Talk:Tanada effect
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Has anyone done an scientific analysis of this "effect"?
[edit]My degree is in Applied Physics and I laughed out loud when I heard about this from my friends at University in the mid 70s. I am amazed it has not been debunked by now. Are we seriously expected to believe that: 1 A beaker can be charged electrostatically with an ionic solution? 2 That such a beaker will retain its charge in an aqueous solution? 3 That '"swirling" a beaker is repeatable scientific method? Shall I leave a space here for the link to an industry standard swirl? 4 That the radius of a root from the centre of the beaker is irrelevant in spite of the fact that the flow rate will be proportional to the radius from the centre? 5 That a bean shoot of say 1 cm long and .5cm in diameter with a cell thickness of .1mm can be charged to an excess of 1 volt?
I assume that the contact area would be about 1 square mm and with a dielectric constant of 1 giving a capacitance of approx 1 e-10 and thus a charge of 1e-10 coulombs.
Such a charge would give an electrostatic force of a similar size to its weight and thus make it appear sticky. 6 That the cell walls would sustain an electric field of 10 kv per metre? This makes Milligan's experiment to determine the charge on an electron (experimental errors of 100%+) look highly accurate. Techneone (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2019 (UTC)