Talk:Contact electrification

message: I started adding some info about contact electrification in general to triboelectric effect.  I now see that triboelectric specifically refers to different materials, so I will remove that info.  I think maybe the two articles should be merged, however.  I see that neither article seems to be aware of the other. - Omegatron 19:10, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
:It seems to me there's a huge amount of history that could be added to Triboelectric effect, and also all the other phenomena mentioned here, so I've removed the merge tags.  I'll try to bring more attention to them from historians of science. -- Beland 01:51, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This article covers topics which were once erroneously thought to be related but are now clearly seen as unrelated, and are covered elsewhere: triboelectric effect, Volta potential, semiconductor Fermi levels.  This should be made clearer in the lead para.  It should stick close to the history and not recap the scientific topics.  --ChetvornoTALK 17:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: From the section entitled Metallic Contact:
 The process is halted when the difference in electric potential (electrostatic potential) 
 between the two metals reaches a particular value, namely the difference in work function 
 values - usually less than one volt. At this point, the Fermi levels for the two metals 
 are equal, and there is no voltage difference between them.
Is a voltage difference the same as a potential difference? If so, this explanation makes no sense, since it says that there is and is not a potential difference. 84.227.226.188 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Metallic contact voltage difference?

message: I would like to propose to merge the Triboelectric Effect (TE) article and the Contact Electrification (CE) article. TE is a type of CE that involves "rubbing" (hence tribo-). While the two can be distinguished this way, the overlap between the two are simply too great to merit separate articles. The solution is to have the main article be Contact Electrification (TE redirecting to CE) with a sentence explaining that TE is a type of CE. Much of the current content in the CE page is questionable, and both pages (TE and CE) needs some serious fact checking and citations. There also seems to be confusion in discerning TE/CE versus static electricity versus various types of electrical discharges. TE/CE is about the buildup of electrical charge, static electricity is the interaction of static (immobile, or at least confined to a bounded substance) charges with its surroundings, and there are various types of electrical discharges (due to mobile charges) as well. Only information about the buildup of electrical charge belongs here - other information can be linked for further reading. And finally, while the history of these subjects are certainly interesting, there is already a rather comprehensive article about the History of electromagnetic theory which can also be linked. I would like to undertake this task in a few days, but I first want to engage others watching this article.--Acolaos (talk) 02:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Reply - Thank you for the reply! • I believe that contact electrification (CE) is not a discredited historical theory. A look at Willem Hackmann's The Enigma of Volta's "Contact Tension" and the Development of the "Dry Pile" that is referenced in the CE article actually never mentions CE, but instead "contact tension." I have not checked if Volta himself ever wrote "contact electrification" in his theories and this is worth taking another look. In contrast, modern research on CE and the triboelectric effect (TE) often references CE directly (DOI: 10.1126/science.1201512, doi:10.1088/0022-3727/44/45/453001). • The combination of calling CE a discredited theory and including valid mechanisms of CE (Sections 2-5) is strange to me. • My main argument for the merger is that CE is the overarching study of how things transfer charge on contact and TE is a subset of CE.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acolaos (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you clarify whether you are proposing merging Triboelectric effect into Contact electrification or Contact electrification into Triboelectric effect?  Your text says the former, but your merger tag at the top of the page says the latter. Could you change one or the other to make the page consistent so editors won't be confused about what is being proposed? Thanks! --ChetvornoTALK 18:12, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about that - I am still learning a lot about the rules here. I've updated the merger tag. --Acolaos (talk) 19:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Triboelectric effect]] into this article? 

message: Please see comment I have added to talk in Triboelectricity page. These are confused because the science is not settled. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This article was a hopeless confusion of electrochemistry and some contact electrification. I removed what was wrong, and will add to the triboelectricity page as it should all be one topic. Later turn this into a redirect. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contact electrification and Triboelectricity confused 

message: I will suggest the below, then wait a week or two before doing anything.
Contact electrification is a phrase that describes the phenomenon whereby two surfaces become electrically charged when they contact and then separate.  It can be a boon or a bane in industries  ranging from xerography to packing of pharmaceutical powders, and plays a critical role in many processes such as dust storms and planetary formation.
While many aspects of contact electrification are now understood, and consequences have been extensively documented, their remain disagreements in the current literature about the underlying mechanisms. Indeed, whether it is different from triboelectricity is not clear. As mentioned above contact electrification is when two bodies contact then separate; triboelectricity includes sliding. Very early it was suggested by Volta and Helmholtz (see ) that the role of sliding was to produce more contacts per second, so the two are the same. The idea here is that electrons move many times faster than atoms, so the electrons are always in equilibrium when atoms move, what is called the Born–Oppenheimer approximation. Then again, a recent paper has suggested that the sliding can act as a pump which can excite electrons to go from one material to another, and another has suggested that local heating during sliding matters. Other papers have considered that local bending at the nanoscale dominates. The jury is still out.
This article will focus on the transfer of charge when two materials contact each other and then separate, leaving aside sliding.
=== History ===
==== Early work ====
==== Triboelectric series ====
==== Failure of the triboelectric series ====
==== Introduction of  solid-state physics ====
=== Some key phenomena ===
==== Work-function differences (Volta-Helmholtz) ====
==== Velocity dependence of particles collisions ====
==== Curvature dependence: charging with the same material ====
==== Surface condition and the environment ====
=== Competing models ===
==== Electromechanical ====
==== Electron pumps ====
==== Material transfer ====
=== Practical consequences ===
==== Lightning ====
==== Charging of powders ====
==== Industrial accidents ====
==== Planetary formation ====
=== References ===
:Category:Electrical phenomena
:Category:Obsolete theories in physics Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  New layout 

message: :Category:Electrical phenomena
:Category:Obsolete theories in physics Ldm1954 (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References