Talk:Triboelectric effect/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Benjamin Franklin

If I recall correctly, Benjamin Franklin compiled the beginnings of the contemporary triboelectric series and in so doing discovered and named the negative and positive charges. I think adding some more history to the article would help make it more interesting through a connection to history. Hell, he arguably invented electrical engineering via his research into the physics of electrical charge allowing him to invent the lightning rod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.37.127.127 (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Contact Electrification versus Triboelectric Effect

Remove the reference to friction being involved in electric charging, be it static or otherwise. Friction has nothing to do with it.

I believe the two materials only have to come into contact with each other to have this effect. It doesn't have to involve friction. - Omegatron

There is something called a triboelectric tube that consists of a glass flask containing neon at below atmospheric pressure and mercury metal. When the tube is rotated, flashes of light are supposedly observed where the mercury separates from the glass. So this seems to support the fact that the materials only need to be in contact. There is a picture of one at http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Elements/080/index.s7.html#sample9 --71.227.190.111 02:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We've separated triboelectric effect and contact electrification. Might be part of the answer. — Omegatron 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly friction cannot be completely eliminated from consideration. Evidence of this includes the example of a strip of fur and another object - mere contact may induce some level of charge, however, friction (ie rubbing) of the materials dramatically increases the effect. Likewise with dust in a ductwork; the dust's mere presence in the duct (settled in the system) dust not create the electical charges needed to create a spark, nor does dumping the dust out (in small quantities) however the dust moving through the system, or even fluids flowing through any pipe work does create static charges sufficient to damage associated electronic system components or create an ignition point for a sudden release of energy (ie explosion). However defined friction does appear to play a significant role in this effect.

Friction is just repeated contact+seperation, contact+seperation causes charging, repeated contact+seperation causes increased charging, friction=contact+seperation, thus friction causes increased charging 149.241.110.155 (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)khil

Why does repeated contact separation cause increased charging? In my mind, if the material is a conductor, it will be fully charged after only a single contact with further contacts doing nothing. If the the material is an insulator, it will charge up at local hotspots, and the more you touch it the more local hotspots you get. Is that right? I'm not totally clear one why more local hotspots means the material has a higher voltage. To me, it just seems like more of the material is at a high voltage, but not that the voltage keeps increasing.Tedsanders (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The comment that the triboelectric effect is unpredictable is questionable, as Xerox Corporation states in its training that triboelectric properties of the developer (magnetic particle fluid) on toner particles makes high resolution xerography possible. Basically, the developer mixed with toner allows the toner to become triboelectrically charged such that it is attracted with precision to the latent, charged image drawn (exposed) by laser or LED light on the photosensitive drum. The toner is then transferred electrically in one fell swoop via a bias transfer roller to the substrate or media (paper), where it is finally fused to the paper with heat and pressure. The transfer is an electrostatic effect, while development appears to be a triboelectric effect. David A. Czuba (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Contact between the same material

I added the bit about contact between two objects made of the same material, which definitely can create a charge imbalance. What I am not definitely sure of is whether this is still considered the triboelectric effect... - Omegatron 03:45, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Merge

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)

Lorente generator

I'm removing the following text from the article because I don't think it adds any value; the description of this device is incomplete and the last point isn't even a complete sentence.

In 1991, G. L. Paramo developed the Lorente generator. The Lorente generator is a triboelectric machine to aid in the construction and operation of electrostatic generators. It consists of four cylinders (with two being rigid dielectrics) that operate without friction (but are under a slight pressure). No injection of electrical charges originating from outside within the Lorente generator.

If someone would like to rewrite it, feel free to add it back. —Kymacpherson 18:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Lucite

Most sites list lucite in the same place we do, but this one lists it right under rabbit fur. — Omegatron 02:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Wimshurst

Are you sure the Wimshurst works by the triboelectric effect? You may argue that the brush alternately touches perspex and aluminium (or whatever its made of). But the brush on the other side is doing the same thing, so net voltage accumulated would be zero. I've always believed the Wimshurst to be mainly charged by induction:
A charge separation between the plates on opposite sides of the same wheel causes a charge separation on the plates on the other wheel, which then causes a charge separation between two other plates back on the first wheel, et cetera making a positive feedback loop and then bang! sparks.
Although, what causes the initial charge? That I do not know. It could be a triboelectric effect, or it could be some random gamma ray from a nearby quasar causing photoelectrons?
129.78.64.106 (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have merged some content in from the "Kopp Etchells" effect article. That article, which was a coined neologism, was redirected here. See Talk:Kopp-Etchells_effect for details. However, I'm unconvinced that any reliable source actually attributes this effect to static electricity or the triboelectric effect (as far as I can tell, it's simply thermal ablation). If an expert can find some reputable sources and add them to the new Helicopter Rotors section, please do; otherwise I will remove this material. (I have already flagged it as dubious). Nimur (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Strange numbers

What is the deal with "(2)" and "(3)"? There is no "(1)," and nothing keyed to the other two.P0M (talk) 06:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is this true?

"While the vehicle's body itself can build up a static charge (which acts as a Faraday cage) it can relax through the carbon in the tires." I thought that the tires, being made of rubber (a good electric insulator) didn't let the electricity flow and were the main reason the cars accumulated static electricity.

William Gilbert predates Thales?

This line in paragraph two:

This property, first recorded by Thales of Miletus, suggested the word "electricity" (from William Gilbert's initial coinage, "electra"), from the Greek word for amber, lektron.

Seems to imply that William Gilbert 'coined' the term 'electra' from which Thales of Miletus derived the term 'electricity'. For this to be true would require reverse causation in time, as Thales predates Gilbert by centuries. I think this might need rewording or removing.

Metacosm (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge Triboelectric effect into Contact electrification article

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. EDIT: I've moved this proposal to a new section due to a recommendation from a fellow user. --Acolaos (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Most of the discussion is at Talk:Contact electrification#Merge Triboelectric effect into this article?, and so discussion is probably better continued there. Klbrain (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Triboelectric effect/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

The Wimhurst image does not belong in triboelectic article. Influence effect is started because there is always some small imbalance.

Last edited at 17:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Triboelectric series lists

I moved Lucite/Acrylic up above rabbit fur, based on experiment: rubbing an acrylic (PMM) rod with rabbit fur gives the rod a postive charge (same thing rubbing with cotton, wool, leather, etc.) So the question is, should this chart be based on a theoretical metric like the work function, or based on actual experience in charging? I vote for the former, since as a science educator, I want to use the chart to predict what will happen in certain cases. JW Depew 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jw depew (talk • contribs)

triboelectric series lists to be combined (probably technically copyrighted the way they are here):

(By the way, these are variable, and depend also on surface shape, contact method, etc. two objects of the same material with differnet surface types will produce a charge sometimes)

"Remember that it is the work function of the material that determines its position in the series. In general, materials with higher work function tend to appropriate electrons from materials with lower work functions."

Many lists removed - check history if you want to see them.

---

In Triboelectric series list the human skin is classified as more positive. But scientific research says it is negative due to the DC semi conductor potentials.[Skin battery voltage.} Please refer the book(diagram) "Wound healing alternatives in medicine" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Molngl (talk • contribs) 09:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is styrene listed, with styrofoam is parenthesis next to it? Isnt styrene monomer quite toxic? And I though styrofoam was polystyrene, whish is listed as being more positive? What is going on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.32.193 (talk) 01:28, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the rubber balloon negatively charged or is it the wool or tapestry it is rubbed against?

Shouldn't we put in and explain that phenomenon? I understand the carbon atoms that make up the rubber chains, are bigger in size as they appear more to the right in the periodic table and therefore attract their electrons stronger than metals. Rubbing a rubber balloon against a tapestry, your hair or woolen sock will rub electrons that are not so strongly bonded in the tapestry/hair/wool onto the rubber balloon. Rubber is not a conductor, so the more you rub it, the more the regional patches that don't have extra electrons yet get in contact with and have a chance to also take up loosely bonded electrons from the tapestry/hair/wool and the balloon becomes more and more negatively charged from more and more electrons (that are negative charges) that it attracts. When you then provide a conduction to the earth, a spark can be pulled from the balloon towards your hand conducting the too many electrons on the balloon via the spark - over your nerves - through your body to the earth and re-establish the equilibrium whilst retracting your nerves making you feel you've been electrocuted. Something along those lines? Thy --SvenAERTS (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Dangerous advice?

Regarding "good practice[citation needed] to touch both metal on the delivery nozzle and metal on the vehicle (simultaneously) before inserting the nozzle". I find this unnecessary and think there are at least two problems here.

There is no 'simultaneously' when it comes to human perception and reaction time (10s to 100s of ms), and the time scale of atoms/electrons when considering velocity (picoseconds, yoctos, etc). My point being, a difference in charge will go one way or another at first, so best not to leave it up to chance on which hand gets there micro or milli seconds earlier. I can reason a fair practice would be touching the metal on your car BEFORE touching the nozzle, but why even touch the metal nozzle? It doesn't sound right, as the handle is insulated just for the purpose of not transferring charge from body to an explosives dispenser.

The charge should equalize through the car first before opening the gas tank. The official technique in "retail" is likely based on the same principles. It seems fabricated without logic, and should explain why it is "good practice". It is dangerous advice and should be removed unless the contributor clarifies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanomaly84 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If there were a probllem, and I guess there must be from time to time, it would involve charge passing between the car and something else right where there is a heavy concentration of gasoline vapor. That point would most likely be where vapor was coming out of the gas tank of the car. It is highly unlikely that the gas pump would carry any static charge because it should be well grounded. Its possible that for some reason the exterior surface of the car has picked up a charge. However, the operator of the car would drain that charge off while opening the cap to the gas tank. Maybe there is no exterior door over the gas tank cap, and the gas tank cap is plastic, so the operator can get out of the car without touching its exterior surface, open the gas tank without touching metal, and then brings the nozzle over to to open gas tank. There are fumes from inside the car's gas tank and fumes from the nozzle that has a drop or two of liquid gasoline left from the last user, and the fumes are ignited when the nozzle draws a spark from the rim of the open tank port.

Touching the outside of the car before touching the gas cap should take care of the problem.P0M (talk) 07:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

My user talk page

There are some discussions about the article on my user talk page, if anyone else is willing to weigh in. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Not Mos:NOBACKREF

As this does not exist. If you mean MOS:NOBACKREF, grammar and understanding comes first. Otherwise what does "Failure" refer to? MOS:NOBACKREF clearly states "Not refer to a higher-level heading, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." (my bold)
I disagree about the image. If you want to improve it then draw a better one which shows tribocharge. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

How is doing so clearer? "Failures" is under the triboelectric series section, so of course it refers to the triboelectric series. What else could "Failures" refer to? Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

IMHO it is ambiguous. As the section you quote states, it is OK if it is clearer. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I do not see how it is clearer in the slightest. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:57, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I do. When it comes to clarity more is better, so please respect my opinion. In other cases of clarity I have respected that of others when I did not feel it was needed but they did. That is standard tension-collaborative writing. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I have listed this at WP:3O. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, dummy edits are not for extended discussion. They are only for things like adding an edit summary to an edit without one or correcting an edit summary. Most of the time you just use the article talk page. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request (Dispute on whether a section header "Failure of triboelectric series" should be a subheading of "Triboelectric series" and reanmed to "Failures"):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Triboelectric effect and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

The subsection "Failure of triboelectric series" should be incorporated into "Tribolectric series" per MOS:BODY: Very short sections and subsections clutter an article with headings and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheadings. "Failure of triboelectric series" is basically one short paragraph improperly split into three paragraphs. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC) Thanks! I have made the edit. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:46, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Recent reverts

The earlier versions of this page were mainly from a single group (ZLW), and ignored the wider literature and secondary sources. A recent reversion of general edits in favor of this selective approach implied a COI. I have reverted these edits, as the claim of "well-sour ed is incorrect". Ldm1954 (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I do not have a COI, thank you. I agree with your claim that they are primary sources, though I don't like some of the language you add into the article. You may want to read WP:EDITORIAL and WP:LEAD. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Material needs to have sources provided. Overall the article is poorly cited. I will add 20 or so later this week -- balanced ones, not from a single group. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, per WP:LEAD the lead does not need citations if the summarized text is in the article. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Note,the text is not all in the body. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The text in my preferred version is. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

May I gently suggest that you read Harpers excellent book, a known classic, and some of the other quoted literature. The one page article by Jamieson is anazing. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

How does that relate to what we're talking about here? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Please stop changing the meaning. It is OK to change a few words, but removing important sentences is not. As one example, the pump PRL was not a "Meanwhile", since the Volta-Helmholtz contact model is 19th century, while the pump paper is a few years old. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954 The version before your edits is the status quo, and it should be there while we're under discussion. Thanks for defending your "recently" and I accept that, could you defend some of the other changes you've made such as "The jury is still out" and "it can be a boon or bane"? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed the boon or bane,as perhaps this was not clear. The "jury is still out" is another way of saying that the science is not settled.

Note, the previous version was almost exclusively the work of one group from the last decade. The current version contains key references from the last century, with differing views, including many who disagree with the view of this one group Ldm1954 (talk) 15:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

N.B., the old version had 50% of its refences from one group. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, please see WP:EDITORIAL and maybe WP:WIKIVOICE. Such phrases are prohibited as they are unsourced, they go against the professional-like voice of Wikipedia, it is original research, etc. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

What are you referring to? This version has a large number of diverse references, as against 50% from one group. I will add more later, at a Dr appt. If there is something you consider unrefenced let me know, and I will add sources from the 200 references I know about. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The statement that 50% of the references was from one group is fact -- count them! Ldm1954 (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not talking about references, I'm talking about your language such as "Then again" and "The jury is still out". Such phrases are prohibited. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with you approach, but will make it dryer in an hour or so. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Quite a bit of other problems I have:

The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is, and often when or where. It should be in plain English. If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence: Changed Why is there a separate paragraph above the second paragraph? They have a lot of information in common, they should be merged. I disagree. The first paragraph is general, the second is about cases where it matters. Where does it emphasize that they need to separate? Why isn't "slide against each other" and "static electricity" in the second paragraph? The seperate is removed as it is known to not matter, see the bipolar results from ANL in DOI: 10.1002/anie.201406541, not yet included Why was "Characteristics" renamed to "Basic characteristics"? Because the term "Characteristics" is not correct for the section 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.) Actually there is always charge, but it may go away. There are known to be key differences, some of these are cited later (or will be). "temporary charge separation" is a lot less techincal than "induced dipoles", why change the former to the latter instead of just also putting hte latter in the parenthesis? Because that is incorrect science. Dipoles and polarization are not "temporary charge seperation". The first mention of names should be fully written out and, if they have articles, linked. "protrusions or asperities" is a bit too WP:technical. I disagree, they are standard term How does the Born-Oppenheimer approximation relate to the rest of the paragraph at all? It is absolutely critical science that seperates the time scales of electron and atoms. Aforementioned "Then again", "The jury is still out" Removed First paragraph is unsourced, LEAD doesn't apply to the bodies of articles. "Further reading" should not be mentioned in the article, only in a section in the appendix (which is already there). I disagree about the further reading. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK: The purpose of Wikipedia is to summarize accepted knowledge, not to teach subject matter. Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions I'm pretty sure consequently there's some guideline against such transitions in favor of summarizing sentences at the beginning of each section, but I can't find it. "more scientific... but still incomplete", " is unsourced Read the next section Again, (see for instance [textbook name]) is a "Further reading" and should not be in article, articles are summaries not textbooks. I disagree. Ashcroft and Mermin is a standard source for solid state physics used hundreds of times in WP, enough that it has it's own page. A lot of this (In all materials...) paragraph is unsourced. "Volta potential" part is unsourced. This is standard solid state physics, see Ashcroft and Mermin. It is sourced. section headings should: Not redundantly refer back to the subject of the article, e.g., Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life.  – MOS:HEADING, it should just say "further failures". In fact all of these headings sound like they should nest under "triboelectric series". The only approach discussed here is the triboelectric series so shouldn't that be the section heading instead of "Approaches..."? Sorry, incorrect. The work function is a standard physics model, well sourced already. There are also other models which need to be included, but I have not yet done this. A couple are already mentioned, e.g. the pump and fkexoelectricity. I want to keep the page readable before adding important sections. For instance there is extensive documentation on piezoelectric contributions for some materials. "What is the real explanation?" is a leading question and its section is unsourced. I will add. Every paragraph should at least have one source. However only one paragraph in the "Risks and counter-measures" section has a source. I agree about that -- I did not write it. Static electricity has a wide variety of causes, not just the triboelectric effect. The "Examples" section shouldn't link to the static article for this reason. See the static electicity page, it has more examples than are currently there. I agree that section should be rewritten, I have not touched it. Perhaps you can add sources?

All in all, I think this article should still have the "more citations needed" banner. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Note, I inlined responses to your suggestions.

I think the examples and hazards sections at the end need the banner. Ldm1954 (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

After the changes I think the lede is ok.

The question I'm asking is "why". Why is "charecteristics" not ok?
If there is always charge, shouldn't the sentence be corrected?
Ok.
You did not address my question on names.
Even if they are standard terms, the average reader needs to be able to understand it per WP:technical. These terms should be simplified.
The Theory of Relativity is also critical science. Why should this approximation be included in this paragraph? How is it related to anything else in the paragraph?

I started a discussion on which policies apply.I'm pretty sure there are policies against using further readings and end-of-section transitions in article, but I can't find them.
You can not simply disagree against WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, which is part of a Wikipedia policy.
The way you worded it seems like you're recommending the book as further reading. If you are trying to cite it, WP:PARENTHETICAL citations are deprecated and can not be used.
It wasn't sourced when I was writing that but sure, it is now.
I did not mention sources at all. I was saying that every other section header appeared to be supposed to be under the "triboelectric effect" section. Now it has changed, but I still think the "further failures..." section should be under triboelectric.
Sources weren't the only problem. As detailed in NOTTEXTBOOK, leading questions are prohibited. Plus this section looks like a summary so it should be at the top of the parent section, not its own. It has been detailed that summaries should be at the start and transitions shouldn't be at the end.

The only two examples mentioned in the static article are rubbing fur against acrylic and rubber against hair. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not have time to respond, and it is not clear exactly what your comments above refer to.

A partial response:

• I don't think either "Characteristics" or "Basic characteristics" is great, but I don't have the right title yet.
• Asperities have a picture to clarify them. A start.
• An average reader has to have some science background. We cannot go too low. I think I saw higher level high-schools or 1st year undergrad as a guide.
• The BO approximation separates velocity of Asperities and electron movement. Without it the quantum pump concept (later) would have to be invoked, which neither Volta or Helmholtz did.
• Ashcroft and Mermin is there as a general solid state physics source for things like nuclear potential, MIP, electron sea, work function. It is not further reading.
• The Volta hypothesis (work function/contact potential) is fundamental science; the triboelelectric series is empirical. The series is wrong, and has been known to be bad for a century. The work function is not a full explanation, but the science is right. For certain they are completely different.
• In WP:NOTTEXTBOOK the full quote is "Articles should not read like textbooks with leading questions and systematic solutions as examples." What is in the text is a rhetorical question, which is quite different.

I will repeat my suggestion that you revise the examples and risks sections. I have not touched these, beyond thinking that they need a lot of work.

N.B., I might not have the context of your latest comments right as I could have mistaken what you were referring to.

N.N.B. There is still much to be done. I have not yet included the local heating model, and a little history is needed.It still needs a few more images to help illustrate, and maybe some more explanations in parts.

Ldm1954 (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Starting from asperities:

• Now that "asperities" is linked, I think this issue is resolved.
• If the BO approximation indeed plays such an important role, it should be elaborated on as to how it is connected to the papers, along with a citation to a source.
• A suggestion to read a particular book without citing any information to that book is a Further Reading.
• I do not know what you are addressing with this.
• A rhetorical question is a question that implies an answer to it. "Charge transfer of electrons or ions?" and "What is the real explanation?" are leading questions, not rhetorical questions.

I found the guideline I was talking about, it's WP:SS. It says that every little bit should be a summary followed by explanations, not the reverse or the essay-like style I think the "Explanations and Mechanisms" section is. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, your definition of a rhetorical question is wrong. From Oxford language:

"A question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer."

For a leading question

"a question that prompts or encourages the desired answer."

There are two sections at the end from prior authors which are minimalistic, uncited etc. I consider that a higher priority. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not find your "oxford language" source but I did find this from the oxford reference:

A question asked for the sake of persuasive effect rather than as a genuine request for information, the speaker implying that the answer is too obvious to require a reply, as in Milton's lineFor what can war but endless war still breed?

which is what I said. Your definition of leading question is from law, not literature. In literature it means a question that the writer sets up to answer themselves. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:32, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The definition you gave is effectively the same as mine -- and not what is in the text. In both cases there currently is no accepted answer, exactly the opposite of a "leading questions". Neither section answers the rhetorical question. Both are attempting to present all sides. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by “not what is in the text”. And ignoring definitions, one of the examples of what not to do from MOS:QUESTION is “What is active listening?” Aaron Liu (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

The sentence is

"In all materials there is a positive electrostatic potential from the positive nuclei, partially balanced by a negative electrostatic potential of what can be described as a sea of electrons (see, for instance, Ashcroft and Mermin)."

Here A&M is a reference/source. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, parenthetical citations should not be used. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Again, that is not a parenthetic citation.

I have added a reference, and one on BO. These do not matter. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

If it’s not a reference nor a further reading then what is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I said it is not further reading. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Then what is it? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a reference. It is equivalent to saying "as shown by Bloggs[ref]".

Further reading explores a topic in more detail beyond what is in a text.

A source/reference examines the specifics in a text.

Please check what Ashcroft and Mermin is, for instance the Wikipage on it. Along with Kittel it is one of the two standard solid-state physics texts. As such it is an established secondary source (as are Kittel 1 & 2). Ldm1954 (talk) 13:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

I know what Ashcroft and Mermin is, I am not questioning its reliability. I'm saying that you can't cite it like that. The aforementioned policy dictates that facts should not say "according to ..., the work of..." unless the correctness of that source is questioned. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but I consider a valid history and repairing the last two sections a higher priority. If you want to change the citation please go ahead. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Confusion between this and contact electrifcation

This page, and also that on contact electrification, are both quite confused. This is not because they are badly written, it is because the underlying science is not fully understood.

First, the two are the same in many respects. Triboelectricity is with sliding, contact electrification is vertical contact. Both are slow compared to the time scale that electrons move.

I suggest breaking this down into parts which are known, parts which are not, and consequences:

• Have a history section that goes up to about 1960 -- the old book by Harper is a classic.
• Include the Triboelectricity series but point out that it known to fail.
• Point out the work function differences physics, but also show that it is not enough.
• Include, briefly, some of the other terms such as piezoelectricity and flexoelectricity.
• Include some of the nasty consequences such as fires.

Since there is no scientific consensus yet I suggest being encompassing, and acknowledging that more needs to be done. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why do the electrons keep transferring if there is equilibrium?

"the two materials only need to come into contact and then separate for electrons to be exchanged" "However, the effect is greatly enhanced by rubbing the materials together, as they touch and separate many times"

"charges move from one material to the other in order to equalise their electrochemical potential"

Why is it that after the first few contacts+seperations the electrons continue to be exchanged if the electrochemical potential has been equalised after the first few contacts+seperations? Or is it that it takes many contacts+seperations for the potential to equalise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.110.155 (talk) 16:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the many unknowns. A related one is whether making contacts very quickly (microseconds or faster) is different from seconds -- the time scale. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

To Do

Some notes:

• Add something on local models in the literature. Hard to justify
• Add something on particle collisions and the capacitor model
• Add something on water & gases, for completeness needed
• Do something about examples, powders, water, gas,...
• Mitigation -- does this even belong? (deleted)
• Further reading, see also
• Graphics to help explain better
• Second opinions from some experts/students/lay people.
• Add something on the tribocharge contribution to friction.
• Humidity

Ldm1954 (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Add a section explaining in simple terms the difference between Triboelectric and Static Electricity. I came to this page looking for an explanation and left none the wiser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris J Evans (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Done in the intro. Triboelectricity is a very common way to produce static electricity. If this is not what you did not understand then please explain more. Did you mean the quite awful definition at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/triboelectricity which indicates that it is a type of electricity? Ldm1954 (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Removal of series

This article used to have a few *useful in practice* lists of relative triboelectric response. While they were a bit arguable as to the precision and accuracy under various conditions, they gave the reader a good sense of approximately where different materials fall in the spectrum. Now there is only one very short list in a single image. I petition for the reinstatement of the more comprehensive series which previously existed here. Their removal makes the whole page less concrete and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.53.135 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the "simple triboelectric series" image what you mean? Aaron Liu (talk) 16:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No. This article was very different a few days ago. It had a long textual table as well as another image of the "quantified" series. The image used now is nowhere near as informative. 69.50.53.135 (talk) 23:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Problem is the series is very inaccurate. It also doesn't have a source. If you really really want it you can see [1]. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the series is inaccurate; I, personally, would be stronger than this and call it a disproved hypothesis. However, in the sense that WP is a summary it still belongs to some degree. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:43, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

We could put that small graphic in, although I don't think it is useful as it cannot be read without expanding. The long table gave far to much emphasis. Ldm1954 (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent reverts (electric boogaloo)

@Ldm1954 You are refusing to read what I say. The style manual ONLY regulates articles. Everything else is a free-for-all. Finding examples within the WIkipedia namespace does not help your point at all. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

And you are refusing to look at the articles that I mention from the style manual subsections. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

No, I’ve looked at them. You’ve refused to hear me say that their existence doesn’t matter three times now. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum, the manual of style itself states:

"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Sorry, but your argument is not supported by your sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

You have not presented me with a valid argument beyond “its emphasis“ that justifies overriding a printworthy-Wikipedia—wide standard. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The point is simple. In a list such as this the context needs to be readily apparent to the reader, as otherwise they won't know. Having, for instance Aircraft and Space Vehicles makes it clear what the bullet points are about. Look at your prior version and whether it is easy to see what each is about, and compare to what I have. Common sense, a WP standard that should trump everything else. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

N.B., I edited them all so the context words occur in the front, as this is easier to read. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I think both are similarly easy. I don't see why we need the actual subjects to stand out, when all we're listing is a lot of examples that require elaboration. Just stating the thing on which it is applied is not helpful towards understanding. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I disagree, and I have a right to what I feel is best considering that I researched the topic -- not a five minute job to find the sections and relevant sources for each. For instance, while I am not enthusiastic about your contact image (the asperities are too sharp, they are rounder), I have left it as OK. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on how emphasizing the assortment of nouns helps? Also, according to the source provided at Asperity (materials science), asperities are rough, and I don't see reason to believe that they are so impossibly rounded. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe Johnjbarton has already answered about the bold.

Concerning the sharpness of Asperities, the answer is technical with details I will mention here but don't go into in the article. Experimentally the radius of curvature is normally at least 10 nm, often more. Much sharper than this will be blunted by diffusion, plastic deformation or fracture. In friction tests there is typically a runin period where very sharp asperities (if they exist) vanish. Unfortunately I have not found good sources in Wikipedia, I am basing my statements on having worked in nanotribology for about 20 years. (I am not a fan of the page Nanotribology. The last paper cited on the Asperities page is a reasonable, recent overview on asperities Ldm1954 (talk) 19:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe that I have also replied to John's reply.
I see, however I think the image still looks a lot more blunt than sharp, and not like the rounded hills in your image which look too circle-y. I don't think most blunt things are circle-y. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Only people who work/research in tribology and/or surface science will be concerned about the exact shape. I consider this a small detail, which is why I have not done anything about the image. (If one wanted to be rigorous, some of the contacts should have the opposite sign of charge transfer.) There are more important issues in life, e.g. movers packing up my house! Ldm1954 (talk) 13:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Since this is an encyclopedia you are welcome to point out which contacts should have the opposite sign (or even fix it yourself with Inkscape). However we're getting derailed here, the focus of this topic is about the bold. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I pointed out to you: Wikipedia:SETNOTDAB Wikipedia:LISTTYPES Wikipedia:AOAL Wikipedia:NOPAGE. In order, taken from the pages:

1. This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline

2. This guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's Manual of Style.

3. This page documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline.

4. This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline.

If these pages use the same format as I have used, then they support my formatting. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

But they don’t use the same format. Save for LISTTYPES they don’t have the bold only at the first few words. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, that is not correct. They all use bold to emphasize the key words of the bullet-- except for the second one where you have just edited it to support your point which is circular arguing. Come on now! Indeed, you can see exactly the same use in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Blond/e? (informal RfC) Ldm1954 (talk) 16:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

But only LISTTYPES once used bold to emphasize only the FIRST NOUN. Everything else emphasized parts of the policy considered important, while SETNOTDAB has "A" in front, which can be argued to disrupt the attention.
That is not circular arguing. Firstly, I have not referenced it to support my point. Secondly, I will now reference the observation that it has not been reverted to support my point that these pages are free-for-alls with no style guidance and bear no weight on the style of the English Wikipedia Mainspace.
That link you provided is a talk page, which are only regulated by WP:CIVILITY and WP:TPL, and has even less weight. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Plus, again, these only apply to articles. Most of the time within policies and guidelines “Wikipedia” only refers to the articles. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

"It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Ldm1954 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how that is related to the comment you replied to. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu These bolded titles are simply a guide for the reader to quickly understand the entirety or to select topics they are especially keen on. Using them here is very much in line with our encyclopedia tone. When in doubt we should write for readers not for rules. I agree with keeping the bold descriptors. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

But we don't need readers to just see a bunch of nouns that are all over the place. The important part of examples is how the triboelectric effect is applied. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need a bunch of nouns. What we need in this case is a compact list of the many cool applications of the triboelectric effect. The bold is very effective in helping readers scan for interesting topics. It serves the same purpose as larger font and extra spacing for headings, but it is much more compact, exactly what is needed in this case. The section cries out for brevity and yet for a multiplicity of examples. The most effective way is one sentence per item. But if we jam them all in a paragraph that is a horrible user experience. If we use a bullet list alone, readers have to parse out the keywords themselves. In the current form the sentences are carefully constructed to place the keywords first and bold. Bold will help readers scan and it will help future edits design similar sentences with keywords in front. This last effect is important as I have found on other pages.

We're not arguing for a wide spread change or adopting this technique. It is just a great fit here and maybe a few other cases. Johnjbarton (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't see much difference in scanning the leftmost columns of a list and scanning the leftmost columns of a list with bolded nouns. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:42, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

I think this topic should now be closed:

The Wikipedia guidelines indicate that common sense should prevail. Many of the guide pages use bold for exactly the reason it has been used here.

Two editors feel it is appropriate, versus one who objects.

There are more critical issues, for instance not enough illustrative graphics. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

1. Your "common sense" isn't common and you haven't responded to this
2. The Wikipedia also says that content is determined by WP:CONSENSUS not votes. Although hung juries can be overridden, two to one is not enough for that. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Third opinion/User FAQ#What if my dispute has two viewpoints but multiple editors?, since I think 3O is a very lightweight way to resolve this and this issue is much less complicated than the one below, let's lay out our viewpoints for a 3O:

• My viewpoint is that MOS should standardize all articles and bolding the first few words in the list doesn't give much emphasis or benefit to the reader.
• Your viewpoint is that readers will scan for bolded terms and this would help readers and that this is enough for an WP:IAR.

Does that sound good? Aaron Liu (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

It sounds like a waste of time. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

As I have said multiple times, there are more obvious and more critical issues. Please think carefully about the statement that was made "I think we have here a case of someone who "knows just enough to get into trouble" as the saying goes.", and read the article on Dunning–Kruger effect. Several people have been very patient so far. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have also been quite patient, and again I do not consider myself to know a lot about triboelectricity. However, I think I know a lot about Wikipedia guidelines. To me presentation is also very important, and readers of the article shouldn't be scared away by editorialized language often found in tabloids or weird formatting. You are welcome to do stuff with the content of the article. And the main time is from the 3O that will be offered, I don't see how agreeing to my summary would waste your time. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ldm1954: I've asked a couple times that you please discuss this matter. I'm going to go ahead and make the change I've described above. If you revert without responding here, then I'm going to have to file a complaint against you at ANI for disruptive editing by reverting without discussing.— Aaron Liu (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I have responded to you multiple times. In addition User:Johnjbarton has responded to you. You are in the minority. User:SMcCandlish has separately provided a third opinion, but you refused to accept his opinion.

Go ahead and make a complaint. You have contributed nothing substantive to this article in terms of content as, quoting you, you will not spend the time to understand. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

1. SMcCandlish only responded to the RfC on meaning of triboelectricity. Neither is that part of the 3O process. His words had nothing to do with the bolding.

2. Two people vs 1 person is not much of a bearing on Wikipedia, which operates on consensus, especially since John only made two comments.

3. Please see my comment starting with "1. Your common sense".

I'm pretty sure I replied this already but apparently it didn't send. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu I see that you chose to go ahead with this change despite our objects. Your change was labeled " →‎Others: See request for discussion on talk page", but I assume you meant to write "→‎Others: See (electric boogaloo) on talk page". (I have no idea what "electric boogaloo" means.)

I'm choosing not to revert your change on the hope that this will appease your desire to have an impact here. I don't think your change is an improvement, but it's also not that big a deal.

I urge you to move on to another topic. There are lots and lots and lots of pages that need attention. The energy we are putting into trivial changes to this one makes no sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Johnjbarton here. Aaron Liu, if you go make some complaint, I guarantee that the result will be WP:BOOMERANG because your activity at this page is what is bordering on disruptive, and your behavior, of ignoring the reasons and sources you are given and then demanding new reasons and sources is a classic case of WP:IDHT and WP:REHASH and WP:BADGER and WP:BFN.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Unethical behavior by Aaron Liu

I want to bring to the attention of various people who have edited this page, including Johnjbarton, SMcCandlish and Headbomb that suddenly the conclusion of a third party opinion on the meaning of triboelectricity has been reported as "The result is include both viewpoints", which was not the concensus. The user has also suddenly decided to redo a large set of revisions which it was previosly pointed out were inappropriate. I am going to revert them, but I expect that Aaron Liu will not accept this. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Addendum: inappropriate edits:

• Two requests for clarification when info is in citations.
• Questioning national standards of China & the US.
• Many ce by a non-native speaker which are inappropriate, changing the sense of sentences so they become inaccurate.
• Grammar mistakes, for instance it is "the Kahn Academy".
• Not knowing that contact potential is standard, and already defined.
• Mangling titles in External links for no good reason.
• Arbitrarily removing references which are different, so appropriate.

Ldm1954 (talk) 03:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Article talk pages aer not really appropriate for editor behavior complaints. That really belongs at WP:ANI (with carefully marshalled evidence). As for the content disputes here, they need to be settled without personalizing the disputes any further. Let's focus on the edits. I tend to agree that these edits in question seem largely unconstructive (with a few exceptions). This was senseless, promoting an American dictionary over the best-known British one aside from the OED. If sources don't agree, we need to adjust the material to encompass the definitional differences. But regular dictionaries are actually not good sources for something like this in the first place, as they gloss over [pun intended]] technical details and distinctions; we should be relying on science dictionaries/encyclopedias if we're going to be using tertiary sources at all for anything here. Secondary science sources that provide definitions in more depth, and with more authority than general-purpose lexicographic linguistics and etymology writers can provide, would be better. This one and this one were correct edits, though should have cited MOS:WAW. This and this were just destructive; if someone thinks there are too many citations in a row, the solution is WP:CITEBUNDLE, not deletion of good sources. However, citation bundling is best done when an article is stable. This was just wrong per WP:CITEVAR; we do not randomly change from CS1 to CS2 templates in a CS1-dominated article. This and this changing of the ext. links were actually constructive and should be restored, but this arguably was not, though that descriptive text could be compressed. This complex edit made several genuine improvements that should be restored, but the {{clarify}} tag was pointless and doesn't even have a |reason= explaining what to clarify, nor is there a request for such clarification on the talk page. This doubling of the clarification tagging didn't help. Just identifying a span doesn't provide a rationale.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. While I agree that a few of the edits had merit, a few you mention are bad grammar. For instance in This the edit to the text "Wiping a chemical tank while it is being filled with a flammable chemical can lead to fire" is bad. Beyond that it should be "fires" or "a fire", the consequence is a spark which can lead to a fire.
There are other issues such as changing from "petrol or other liquids" to "petrol" is not a ce, it is a change of content. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Fire is both countable and uncountable. The reaction itself is uncountable (since you can't really count each "fire particle" most of the time), and the countable equivalent is only for instances of uncountable fire. You can see any dictionary for that.
"fuels such as petrol" and "fuels such as petrol or other liquids" have the same meaning. In fact the latter is redundant. This part is listing example(s) of fuels; "other liquids" has already been included by "fuels". Aaron Liu (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I am not going to get in long discussion on this, so I will only clarify once and not respond further except to correct edits as appropriate:

• There is no such thing as a "fire particle". One can have any of "a fire", "the fire" or "fires", not "fire" by itself except the verb when someone is terminated. In any case, tribocharge leads to sparks which may ignite the liquid which is not the same.
• Using "fuels such as petrol or other liquids" is not the same as "fuels such as petrol", as most combustible liquids are not fuels.
• Sources which detail regulations are required to verify them.
• It is not a question of whether they use "The Kahn Academy" in their name, similar to "The Ohio State University". It is whether a definitive article is appropriate before their name, which I believe it is.
• Sorry, we have been over the citation issue too many times. You have stated that you have not and will not read them, so it is inappropriate for you to comment.

Ldm1954 (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Still you can't really count fire, you can only count instances of it. See Collins. The result is still "lead to fire". The important part is it leads to fire and the reader can probably guess that it's from triboelectric sparks; no need to be overly verbose.
2. Ah, I see.
3. I'm not saying that these sources should be removed. The only sources I've removed from these entries are of sellers of testing equipment. The source on the regulation itself is preserved.
4. Firstly it's Khan Academy. Secondly while I do not know what the specific rule is, I have observed that for most website names that aren't physical people do not use definitive articles. For example, we say "Wikipedia" not "The Wikipedia". We say "Merriam-Webster" and "the Merriam-Webster dictionary", not "the Merriam-Webster". The same should apply to Khan Academy.
5. Citation trimming is simply not the same issue as what the meaning of triboelectricity is. If you're talking about the RfC close, what close message do you suggest?

Aaron Liu (talk) 14:52, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but Ldm1954 is correct on almost all of these points. "can lead to fire" is not idomatic in English, not in an encyclopedic register (it could be used on something like a sign, where various words are dropped). The fact that the fire is from sparks not from grandual increase in frictional heat is very pertinent, so is not "overly verbose" (unlike your endlessly argue-with-everyone-forever attempts to defend your changes no matter how many people object to them). There is no WP ban on citing commercial sources; if they provide more reader-friendly material than governmentese citations, there is no cause to delete them. If you're still want to delete them, then you need make a case on a source-by-source basis for deleting each. Writing "the [institution name]" when the name contains "Academy", "Society", "Association", "School", or a similar term is more idiomatic in English for most institutions; just using "[institution name]" in mid-sentence for such names is usually another example of signage-style "telegraphic writing" not encyclopedic writing. "Wikipedia" and other names that have no structural similarity to "Khan Academy" are false analogies. All that said, the evidence below that Khan Academy's own material strongly favors just "Khan Academy" not "the Khan Academy" is pretty compelling, so I think your no-the edit in this case is okay. But please do not generalize it and go removing "the" from in front of institution names all over the place. I agree with Ldm1954 that you seem to be playing WP:ICANTHEARYOU games on citation issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I won't do that again. However:

1. I believe we should note that these are US and Chinese regulations. I don't see how these were "questioning" by just specifying the country that has these standards and I still think the part about testing machines should be removed since it's only attached to a single primary (promotional?) source.
2. Khan Academy does not use "the". You can see their official website, their Khan Academy Wikipedia article, and the citations cited by that article (though there is one notable exception from the Washington Post but they also use "Khan Academy" after the first paragraph).
3. If I'm reading the WP:CITETRIM (essay) right, bundling is not the only way to resolve; it is only used when there is a good reason to keep all citations, which I believe there isn't. CITEBUNDLE the guideline doesn't say it should be the only way to resolve either.
4. I don't see what other result of the RfC is. And anyways it should probably be closed since there's no new or expected activity.

Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

"we should note that these are US and Chinese regulations": That's already clear from the citations themselves, since they identify the publisher. The fact that we've cited regulations from two countries does not mean they are the only two countries in the world with such regulations, and we must not lead the reader into thinking so. They could be identified directly in the main text, but it has to be done in a way that makes it clear these are just two examples not an exhaustive list. As noted above, I think you've made a good case for removing "the" in front of "Khan Academy", though its entirely fine in English to write it either way (and you devote too much time to fighting with other editors over such trivial matters). "I believe there isn't ... a good reason to keep all citations" is just a subjective opinion in a vacuum, devoid of any actual rationale for deleting particular citations. If you think an RfC should be closed, the procedure is to list it at WP:ANRFC for closure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion @Aaron Liu's persistent and trivial edits are a weird form of denial of service, causing other people to do work for no purpose other than perhaps to draw attention. The edits used seem to skirt between just valid and just invalid, such that each one has to be checked and yet they can be partly justified. After many rounds the pattern emerges that these edits aren't sincere despite the claims in the Talk page. In fact the protest against reverts has the same pattern of partial apology followed by commentary and more trivial edits. I started by assuming good faith but now I don't believe the apologies either. They just exist to placate, to slow down potential action to close off this behavior.

These edits do not improve Wikipedia. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem in making trivial edits that are part of the unopposed part after "partial apology". It is not my intention to stir disputes and at the times I edit I truly believe(d) that the edit makes the article better. I have a hard time getting the tone of my messages right, so apologies if this reply seems aggressive. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's objecting to your tone; they're objecting to the questionable changes you keep making to the content, and then the round-in-circles argumentation you engage in to defend each one of them even when multiple other editors are reverting you and giving reasons why the changes are (mostly) not improvements. This is kind of wandering into editor-behavior discussion, though, and I don't think that's helpful on article talk pages, but better suited to user talk or (if it comes to it) a noticeboard.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove two of the citations from the second paragraph?

Currently, right after The term triboelectricity has been used to refer to the field of study or the general phenomenon of the triboelectric effect, there are 4 citations. This is bad per Wikipedia:Citation overkill (n.b.: an essay). I think the second and third citation behind the sentence should be removed, as they are both from Shaw, who has already been cited in the first citation. This may create the illusion that more parties refer to triboelectricity as the triboelectric effect than the electricity produced by it (not to mention my personal objection to whether or not Shaw believes triboelectricity is the triboelectric effect but let's assume he does). It also slightly clutters the references section with "a b". Thus I think we should remove the second and third citation from the four citations after this sentence. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree. If you read the source you quote then it, for instances, gives an example of 16. Nowhere is there any issue with 4. The three from Shaw are foundational references, see the later parts of the history, and are all highly cited and widely read. In addition, the issue of triboelectricity being the same as the triboelectric effect has already been answered. And that static electricity is different has also been answered.Ldm1954 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Two or three may be preferred for more controversial material or as a way of preventing linkrot for online sources, but more than three should generally be avoided and the foundational references' main topic is not about the meaning of triboelectricity. It's still just one author, however prolific. It is my belief that to not misrepresent the widespread-ness of the usage we should just use one reference from each party instead of bombing it. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I have mentioned before that your "source" of a MRSEC site is an unrefereed blog of dubious value. As others have also mentioned, dictionaries are not respectable sources. The discussion consensus was to include the secondary use as you insisted, but it is just that, secondary.

Read the references. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The MRSEC cites [2] which cites [3] which quite obviously supports my view.
I've said before that I HAVE read the first three from Shaw. While I may not have entirely absorbed it, I could not find anything that implies triboelectricity (or tribo-electricity as they put it) is the triboelectric effect itself. At the best I found 1. it equivalating to "frictional electricity" for which the first source I found says it's a form of electricity. 2. tribo-electricity cannot be a purely statical effect but that could mean electricity is an effect. Either way this discussion operates under the assumption that Shaw's do say that. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

While I was unable to access the Thomas Freund one I've managed to find this for the powders one. I've scanned it and ran a find query for "electricity" and could not find where it supports the claim that triboelectricity=the triboelectric effect Aaron Liu (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, "from" also means causation. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop

As has been stated multiple times, you are not a native speaker and you are continuing to make edits which change sense and/or are grammatically wrong. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

It is not grammatically wrong. List items need parallel construction, which means their verb tenses much be the same and since the list's structure is a verb that will follow "to" all list items must begin with a present tense verbs. Semicolons are simply not used for list items. For sense changing may you suggest a correct and clear sense? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As has been mention too many times by User:JohnJBarton, User:SMcCandlish as just two, you are not a native speaker. Wikipedia:Competence is required, ,Wikipedia:Speakers of other languages, Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Can we address the edits first? How are these contributions grammatically wrong? Would you kindly suggest a better sense that is also clear for the parts where you think it changed sense? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I will respond once, and once only:

1. Using "for instance China and other places. For instance" is bad style as it repeats "for instance". Repeating is typically used for emphasis, but herein that is not appropriate.

2. The papers by Shaw are in the past, so only past tense should be used.

3. "Anomalies" and "failures" are different, please read Shaw's papers to understand what he means by anomalies.

4. The terms "due to" and "from" are different. Due to is strongly causal.

5. Substituting "metals against" for "different elements" is incorrect, please read the reference.

6. "charging under" is incorrect use of English, it must be "charging for". Ldm1954 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

1. Ah, ok.
2. Problem is the entire construction starts with "...he was one of the first to...", so past tense is not appropriate as it's in the infinitive form and this construction also makes it clear that it's in the past. For example, you can't say "...he was one of the first to analyzed in detail..." or "...to also showing that heat had a major effect on the tribocharging...". You have to change all of these to the present tense to match the infinitive form.
3. During my second edit to that part I read it. Two of the mentions of "anomalous" point to heat's effect and the other two point to "anomalous" behavior of liquid mercury. You can see in that edit that I didn't treat it as the same as failings and wrote "different behavior of liquid mercury" in its place.
4. "From" can also have that meaning but I don't really care about this one.
5. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of the elements I see tested in that paper are metals. If there indeed are non-metal elements then how about we change it to "by rubbing different elements against silica"?
6. It's not incorrect. "for... conditions" means something else while "under... conditions" means the thing is experiencing some external conditions. I don't think this is as important as the other points though. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

As an addendum, while 5% of your edits are useful, and perhaps another 5-10% are irrelevant so can be left, the other 85-90% are wrong. I do not have the time to separate the wheat from the chaff. Per Wikipedia:WoT you need a carbon credit. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I see no reason to remove "For instance" or "exact" and the current form of that "Combined" sentence is grammatically wrong and the "which is" is redundant. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

You're still just WP:NOTGETTINGIT. The fact that you make about 5% useful edits while the rest of your changes are erroneous or at best pointless, means you need to find something more constructive to do. At this point, I seriously think you need to be topic-banned from this article, because it is clear that you will not listen and will not stop.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyedits

1. There needs to be some sort of separator like "and" before "steam pipes".
2. I think emphasizing "against the air" and "against the atmosphere" makes it clear to the reader what interaction exactly is causing triboelectricity, especially the projectiles one.
3. The chemical tank one should use the active voice, either the previous version or "while a flammable chemical is filling it".
4. "spark fires" is enough as the reader can figure out the process itself; we already said "flammable chemical". A lot of this article's language is overly verbose.
5. "creating" and "and can generate" means essentially the same. There is always some voltage generated, no matter how small, and my version was more succint.
6. I believe the testing machines (and the commercial sensors for the US part) are not fit for mention under their current sources. The Chinese one on medium is blatantly promotional for their specific device and the US one is less but still promotes such devices. I see no reason for their retention either.
7. "conductive" means the same as "conducting" used as an adjective and is a lot less confusing.
8. "in industry" is both grammatically incorrect and confusing. The only definition that does not use an article or the plural is "the sector of the economy consisting of large-scale enterprises", which does not make sense in these contexts. It should be either changed to the plural form, changed with a mention of the specific industry, or removed.
9. I'm not sure why we need to specify self-destruct signals which are covered under communications or that nanogenerators harvest energy.
10. Tribocharging can occur in any weather condition. "favor" brings across the meaning much better.
11. "for instance" requires surrounding commas a comma at the front to be grammatically correct. This disrupts the sentence flow, so I believe "such as" which requires no commas is much better.
12. "normally" duplicates the meaning of "Most".

Aaron Liu (talk) 23:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

You are not a native English speaker. Please stop making statements which are inappropriate, change the sense, result in WP:OR, or are not WP:NPOV. As just two examples where you are not understanding,

• "steam and water jets" are connected to "cleaning" and have nothing to do with "loading and unloading".
• "Most" and "normally" are different.

I won't respond further. Please find a page where native speakers are not involved. Ldm1954 (talk) 00:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not see which of my edits have OR or POV. For the first one, it doesn't matter whether or not they are connected, not including a separator is incorrect grammar. For the second one, "most" and "normally" both mean "most of the time" in this context; I do not see what distinction you're trying to provoke. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. In terms of you incorrect suggestions:

1. As stated above, "and" is an incorrect connector for this sentence.

2. Against the air or atmosphere adds information which is not documented, so is unsourced WP:OR.

3. Please read the current form.

4. "Spark fires" is not valid English. It is a spark that ignited a fire.

5. "Can generates" means that they may. Your version states that they always do, which is unjustified WP:OR.

6. The fact that these instruments are required and available is relevant.

7. Conductive and conducting are equivalent, there is no rationale to your edit.

8. "In industry" is standard.

9. Simple communications is different and less severe than self-destruct signals.

9.b Please look up what a Nanogenerator is, it is not atransducer as you imply.

10. A wrong statement about flights, it is water/rain/weather related. Please read the source.

11. "For instance" and "such as" are similar but different. There is no rationale for your edit.

12. "Normally" implied that something is not the case only in exceptional cases. "Most" is different. Ldm1954 (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1. And as stated above there is no reason to believe being separated somehow prevents the validity of a separator. The way the current sentence is worded implies that steam engines stands as its own second element instead of being part of the second element with the rest of the sentence.
2. bigger sigh. Do I really have to provide a source that helicopter blades move against AIR? Here's one as valid as your ones on testing machines. Plus, for the atmosphere one, the source provided already says electric charges are transferred from the surface of the flying projectiles to the dust as a result of the collision with the atmospheric air stream. In fact the helicopter one also has it in-source Particles present in the air and coming in contact with helicopter rotor blades while the helicopter is in flight cause an increase in the static-electricity charging current and result in an increase in the accumulated voltage on the helicopter.
3. I don't see how that is a response
4. Collins: If something sparks, sparks of fire or light come from it.
5. It is my understanding that no matter how small there is always some generated due to the triboelectric effect. Is there a case where it generates zero voltage? Either way the source's language (see above) also implies that it always generates voltage.
6. I think instruments for testing every single example here exist but even if we discard that element your statement on testing equipment has to be attributed to non-promotional secondary sources.
7. If you think so why would you change it? And they are not exactly the same, gerunds are more confusing that existing adjectives. Changing it to "conductive" improves understanding.
8. I cannot find any information online on this expression.
9. Alright then, this was a very small thing either way.
10. I did not say anything about flights and the source doesn't mention anything about water/rain either. I guess you're talking about where it says it contacts with clouds, but aren't these (and actually rain and water too) also weather conditions favoring tribocharging?
11. Could you elaborate? My dictionary says they have the same meaning.

Aaron Liu (talk) 01:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1. There are no steam engines.

2. You want to add air, then include in your response dust which is the Kopp–Etchells effect and is different. There are many uncertainties in what is going on, please research peer reviewed primary sources. You are doing WP:OR, not WP:NPOV which is not allowed. The form used is deliberately vague.

4. Since when does tribocharge give a spark of fire?

5. Your version is unsourced WP:OR, making conclusions beyond the cited source.

6. Nothing says that noting the existence of commercial instruments is forbidden, that would be silly.

10. Again, you are broadening the statement without justification. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I meant steam pipes. If steam pipes are a part of the cleaning machines element, then since cargo and pipelines during loading and unloading and steam pipes and water jets from cleaning machines are different elements there should be an "and" or "or" in between and the comma should be removed. If we use "and" then "friction between" also needs to be duplicated.
2. The dust thing is from the flying projectiles source which specifically says it's the triboelectric effect. If you're talking about "particles present in the air" for the helicopter one, I just realized that the entire article (incl. abstract) doesn't talk about triboelectricity (only static-electricity) and the helicopter entry should be removed from the article.
4. The electric spark ignites sparks of fire.
5. The article cited only uses the present tence (which imply it is always happening). You are making conclusions beyond the cited source by implying that there are cases where the rotor blades do not generate voltage.
6. It isn't, but it's kinda unrelated and even beyond that WP:RS dictates that such advertising sources can't be used.
10. Could you elaborate? AFAIK you brought up flights and rain without much context. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I have listed this at 3O. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:43, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You can list whatever you want, I cannot stop you. I am sure that Johnbarton, SMcCandlish and perhaps others such as Quondum and Headbomb will have an opinion, as they have all edited this article and sometimes reverted your edits. As I and others have said, WP:1AM Ldm1954 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

As I have said many time before, just that I have been overruled in one issue does not mean I am automatically wrong in all future issues. I also think suddenly pinging people is disruptive to the very 3O process I just tried to do. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm generally in agreement with Ldm1954 on this, though not presently inclined to re-argue it all, number by number. In general, it looks like what is going on here is a mixture of: A) a non-native English speaker trying to "correct" things that are not wrong and to employ a rather robotic approach to "concision" that is subtly changing the actual meaning of the material, and who is not listening to anyone when told that these changes are not helping. And B) WP:OR based on assumptions and "my understanding", with failure to actually read the source material. Both of these seem to be the Dunning–Kruger effect in full swing. I'm also detecting some game-playing here; the editor tried to censor Collins Dictionary out of the article as supposedly not good enough, and then is trying to cite the same work to defend their rather strange "spark fires" locution. Also, WP:3O will not work here, since it only for dispute between two editors. There is also nothing wrong with pinging back previous participants in a discussion to try to resolve the same discussion again because it has continued despite their previous attempts to see it resolved. Someone who does not understand the difference between "most" ('over 50%') and "normally" ('usually, with few exceptions') is not in a position to keep arguing over and over again to make subtle changes to the English used in the article; WP:CIR.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)