Electrostatic test methods compared

This paper demonstrates that electrostatic materials can be evaluated and ranked from highest to lowest in triboelectric generating capacity, and that the ranking is a function of the material, and not a function of the rubbing material. The test methods used were: (1) the NASA triboelectric tester; (2) the modified Shirley Method 18 test; and (3) the JCI ad-hoc tribocharging test. Corona charging tests were also conducted. Triboelectric testing has been a scientific challenge dating back to 1600. At this time, the author knows of no other way to measure both the generating and dissipating capacity of a material except by triboelectric testing (Gompf, MTB 402-85, p. 4, 1986). However, there are questions concerning this technique that need good scientific answers. This paper addresses one of the more important questions, i.e. whether, in evaluation of the generating potential of a material, the second rubbing material has an influence in the "ranking" of generating potential. While it is true that the selected rubbing material does influence the amount of charge generated, this paper suggests that it does not alter the relative position of generating capacity.