[bardworx]

> So, still very much misunderstood. There is an experiment showing the dominant mechanism (so still only explaining a part!) between solid-solid and a generic model proposed that can be used to explain other interactions (solid-liquid, liquid-liquid, etc).

This seems like a very large part, no?

I mean, we know it works, we get the majority of it, and it doesn’t seem super necessary to spend a lot of dollars and brain power to satisfy an internet debate on a theory of rubbing a balloon on one’s head.

[JimBlackwood]

Sorry for my late response. Anyway:

I get your point. However, this is worked on by researchers who get paid to work on unsolved problems. This is one of them. It's a surprising one, since it looks like such a simple and obvious effect governed by physics we've (seemingly) understood for centuries. Gauss's Laws are from 1773 and much of the work on static electricity is from that era.

So, it's not just an internet debate. Knowing how things work _exactly_ is what scientists do. Getting the majority is not good enough.

And yes, that will often surpass the scale of "Is what we're doing useful?". However, won't know until we find out. Most likely understanding this effect will not bring any revolutionary insight but we should understand it nonetheless. Maybe our understanding will help someone else solve a problem, that solves another problem, that solved another problem, that gives someone a brilliant idea.

[bardworx]

Maybe there are researchers who want to study the discrepancies of static electricity but if they don’t get funding, then they won’t be paid and have to take other priorities.

Seeming to demand these problems are resolved is a road to cynicism, in my opinion.