm not seeing it.  I won't insist.
For instance, in thunderstorms this can contribute (together with the waterfall effect) to separation of positive hydrogen ions and negative hydroxide ions, leading to static charge. this sentence needs a citation.
I added one, and a link to the Lightning#Electrification page, although the later is a bit vague.
aircraft typically have a static wick actually, they typically have several, but find a WP:RS for that.
Nice point, I added a NASA report, also keeping the other one. I also added an image
Cargo on ships can be a source of tribocharge. myseatime.com is a blog, thus likely not a WP:RS.
I added one paper, keeping the blob. Also some restructuring in this section.
If you really want to keep the blog, convince me it's a WP:RS.  Reading through it, I see such dubious statements as Since electrons are so light, these are easily released with small amounts of energy and if we rub a conductor and inductor (sic) together which I might be willing to accept as a typo, except he makes the same mistake in the next sentence.  It's fine tha a sea captain is aware of the dangers of static charge since it's a safety issue with ships, but he shouldn't be teaching physics. h
OK, having looked more closely at his blog, while there is a lot of nice information, the sources are broken or paywalled, and there are some dubious statements. I found a refereed publication which I am using instead. While searching I found a place that provides courses to mariners on the topic, which seemed appropriate to include.
During planetary formation ... grains Maybe it's just me, but when I read "grains", my mind was still thinking about cargo ships, so I started wondering what loading wheat onto a ship had to do with planets.  Maybe find some other word for "grain"?  In any case, move the citation to the end of the sentence.
Moved the citation, and changed to "granular material" -- which may be worse than "grains" (which is appropriate, even though it has multiple meanings.)
Helicopter blades move fast this is just a special case of the aircraft example given above, so combine.
Yes and no, as there are some odd features such as light which may be associated with it -- these are classified (yes) so I don't know the reality. I merged it as the light is way beyond relevance.
Projectiles can accumulate charge which isn't this also just another case of aircraft static?
For simplicity I deleted it.
As a general comment, this is kind of a laundry list.  I'm not sure having such an extensive listing adds to the reader's understanding of the subject.  Perhaps a sampling of the most significant or interesting of these could be extracted and recast in prose form per MOS:EMBED) and point (1)(b) of WP:GACR#The six good article criteria?
I restructured, moving some to a list above on industry, leaving less here.
Contact with the slide has left this child's hair positively charged (image caption).  It is WP:OR to say that the hair has become positively charged.  What WP:RS associated with the image tells you that?
I pulled the caption from somewhere else, it is used in many places. I removed it, added "vehicle straps" and an amazing image.


### General comments
OK, that's it for a complete first pass.  Ping me when you've worked through all the issues.
One general comment however is that you've presented a series of experiments on the topic but without showing how this unfolded vis-a-vis our evolving understanding of the nature of matter.  Wilcke's paper in 1757 was 150 years before the discovery of the electron.  Shaw's 1917 paper was written just the the Bohr model of the atom was being put forth and by Henniker's 1962 paper, we had an understanding of quantum mechanics essentially up to modern standards.  Surely these advances in our understanding of atomic structure and processes had a profound effect on the exploration of the triboelectric effect.  You touch on this briefly in the last paragraph of History, but I think it deserves greater attention.

I agree about the importance of modern solid-state etc. However, you won't find all the recent literature including it for reasons that I won't go into here. By 2030 I think this will all be in there, but at the moment to add something would be WP:OR. I am also trying to be WP:NPOV, and not call some things nonsense.
I will give one example that annoys me, and I carefully avoid in the article. The term "frictional electrification" is common, implying that friction causes charge transfer. However, Friction is not a fundamental force, it is a consequence so does not cause charge transfer. Scientific myth 1, Science 0. (N.B., I don't think debunking is appropriate in Wikipedia.)


### Second pass
I'm fine with most of this.  I left a few comments above.  Please take care of those and then this should be ready to go.  RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again. I have adjusted the lead so hopefully it is a little clearer, removed the blog and cleaned up the other things you mentioned. I will be travelling for a few days so responses will be slow. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, this looks good.  I removed one bit that was sourced to a non-RS (Medium), but the rest looks fine.  Thank you for writing this and for putting up with my nit-picking. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In the "History of the battery" article, a paragraph is spent on Volta's Contact Tension theory, with a hyperlink, but the link redirects here to the Triboelectric Effect.
Volta is only mentioned once, and neither the term Contact Tension Theory nor any of the ideas about corrosion appears at any point in this article. The paraphraph that links here goes as follows:

Volta believed the current was the result of two different materials simply touching each other – an obsolete scientific theory known as contact tension – and not the result of chemical reactions. As a consequence, he regarded the corrosion of the zinc plates as an unrelated flaw that could perhaps be fixed by changing the materials somehow. However, no scientist ever succeeded in preventing this corrosion. In fact, it was observed that the corrosion was faster when a higher current was drawn. This suggested that the corrosion was actually integral to the battery's ability to produce a current. This, in part, led to the rejection of Volta's contact tension theory in favor of the electrochemical theory.
Fisk0 (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

That paragraph is very wrong. The link is probably better to contact potential and/or Volta potential/Galvani potential, none of which are "obsolete". Someone would have to dig up Volta's papers to check what he really said; alas History of the battery does not source the claim.
N.B., I just corrected contact potential which also had the nonsense claim about contact electrification. There may be more with this nonsense, may have to check all the links to TrE. Ldm1954 (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
@Fisk0, from Oxford Electric Bell see Willem Hackmann. "The Enigma of Volta's "Contact Tension" and the Development of the "Dry Pile"" (PDF). ppp.unipv.it.. There are quite a few erroneous links to be corrected. Ldm1954 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2025 (UTC)