Bending distilled water with static electricity

[Edgardo]

You probably know how to bend water: Use a comb and rub it with wool (or just comb your hair) and hold it next to thin jet of water coming out of a tap.
Here is a video: Comb with wool
An explanation is offered here (the water molecule is polar).

However, I remember my physics teacher telling me that this effect does not occur with distilled water because the ions are actually causing the bending.

Can anyone with access to distilled water confirm this?

 

[Borek]

Interesting.

First of all - distilled water won't be enough, as if it is in contact with air it becomes saturated with carbon dioxide and becomes acidic - which means it contains ions. What you will need is the ultra pure water (sometimes called 18MΩ water), and the experiment has to be done in the inert atmosphere. Working with ultra pure water is quite difficult, as it dissolves everything and becomes very easily contaminated; preparation and transport are an art it itself.

Now, a lot depends on the mechanism. I have heard two versions. One is that water molecules are dipoles and they get ordered in the electric field, which is enough for the effect to be observed. Second is that small amount of ions dislocate to the water surface which becomes slightly charged - and this charge is responsible for bending. In the first case effect should be observed even in ultra pure water.

 

[f.c.]

well, i had a go with de-ionised water and that bent like the video. but then maybe it wasnt de-ionised enough? though when i tried isopropanol and then methanol, they both bent too. at which point alas, i ran out of solvents to try since i am not at the lab!

 

[Borek]

Isopropanol and methanol are less likely to contain lots of ions. Molecules have small dipole moment. But it is so small I started to wonder if induced dipoles are not enough to bend water. It could be checked with carbon tetrachloride, which has no dipole moment, and doesn't dissolve ionic substances.

 

[Edgardo]

well, i had a go with de-ionised water and that bent like the video. but then maybe it wasnt de-ionised enough? though when i tried isopropanol and then methanol, they both bent too. at which point alas, i ran out of solvents to try since i am not at the lab!

Thank you for your effort! That's very interesting. Could the bending of isopropanol and methanol be caused by water since alcohol is hygroscopic?

Also if anyone else wants to try some other materials you are welcome to test it

 

[DrDu]

I see three possible explanations:
1. dipole orientation polarization of the water molecules
2. ionic charge displacement polarization
3. water getting actually charged due to contact with the vessel or tab when poured out

The third possibility should also lead to a deflection in a homogeneous field whence it can easily be ruled out experimentally.
The relative importance of the second and third mechanism can be inferred from the dependence of the dielectric constant on concentration of the ions.
The contribution of mechanism 2 can also be calculated via the Poisson Boltzmann equation, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson–Boltzmann_equation
My first guess is that it is insignificant in remotely diluted solutions.

 

[DrDu]

I changed my mind. The Debye length is microscopically small as compared to a drop of water even in quite diluted solutions. On the other hand already a tiny concentration of ions corresponds to a immense amount of charge. Hence the ions will completely screen the electric field inside the drop and the attraction is due entirely to the ions in the surface layer.
Would be nice to try this out with a solution of some salt in a unpolar liquid. Maybe some crown ether complexes.

Edit: On the other hand, the ion mobilities in electric fields are very small so that time may be insufficient for a gradient of ionic charges to form.

 

[f.c.]

Thank you for your effort! That's very interesting. Could the bending of isopropanol and methanol be caused by water since alcohol is hygroscopic?

... entirely possible alas, for the purity, or lack of it, is something i have no way of assessing.

but anyway, thank _you_ for your original question, it has been a lot of fun messing about in the kitchen trying to find something that _wouldn't_ bend, but unless i can figure out some way to siphon out some petrol from the car fuel tank i don't think i shall have much success -- and not contribute much to the discussion i fancy. for it would seem that this water deflection business is in fact rather popular in the classroom demonstration area. e.g:

http://dev.physicslab.org/Document.aspx?doctype=5&filename=Compilations_NextTime_WaterStream.xml

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/estatics/u8l1e.cfm

and as to the mechanisms involved, there is a fair amount of discussion as well:e,g.

Why Does a Stream of Water Deflect in an Electric Field?
G. K. Vemulapalli and S. G. Kukolich
http://www.jce.divched.org/hs/journal/issues/1996/Sep/clicSubscriber/V79N09/p887.pdf


Electrical Deflection of Polar Liquid Streams: A Misunderstood Demonstration
Maryam Ziaei-Moayyed and Edward Goodman:
http://www.jce.divched.org/journal/issues/2000/Nov/PlusSub/V77N11/p1520.pdf

what larks!

 

[DrDu]

Electrical Deflection of Polar Liquid Streams: A Misunderstood Demonstration
Maryam Ziaei-Moayyed and Edward Goodman:
http://www.jce.divched.org/journal/issues/2000/Nov/PlusSub/V77N11/p1520.pdf

what larks!

Ok, so deflection seems to be in fact due to droplets getting charged as I proposed as mechanism 3!

 

[Edgardo]

Thank you f.c., those are excellent papers. The conclusion of the second paper is interesting, suggesting to stop giving the wrong explanation for that experiment in school.

I found another nice experiment called the floating water bridge (video). See what happens if you apply 10kV to distilled water.

Elmar Fuchs who thought of the experiment has more videos, one showing a hot bridge (60°C).
He also gave a talk at SETI explaining in detail his experiments.

 

[f.c.]

...

I found another nice experiment called the floating water bridge (video). See what happens if you apply 10kV to distilled water.

Elmar Fuchs who thought of the experiment has more videos, one showing a hot bridge (60°C).
He also gave a talk at SETI explaining in detail his experiments.

yes, that one i have seen before, very odd!. though for sheer mind-boggling gravity-defying weirdness, that quantum locking business must surely wins, hands down
http://io9.com/5850729/quantum-locking-will-blow-your-mind--but-how-does-it-work

but never mind! this is drifting way off topic and there is one more thing i'd like to add regarding the bending being due to the water drops getting charged mechanism. namely, that when i try it, it seems to make no difference whether i use a charged glass rod or a charged plastic one (my toothbrush handle actually), the water stream always deflect in the same direction, i.e. towards the rod. which is not at all what one might expect since glass and plastic wind up carrying opposite charges when rubbed (though whether glass is +ve and plastic -ve or vice versa i have no idea)

now with all apologies to DrDu and i know that one should never let the facts upset a good theory, this observation is a little tiresome to say the least.

 

[DrDu]

but never mind! this is drifting way off topic and there is one more thing i'd like to add regarding the bending being due to the water drops getting charged mechanism. namely, that when i try it, it seems to make no difference whether i use a charged glass rod or a charged plastic one (my toothbrush handle actually), the water stream always deflect in the same direction, i.e. towards the rod. which is not at all what one might expect since glass and plastic wind up carrying opposite charges when rubbed (though whether glass is +ve and plastic -ve or vice versa i have no idea)

Are you sure that the charged rods aren't simply influencing an opposite charge of the drops?
Another important point: It should make a difference whether you study isolated drops or a stream of water. If the water contains ions it will act like a conducting rod in the latter case.

 

[Edgardo]

DrDu, you've been faster with the reply.

I'm still thinking about the second paper. They explain that the droplets get charged due to charge induction similar to the Kelvin water dropper (video here).
That would also explain why the sign of the charge does not matter (both glass and plastic attract the stream as you have observed).

I thought about another issue though:

1. What if we didn't have droplets but a continuous (distilled) water stream? Then a charge induction (separation) should not occur.

2. However, we can easily bend a continuous water stream from a tap with a charged comb. The question is what mechanism takes place here. (Ok, no distilled water here)

3. It would have been interesting to examine the difference between distilled and tap water (or salt water) to check whether ions play a role.

--

By the way, you can repel the water stream but you need strong neodymium magnets:
Video 1
Video 2

 

[f.c.]

Are you sure that the charged rods aren't simply influencing an opposite charge of the drops?
Another important point: It should make a difference whether you study isolated drops or a stream of water. If the water contains ions it will act like a conducting rod in the latter case.

ah, well, yes, i think i have misunderstood. i thought that the mechanism proposed was that the fluid picked up a permanent charge directly on leaving the end of the dropping funnel, and it was this permanent charge +ve, or -ve, that i hoped to detect by using the differently charged rods.-- but to no avail as i reported above -- always the fluid deflected in a direction toward the rod.

the position of the rod for best effect was indeed quite important -- maximum deflection occurring when it was placed high up next to the stream at the point where it curved most, and before it broke up into droplets. i suppose it would help to upload some pictures but (a) i have no idea how this might be achieved and (b) i have been summarily banned from any further messing about in the kitchen since i had a small accident and spilt a really _very_ small amount of white spirit all over everywhere and stunk out the place for hours. oops.

(oh, by the way, the white spirit aka naptha EC-265-185-4 _didn't_ bend. hurrah! that at least behaved as expected!)

 

[DrDu]

1. What if we didn't have droplets but a continuous (distilled) water stream? Then a charge induction (separation) should not occur.

2. However, we can easily bend a continuous water stream from a tap with a charged comb. The question is what mechanism takes place here. (Ok, no distilled water here)

3. It would have been interesting to examine the difference between distilled and tap water (or salt water) to check whether ions play a role.

--

A continuous stream would behave like a metal wire. Maybe you could try out how a thin earthed wire will behave when you bring close your charged comb to the other end?
I think the conductivity even of highly pure water is too high for it not behaving like a good conductor in these kind of electrostatic experiments.

 

[f.c.]

i would just like to make clear that it makes no appreciable difference whether the rate of flow is adjusted to produce either well-defined separate drops or a continuous stream, the deflection observed is always in the direction of the charged rod, whether plastic or glass, i.e. +ve or -ve.

the real problem i feel that there are (a) just too many competing effects going on to be able to come to a definitive conclusion with the apparatus available, and (b) i am the only one here actually doing any experiments! (or reporting the results!) come on you guys, get out your toothbrush handles and face flannels and start rubbing them together!

 

[f.c.]

ok, one last final post on this subject before i get murdered, (or get to spend the night on the sofa), so if small child A holds her toothbrush handle very close to the top of the stream so it deflects to the right (say), then when child B brings up his toothbrush close but further down, the stream will deflect even further to the right, but if i hold the glass rod close to the stream it will deflect left. back towards the rod which, finally, i think, proves that this stream is now carrying a charge opposite to that on the top toothbrush handle. BUT under normal circumstances, i.e. a one toothbrush / glass rod experiment, the stream always deflects towards it. which demonstrates (perhaps) that the stream is not usually charged, and one must resort to the induced dipole/ polarisation explanation? (and this result holds if the flow is reduced to droplets as well). heavens. i need a strong drink. did lord kelvin have all this grief with his buckets you think?

 

[DrDu]

the real problem i feel that there are (a) just too many competing effects going on to be able to come to a definitive conclusion with the apparatus available, and (b) i am the only one here actually doing any experiments! (or reporting the results!) come on you guys, get out your toothbrush handles and face flannels and start rubbing them together!

Besides calculating the angle of deflection for all three mechanisms, I have to say that I did this experiment some time ago and that this morning, much to the dismay of my wife, I started to construct some Kelvin apparatus out of some yoghurt cups (before learning from this thread that this apparatus was invented by Lord Kelvin).
But besides this I came to the conclusion that the competing effects can experimentally only be distinguished in some precision experiments which won't be possible with my toothbrush.

 

[DrDu]

ok, one last final post on this subject before i get murdered, (or get to spend the night on the sofa), so if small child A holds her toothbrush handle very close to the top of the stream so it deflects to the right (say), then when child B brings up his toothbrush close but further down, the stream will deflect even further to the right, but if i hold the glass rod close to the stream it will deflect left. back towards the rod which, finally, i think, proves that this stream is now carrying a charge opposite to that on the top toothbrush handle. BUT under normal circumstances, i.e. a one toothbrush / glass rod experiment, the stream always deflects towards it. which demonstrates (perhaps) that the stream is not usually charged, and one must resort to the induced dipole/ polarisation explanation? (and this result holds if the flow is reduced to droplets as well). heavens. i need a strong drink. did lord kelvin have all this grief with his buckets you think?

No, if you have a continuous stream it will alway deflect in the direction of the rods.
With drops this should be different, so maybe you can test it in your kitchen.

 

[Edgardo]

A continuous stream would behave like a metal wire. Maybe you could try out how a thin earthed wire will behave when you bring close your charged comb to the other end?
I think the conductivity even of highly pure water is too high for it not behaving like a good conductor in these kind of electrostatic experiments.

This sounds reasonable. I did the following:
1. I took a small stripe of aluminium and attached it to the edge of a table. The charge comb attracted it.
2. I took the aluminum piece and attached it to a tap. The piece also moved towards the charged comb.

Besides calculating the angle of deflection for all three mechanisms, I have to say that I did this experiment some time ago and that this morning, much to the dismay of my wife, I started to construct some Kelvin apparatus out of some yoghurt cups (before learning from this thread that this apparatus was invented by Lord Kelvin).
But besides this I came to the conclusion that the competing effects can experimentally only be distinguished in some precision experiments which won't be possible with my toothbrush.

Haha! Only scientists use yoghurt cups to produce lightning.
Let me know if you've actually built the Kelvin water dropper and if it worked.

 

[Edgardo]

i would just like to make clear that it makes no appreciable difference whether the rate of flow is adjusted to produce either well-defined separate drops or a continuous stream, the deflection observed is always in the direction of the charged rod, whether plastic or glass, i.e. +ve or -ve.

I tried deflecting tiny drops from a tap but could only get big ones. Surprisingly, I could still attract them with the charged comb.

the real problem i feel that there are (a) just too many competing effects going on to be able to come to a definitive conclusion with the apparatus available, and (b) i am the only one here actually doing any experiments! (or reporting the results!) come on you guys, get out your toothbrush handles and face flannels and start rubbing them together!

Haha! After reading this I got in an experimental rush:
1. Instread of water I tried to deflect oil but I could not verify anything. I don't have a buret and instead held the bottle which resulted in a shaky stream of oil.
2. I thought of deflecting slow and tiny droplets. First, I tried with a spray bottle but the drops were too big and fell too fast. I then took an inhalator (similar to http://www.pari.de/produkte/untere_atemwege/produkt/detail/info/videos/pari_boy_mobile_s.html) producing very tiny droplets that even flew up. I was hoping to see some attraction by the charged comb, but I could not see a difference (the "mist" of droplets was too turbulent and the comb may have been discharged by the "mist").

3. After DrDu's proposed experiment I had some aluminium pieces. Then this video crossed my mind. I took two pieces of aluminium, attached them to a paperclip and brought the charged comb below them. They repelled each other. I had never thought of such a simple demonstration of an electroscope and charge induction.
4. I tried to create light with duct tape. Yes, triboluminescence works!

come on you guys, get out your toothbrush handles and face flannels and start rubbing them together!

I am scared of tooth brushes!

 

[Edgardo]

ok, one last final post on this subject before i get murdered, (or get to spend the night on the sofa), so if small child A holds her toothbrush handle very close to the top of the stream so it deflects to the right (say), then when child B brings up his toothbrush close but further down, the stream will deflect even further to the right, but if i hold the glass rod close to the stream it will deflect left. back towards the rod which, finally, i think, proves that this stream is now carrying a charge opposite to that on the top toothbrush handle.

This is an excellent experimental setup! But hold on. You say you had a stream. A continuous stream or stream of drops?

BUT under normal circumstances, i.e. a one toothbrush / glass rod experiment, the stream always deflects towards it. which demonstrates (perhaps) that the stream is not usually charged, and one must resort to the induced dipole/ polarisation explanation? (and this result holds if the flow is reduced to droplets as well). heavens. i need a strong drink. did lord kelvin have all this grief with his buckets you think?

That's the question! I think that actually ions are responsible for the deflection when we use water from a tap.
But let me ask you a question: Earlier on you mentioned that you've tried with de-ionised water. What was the setup? Did you use a buret? And was it a continuous stream or drops?

 

[DrDu]

In my opinion, it should be possible in the case of single drops to first attract them with a plastic rod and further below repell them with a glas rod, given that it is the electric charge and not the dipole moment which is responsible for their deflection.
To produce uncharged drops, I think one should ascertain that the drops are formed inside a grounded metal tube which acts as a Faraday cage.

 

[f.c.]

This is an excellent experimental setup! But hold on. You say you had a stream. A continuous stream or stream of drops?

That's the question! I think that actually ions are responsible for the deflection when we use water from a tap.
But let me ask you a question: Earlier on you mentioned that you've tried with de-ionised water. What was the setup? Did you use a buret? And was it a continuous stream or drops?

i have a glass dropping/ separating funnel with a ground glass tap for that which now that i think on it is not perhaps standard issue in your typical chemistry set and makes me feel a tad guilty for complaining that no-one else was doing any experiments! (and doubly so in view of your toothbrush phobia! poor you!)

anyway, i did think at first it wasnt making much difference whether it was a continuous stream or a stream of droplets, but now i am not so sure, and since the two-toothbrush expt was so problematical i have varied the set-up by catching the stream in a metal dish perched on top of an aluminium foil electroscope in an (empty) gherkin jar. simply running out the fluid without a charged rod present, showed that no charge was building up, but as soon as i brought a charged rod close to bend the stream, the electroscope leafs began to deflect, provided, that is, that the stream broke up into droplets somewhere along its length. but if the flow rate was increased so it was completely continuous the electroscope charge at once disappeared. which is reasonable, i guess, since the electroscope was now effectively connected to the fluid reservoir.

but quite what to make of this i am not sure anymore. i feel like i am back to square one here. does this unequivocally demonstrate that an electrically neutral droplet still deflects? i am not convinced of this. what is needed i guess is a charged rod with just enough charge on it to attract a droplet, but not leave the droplet charged afterwards. tricky.

 

[Edgardo]

anyway, i did think at first it wasnt making much difference whether it was a continuous stream or a stream of droplets, but now i am not so sure, and since the two-toothbrush expt was so problematical i have varied the set-up by catching the stream in a metal dish perched on top of an aluminium foil electroscope in an (empty) gherkin jar. simply running out the fluid without a charged rod present, showed that no charge was building up, but as soon as i brought a charged rod close to bend the stream, the electroscope leafs began to deflect, provided, that is, that the stream broke up into droplets somewhere along its length. but if the flow rate was increased so it was completely continuous the electroscope charge at once disappeared. which is reasonable, i guess, since the electroscope was now effectively connected to the fluid reservoir.

Facepalm to myself! Why didn't I think of using an electroscope? Anyway, Nobel priiiiize, here we cooome!

 

[f.c.]

Facepalm to myself! Why didn't I think of using an electroscope? Anyway, Nobel priiiiize, here we cooome!

umm. not even an ig i reckon! but, maybe you could try for a research grant from a toothbrush company, for i am not entirely convinced that 2nd paper (Electrical Deflection of Polar Liquid Streams: A Misunderstood Demonstration by Maryam Ziaei-Moayyed and Edward Goodman ) has covered all bases. for streams of droplets , ok, when the droplets separate from the end of the buret, or, whatever. they become charged and then deflected in the electric field, but, this mechanism does not transfer well to the case of a continuous fluid stream, where (as best i can tell from my own little experiments!) no charge separation is occurring, the stream is electrically neutral, yet it still deflects. ah well, happy xmas to all!

 

[asym]

1. You cannot prepare water sample without ions - there will always be some H+ and OH- from water dissociation.
2. Pure dipolar fluids react to electric field as well. Even nonpolar ones will do, as they get polarized by the field. However there is a question how strong the field must be to get noticeable effect.