Why is the balloon sticking to the wall?

  • Thread starter Thread starter seratia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Balloon Wall
AI Thread Summary
When a negatively charged balloon is placed against a wall, it sticks due to electrostatic induction rather than conduction. The balloon, made of nonconductive rubber, prevents electrons from moving freely, so they remain in place. The attractive force between the balloon's electrons and the wall is not strong enough to overcome the forces exerted by the balloon material. This results in a net force of zero on the electrons, allowing the balloon to stay adhered to the wall. The discussion highlights a gap in educational explanations of these concepts, suggesting a need for clearer teaching methods.
seratia
Messages
38
Reaction score
4
When you negatively charge a balloon, by rubbing it on clothes, and then placing it against the wall, why doesn't the electrons move to the wall, causing the balloon to drop?

I would have thought the electron transfers to the wall - therefore an example of conduction.

Why is it induction and sticks to the wall, rather than conduction and the balloon falling down.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
seratia said:
I would have thought the electron transfers to the wall - therefore an example of conduction.
Why is it induction and sticks to the wall, rather than conduction and the balloon falling down.
The balloon is rubber or some other nonconductive material so the electrons cannot move freely through it. The attractive force between the electrons and the wall is not strong enough to drag the electrons through the balloon material so they stay put. Or in terms of Newton's laws: the net force on the electrons is zero because the electrostatic force between them and the wall is balanced by the force of the balloon material on the electrons; the balloon material is exerting a force on the electrons so the electrons are exerting an equal and opposite force on the balloon material; this force is pushing the balloon against the wall; and friction between the balloon and the wall keeps the balloon is place against the force of gravity.
 
Nugatory said:
The balloon is rubber or some other nonconductive material so the electrons cannot move freely through it. The attractive force between the electrons and the wall is not strong enough to drag the electrons through the balloon material so they stay put. Or in terms of Newton's laws: the net force on the electrons is zero because the electrostatic force between them and the wall is balanced by the force of the balloon material on the electrons; the balloon material is exerting a force on the electrons so the electrons are exerting an equal and opposite force on the balloon material; this force is pushing the balloon against the wall; and friction between the balloon and the wall keeps the balloon is place against the force of gravity.

I wonder why they can't explain it like this in textbooks. They just expect you to take it at face value. Even the high school teacher doesn't seem to know this explanation. He just knows that it's "induction". And then they expect you to solve problems, when they did 0 teaching.
 
well, induction is still needed - without it, there wouldn't be an attractive force between the electrons and the wall.
 
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'
Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
Back
Top