h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yes, but the sentence before that on that website says "This condition is caused from rubbing certain materials together." I think the distinction between being caused by rubbing and being caused by friction is too complicated for an entry such as this one.

Everybody agrees that it is rubbing that causes the static build-up, even the website which you linked to, so the entry is perfectly justified in saying it.

Actually, in theat reference, there is an internal contradiction:

Sentence 3:

Static electricity is not caused by friction, as is popularly thought. The position of the material in the Triboelectric Series determines how effectively the charges will be exchanged.


Later on:

Causing excess charges...

Putting certain materials together and then pulling them apart causes excess electrical charges to be created on their surfaces. This can be done by pushing them together and pulling them apart or by rubbing the materials together, which is the main way static electricity is created.


Hmm! (scratches head)

Traveller in Time lighting the stove
"Then we also have piezoelectric effects, triggered by deformation of the crystals.
There are materials with a 'prefabricated' charge, they are always static charged (gecko feet).
We have the excess charge of computer and television screens . . .

< A3796301 > - Static Electric Discharges +

"

I'm happy with GB's entry as it stands.

So am I (especially now I've realised that there are also contradictions in the literature re rubbing vs pulling apart)

perhaps it would be interesting to continue this discussion in somewhere like sEX? (I certainly now need to clarify my thoughts on the issue! )

BTW 'I think the distinction between being caused by rubbing and being caused by friction is too complicated for an entry such as this one'.

I agree. I wasn't suggesting that GB tried to explain it, or even acknowledged that there is such a distinction. I was merely suggesting that her choice of words was consistent with current scientific thought, and didn't actually perpetuate a misconception (Important, on such a site as the EG).

<SMILEY>

Traveller in Time rubbing it in
"Discharge your opinions at < F2124165?thread=913043 > "

As I understand GB's translation: rubbing brings things close together; close things can exchange electrons; depending on the materials the electron exchange can be asymmetrical; when the close things are separated a difference in charge becomes manifest, which can discharge as an ouch.

Whether rubbing, or friction, or closeness, or none of those "causes" the phenomenon is too hair-splitting for words. It really looks as though someone is saying there is always potential for sparks, because there are a lot of electrons around. But do they really want to say that nothing causes this potential to become actual? That's how it looks to a non- .

<>

Any other suggestions/improvements I could make to this entry?

Traveller in Time not entirely serious
"You could polish it up I know a good scientific gel making it crackle like firework. "

Polish it up?

I'm just adding you all as "Referenced Researchers" although I can't find the researcher who suggested the bamboo ring to Mina

A3796301 et voilareferenced researchers

Wonderful. I to be included.

Another mini-contribution: the plural of trolley is trolleys. (It used to be trollies a hundred years ago, but that was when the word was spelt trolly.)

Most -ey words go -eys in the plural: donkeys, monkeys and alleys for instance.

"Monies" is an exception to the rule.

currencies ?

Gosh that was corrected double quick!

My turn to