We finally have an answer: The beginning and the end of the sliding motion that produces static electricity experience different forces – resulting in a charge differential between the front and the back that results in the crackle of static electricity.
I had no idea this was unknown, and it’s even crazier that the model for it is still not complete even after this breakthrough. More power to them, being able to fully understand triboelectricity and eventually fully controlling it will be great. Hopefully they’re able to crack the rest of the mystery soon.
More power to them
:)
There are a ton of things that we know how to replicate and sometimes think we know how they work, but being able to see in more detail or with better pattern recognition can lead to further understanding. The best part is the new understanding can lead to all kinds of possible applications, like being able to regulate static electricity by manipulating surfaces to either increase or decrease the amount created.
Heck, this could possibly lead to lighter materials for electrical insulation if the effects are relevant for electrical conduction in general.
Like things we thought we nailed down in the 19th century and haven’t thought to revisit with modern methods and equipment. Then someone decides to look at it again and uncovered a boatload of previously unknown data.
“We thought we understood hiccups, but this changes EVERYTHING!”
(I dunno if hiccups are secretly a scientific black box or not, but you get the idea.)
Oh for sure, I fully understand that there are tons of things/mechanics we take for granted every day that we don’t actually know how it/they work(s) at the most fundamental level. Static electricity just seemed like a pretty important one that I’d just assumed it was well and thoroughly researched/understood.
Anyway, completely agree with you that this breakthrough is great news and that there are some exciting practical applications that may emerge as a result, particularly the more that model is understood/completed.
I’ll read the article in a moment. Right now I am here to acknowledge the adorableness of the thumbnail.
So the generic “particles just rubs” in the texbooks were lies and they didn’t know shit?
We knew enough to make it extremely useful, but didn’t have a full understanding of the underlying mechanics.
Hate to break it to you, but that is how knowledge works. Even things we have an extremely detailed understanding of are likely to have underlying mechanisms we are not aware of.
You broke nothing, it just annoys me that if you don’t hit university they refuse to teach you the unconfortable truth on plenty of things and you come out of school with a biased idea that everything has been explained already (history, math, physics…).
Maybe you just went to bad schools?
My experience with science and other teachers of every grade was that they stressed how we make new discoveries all the time.
Maybe I went to bad schools, maybe my country has a dysfunctional education system, but I suspect the matter is widespread because it’s way easier to teach factual information rather than dive into the nuances of how confident we are about our explanations.
Some reductive examples: Pluto is / is not a planet, wings work because the path air takes is longer than on the other side, the cause for this war was xyz, you can’t subtract below 0 (that’s at a very early age of course), this philosopher thought X.
Oh I guess a CRUCIAL one is how most teachers are horribly unfit to answer “Why should I care about this?”, but that’s beside the point, in a way.
“For the first time, we are able to explain a mystery that nobody could before: why rubbing matters,”
sigh The jokes write themselves. He had to know, when he said that.
Can anybody smell static electricity? It’s got a very specific smell. Sort of sweet in a weird way.
What you smell is ozone.
