Re: [Phys-l] Prising electrons from the atom

[John Denker <jsd@av8n.com>]

On 12/18/2008 03:39 AM, Joseph Bellina wrote:
> Triboelectricity is a tricky topic.  As John says, rubbing one metal  
> against another doesn't do it. 

I didn't say that.

>  It will serve to remove the surface  
> films so that the metals are indeed in direct contact, and then  
> electron transfer can occur depending on the work functions.
>
> Triboelecticity seems to occur most often when one of the materials  
> is a polymer.  Sherwood and Chabay do a nice job of showing that the  
> energies involved are not sufficient to transfer electrons, but could  
> transfer charged polymer fragments.

That's narrowly true if we emphasize the "seems to" ... but
there's no physics in that.  It only "seems to" be so on the
basis of casual at-home experience.  If you look a little
deeper you discover that some of the biggest static-control
problems occur at industrial plants that handle powdered
metals.

Rubbing one metal against another *will* do it.  Big time.

Ben Franklin divided all materials into two categories:
"electrical materials" such as silk and glass, versus 
"non-electrical materials" such as metals.  In other
words, he got it completely wrong.

If you're serious about electricity, static or otherwise,
you use metals for the electricity, and use polymers, air, 
and/or vacuum to make insulating handles and spacers.

> So I don't think triboelectricity is the way to think about this.   
> Isn't the problem a matter of how to affectively couple to the  
> electrons...a hammer just doesn't do it.

Using a "sand blaster" apparatus to blow powdered metal 
against the face of your hammer will do it just fine.