Comments on methods for charge decay measurement

Abstract

Comments are made on the features of the various methods in use for measurement of charge decay. It is noted that none of the methods that start with the material charged and tested by earthing the test area boundary can be considered valid because this situation does not match practical experience. It is noted that any valid method must give results that match the behaviour of a variety of materials with tribocharging. Measurements based on corona charging have been shown to match the behaviour observed with tribocharging.

Potential decay experiments for the characterization of electron transport. Modelling and discussion

“…However, no α value was found to make Eqs. (22) and (28) consistent with the data. Another possible origin for the initial drop in the rate of decay is a transient decrease of the mobility due to a lack in trapping efficiency (Fig.…”

Electrostatic properties of wheat bran and its constitutive layers: Influence of particle size, composition, and moisture content

“…As there is a direct relation between the potential measured by the probe and the surface charge density of the particles, the measure of the potential half-decay time is a good indicator of the time needed by the studied particles to lose their acquired charge (Chubb, 2004). The residual specific charge of the samples was determined in a first time, by pouring a fixed amount of powder in a Faraday pail and recording the corresponding charge.…”

Dust and electrostatic hazards, could we improve the current standards?

“…However, powders seldom behave in this way and if the decay is not a true exponential, such as where the material is non-ohmic, there will not be a simple relationship between the relaxation time and the decay time. Chubb (2004) compared eight different methods for measurement of charge decay. He concluded that the corona charging approach to charge decay measurement offers many practical advantages.…”