Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Water Droplets In Orbit On the International Space Station

Comments Filter:
  • Depression (Score:4, Insightful)

    by dtmos (447842) * on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:04AM (#38951919)

    This is the kind of news that saddens me. The grand endeavor to explore the universe that I knew as a kid has turned into, well, basically nothing at all, and the astronauts that once went where no one had gone before have turned into Mr. Wizards doing Newtonian physics demonstrations for ten-year-olds. I mean, the off-the-cuff demonstrations of floating pencils one saw in the Apollo program videos, in between doing stuff like developing space rendezvous techniques and going to the moon, have turned into the raison d'etre of the space program.

    I am depressed.

    • by SJHillman (1966756) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:17AM (#38951995)

      Don't worry, it will get better when they post the videos of microgravity sex experiments.

      • I dunno. This is a /. denizen we are talking about. I'd suggest that he try pharmaceuticals instead.

        • by demachina (71715)

          Roger Boisjoly [latimes.com] recently passed away. He was one of the engineers who tried to stop the ill fated launch of Challenger on an abnormally cold morning in Florida. He knew there was a high risk of the O rings leaking if they were cold, NASA management refused to listen to him, an O ring did failt, it ended in catastrophe. The Shuttle program was crippled from that day on.

          From the article:

          "It was the end of the dream," said John Pike, executive director of GlobalSecurity.org and a longtime analyst of U.S. aer

      • With knitting needles? Pro-lifers will be the ones doing the relative spinning in those experiments!

      • by geogob (569250)

        That would be probably the most effective way to finance the space program nowadays. That combined with the next TV-reallity-soap à la "Americas next hot space chick".

        Combining a mission to mars with a two year Big Brother show could improve financing considerably. Just wait until the first "actor" gets kicked out. Oh the drama.

      • by Petaris (771874)

        So we will go from the porn industry furthering the multimedia industry to the the porn industry furthering the space program? :P

    • Re:Depression (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MachineShedFred (621896) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:19AM (#38952007) Journal

      While I agree that there should be a more grand purpose to manned spaceflight, getting grade school children interested in newtonian physics through demonstrating the principles in a compelling way isn't a complete waste.

      The next generation needs inspiration too.

      • by Moraelin (679338) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:49AM (#38952203) Journal

        Is it really that inspirational, though?

        I mean, think of what really inspired generation X. I don't think it was just the prospect of having a chance to sit in a cramped capsule in orbit for two days, and even that chance being lower than being hit by lightning.

        I think it was more like the extrapolation of where it's going. SF told us stories of it becoming a mass thing, every other guy being at least a space freighter pilot, and the cool ones like us would be space FIGHTER pilots, exploration, whole colonies on other planet and in orbit, meeting horny green alien babes, and going bald where nobody had gone before. Oh wait, the last one was the porn ;) And not just space travel. It told us tales of robots, lasers, near-infinite sources of energy, etc.

        It was an age of very rapid progress in a whole bunch of domains, and a naive linear extrapolation ahead promised to soon take us where we can't even imagine. Now it was the moon, tomorrow it will be colonies on Mars, and the day after tomorrow probably meeting the Vulcans.

        It was that imaginary destination, not the current state that got us SF nerds dreaming.

        Nowadays, it seems to have pretty much become a horizontal asymptote. Or near enough. Within your lifetime, or even your kids' lifetime, we'll probably still have half a dozen people in orbit. Your grandkids' chances of being an astronaut will still be lower than winning the jackpot and retiring to a tropical resort.

        And even if they won that lottery, what will they do in orbit? Where does that extrapolation lead nowadays? They'll maybe levitate droplets of oil instead of water? Study the growth of mold on a petri dish in zero gravity?

        Even robots are not what we dreamed they would be. Instead of cool HK-47 style androids at the bank teller, we have the more logical thing of a box with a screen and a keypad. Instead of robotic vendors, we have the more logical vending machines. And instead of having a robot copilot, you just have an autopilot AI, because it would be stupid to build a humanoid frame where just a few chips will do the same job better. And instead of C3PO style protocol droids, we have cell phones with translator apps, or just a browser to point to Google translation. Again, because it makes no frikken sense to actually build a dedicated humanoid frame for just one application, when an app on a general purpose gadget will do the same thing.

        And you can forget the whole space fighter thing, since not only it turns out that blowing enough shit up in orbit would nix all our access to space, but pilots are being replaced by remote controlled drones even on Earth. And in space probably even more so, since you can do much tighter turns and accelerations if you don't have to worry about squishing the human inside.

        So, you know, inspire kids to aspire to... what?

        But even forgetting the extrapolation, the thing about the human brain is that it works with differences more than with absolutes. To be interesting enough, something must be different enough. You wouldn't think for example that a new LCD TV is new and interesting if it just has the buttons in a different position than yours.

        At some point there was enough change per time unit to be interesting. Yay, we went to the moon. Yay, we have a space shuttle that promises to make space travel cheap and often (yeah, right.) Yay, we have a space station.

        Now it's, what? Yay, we're stuck in the same orbit, but we can do another elementary-school level science experiments in space? :p

        • I think it was more like the extrapolation of where it's going. SF told us stories of it becoming a mass thing, every other guy being at least a space freighter pilot, and the cool ones like us would be space FIGHTER pilots, exploration, whole colonies on other planet and in orbit, meeting horny green alien babes, and going bald where nobody had gone before. Oh wait, the last one was the porn ;) And not just space travel. It told us tales of robots, lasers, near-infinite sources of energy, etc.

          It was an age of very rapid progress in a whole bunch of domains, and a naive linear extrapolation ahead promised to soon take us where we can't even imagine.

          And that's the basic problem - too many people refuse to grow the hell up and shed that naivete. They insist on blaming reality for not living up to their childish beliefs, and then they use fiction as 'proof' that those beliefs were reasonable.
           
          Seriously, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the juveniles of Robert Heinlein are all creations of imagination. If you're over eighteen and can't tell the difference between them and reality, you're in need of some serious professional help.
           

          instead of C3PO style protocol droids, we have cell phones with translator apps, or just a browser to point to Google translation

          So the f' what? Are you seriously so immature as to be disappointed that something as amazing as real time machine translation (which was nothing put a pipe dream when I was in high school a mere thirty years ago) is available 24/7 in something you can put in your pocket rather than being a 'kewl' 'droid? Hell, I consider the whole "in your pocket" thing far more impressive than the "being a droid" part. When I was a kid, we expected such things to take a whole room of computers, if it was ever possible at all.

          • It's a matter of perspective. I can say the same thing about anyone being disappointed in anything. I can call you immature for being disappointed that someone else has fantastic beliefs or expectations. If you are as mature as you think you are, you would see the folly in any disappointment... You will never find peace by non-acceptance.
          • And that's the basic problem - too many people refuse to grow the hell up and shed that naivete. They insist on blaming reality for not living up to their childish beliefs, and then they use fiction as 'proof' that those beliefs were reasonable.

            Seriously, the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, and the juveniles of Robert Heinlein are all creations of imagination. If you're over eighteen and can't tell the difference between them and reality, you're in need of some serious professional help.

            LOLWUT?

            Exactly where did y

            • Exactly where did you see anything about refusing to grow up, or using fiction as proof, or not being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, in the actual message you answer to?

              By actually reading the message while sober and in full possession of my faculties.

              And of course a certain amount of unrealism will be involved. You don't actually think that little girls dreaming of being princesses and having a pony actually thought through such aspects as "and be some piece of property to

              • by Moraelin (679338)

                Exactly where did you see anything about refusing to grow up, or using fiction as proof, or not being able to tell the difference between reality and fantasy, in the actual message you answer to?

                By actually reading the message while sober and in full possession of my faculties.

                Provide an exact quote, my dear troll, or piss off. Just more postulating that your delusional strawmen are there, just won't cut it.

                We're on a board where the message is still readable on the same page. Just postulating I said someth

        • by Hillgiant (916436)

          I "blame" Asimov. His premise to justify the android archetype was that positronic brains were so expensive and difficult to manufacture that you would want to use it for multiple purposes. Since most purposes already expected a humanoid formfactor, the humanoid android was an obvious choice.

          However, processing power is actually fairly inexpensive. So it makes more sense to have a bunch of highly specialized "brains" carefully and specifically tailored to the application than have one expensive generaliz

        • by mcgrew (92797) *

          I mean, think of what really inspired generation X. I don't think it was just the prospect of having a chance to sit in a cramped capsule in orbit for two days, and even that chance being lower than being hit by lightning.

          GenXers were very small children when we reached the moon. Armstrong is of my dad's generation, Korea War vets. Boomers flew the shuttles.

          Star Wars and its sequels are what excited GenX.

          Even robots are not what we dreamed they would be. Instead of cool HK-47 style androids at the bank tell

          • by Moraelin (679338)

            Well, now that's a letdown. If a geek can't dream of getting laid with an alien babe, then what's the point of it all? ;)

            Well, now seriously, I have some idea of my own on the topic. Whatever we meet, true, won't even vaguely resemble HOMO SAPIENS. On the other hand, if you think about how evolutionary pressures worked on Earth, it's not unreasonable to expect some Earth-style body plan.

            For a start I'm going to assume that life is going to evolve from individual mollecules that self-replicate and get increa

      • The furthest man has ever been from the Earth is into orbit around the moon ... and we last did that 40 years ago ...

        24 people have been out of near earth orbit ... and none of these were in the last 40 years ...

        Moon rocket : Retired
        Supersonic Passenger Jet : Retired
        Fastest Production Aircraft : Retired

      • by elrous0 (869638) *

        If you really want to demonstrate Newtonian physics, just show the schoolkids NASA's falling budget after 1968.

    • by SpzToid (869795)

      This is exactly the news to make my point. Our resources are best spent on sending instruments into places where man can't go, because that's where the science is happening. That is exploration.

      Stupid human tricks belong on the David Letterman show. Or the Guinness book of world records.

      Thank goodness we could get up there to fix the space telescopes though. You know, that kind of thing is important too.

      • Perhaps there is one ten-year-old out there who sees this video, and as a result becomes a physical chemist with interests in rocket propulsion, and grows up to invent the critical element to make interplanetary travel possible. Looking at the Space Shuttle astronauts, more than one of them got started in similar ways, so the odds are pretty good that something similar will happen. Then this simple science experiment will have done as much for our growth into space as anything else the space program has d

    • This is still better and awe inspiring than anything I've seen on TV this year so far, apart from an Apple Keynote. ;-)

    • Re:Depression (Score:5, Insightful)

      by tgd (2822) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:43AM (#38952145)

      The grand endeavor to explore the universe that I knew as a kid

      You mean that you imagined as a kid. Like a lot of things you knew as a kid, it was just the wide-eyed fantasies of youth. The space program has NEVER been about being a grand endeavor to explore the universe. It isn't now, and has never been in the entire global history of space programs. They've been about politics, they've been about national security, they've been about national pride. They've *never* been about exploration. Why do you think every single "pure" research project has such brutal trouble with funding? Why do you think the only substantially successful programs in the last 20 years have been the "cheaper, faster" programs?

      It *is* depressing, but I vaguely remember it being depressing when I was five years old and figured out Santa, too.

      In fact, for the first time in *history*, there's cause to NOT be depressed about the reality of space travel. We've got Branson getting ready to let anyone with a couple hundred grand be an astronaut. We've got a private company nearly ready to be lauching people into orbit. Those are BIG deals. Those are space exploration, even in its infancy, that *for once* is NOT coupled to national posturing.

      Today, in 2012, has the greatest number of reasons to be *excited* about space travel, because for once its being done for real.

      • We now have private companies nearly able to take people on joyrides into near earth orbit, which 6 or more governments can already do ...

        They are simply catching up with where we were in the 50's and 60's ... but (a bit) cheaper

        They have no plans to do any more than joyrides, because that is what people are willing and able to pay for ...

        • by tgd (2822)

          We now have private companies nearly able to take people on joyrides into near earth orbit, which 6 or more governments can already do ...

          They are simply catching up with where we were in the 50's and 60's ... but (a bit) cheaper

          They have no plans to do any more than joyrides, because that is what people are willing and able to pay for ...

          The first 10-20 years of aviation were also limited nearly exclusively to joyrides. There's nothing wrong with that. But imagine what the world would look like today if the US government was the only organization that had airplanes.

          The people paying for joyrides (at 1% or less of what the government was spending 60 years ago!) are funding the rapid development of technology, driving costs down by making profit actually matter, and that will lead to greater corporate use.

          If you're a 2nd-tier school today, an

          • by mcgrew (92797) *

            Profit, investment and corporations is why today we're all not living in farm houses with candlelight and no education.

            The free market you worship did NOT make us educated. That was 100% a government endeavor. Just like the space program. Were it not for governments, industry would not be in space today.

            • by tgd (2822)

              Profit, investment and corporations is why today we're all not living in farm houses with candlelight and no education.

              The free market you worship did NOT make us educated. That was 100% a government endeavor. Just like the space program. Were it not for governments, industry would not be in space today.

              You might want to study your history of public education in the US, and why it was enacted.

      • by dtmos (447842) *

        The space program has NEVER been about being a grand endeavor to explore the universe. It isn't now, and has never been in the entire global history of space programs. They've been about politics, they've been about national security, they've been about national pride. They've *never* been about exploration.

        Exploration is always about politics, even if the explorers are not, because whatever is discovered will affect the political balance back home. Even the "Age of Exploration" in the 1400s-1600s was fueled largely by governments, government grants, and government charters of independent companies (e.g., Hudson's Bay Company [wikipedia.org]). The point is, exploration did occur during this time. If you think space exploration is occurring today, we have a different definition of the word, "is."

        • The spice trade was a major driving force back then. In particular pepper, which was worth more per ounce than gold.
    • Re:Depression (Score:5, Insightful)

      by damburger (981828) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:59AM (#38952285)
      I think the idea is, that if we can maintain in the youth an interest in science and mathematics beyond that needed to act as passive operators of technological civilization, perhaps their generation will not utterly fail to push space travel forwards, as several recent ones have.
      • by Moraelin (679338) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @08:16AM (#38952427) Journal

        I don't think they'll have a choice, though. The problems are that:

        1. As Douglas Adams put it, "Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space." So you'll need incredible speeds to get anywhere interesting even within one lifetime.

        2. In that domain, Albert Einstein is the biggest mofo. He'll be a bigger pain in your dreams of space domination than Mace Windu.

        Everyone has some half-baked solution like "well, just keep accelerating at 1g for a few years, and you'll be at 0.9c". What they don't think about is what kind of energy you need to keep doing that. Even fusion won't cut it.

        At 0.9c, every gram of your ship packs enough kinetic energy as a 29 kiloton atom bomb. By comparison, the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. Even at near perfect efficiency, you'd need two of those to accelerate just one gram of matter to 0.9c.

        If you want to do a round trip, you have to accelerate then decelerate in one direction, then accelerate and decelerate again in the other direction. So multiply by 4.

        And that's with a cannon kind of a setup, so you only accelerate that one gram of matter, not also the rocket and fuel and whatnot. If you carry your own fuel and engines, you'll have to accelerate those too.

        Doing it slowly or doing it fast, won't change anything. At the end of the acceleration period, each gram of your ship will still pack that much kinetic energy, so still that much energy will have gone into accelerating it.

        Take your choice of realistic engine. Orion? If you took all the atom bombs ever made, they still wouldn't be enough to push even a modest capsule for a one way trip to a good habitable planet. Engine with uranium salts in water? Ditto, plus you now have to accelerate the water and the moderator bars too. Ion thrusters? Well, you still need that much energy piped into accelerating the ions. You'll still need a reactor that produces that much energy, and there just ain't enough uranium produced in the world for that.

        The point is that even the next generation still ain't going anywhere. It doesn't matter if they want to push space travel or not, they're still not going to put a guy farther than maybe Mars. Unless some miraculous new source of energy is found -- note that even Star Trek essentially has infinite energy and stored as densely as antimatter -- the next generation is just tied to this rock as we are.

        • What's wrong with the solar system to get ourselves experienced with space? Interstellar travel is out until we solve the issues you mention but the solar system is most definitely within reach - the limitations there are technology not basic physics. I think most people would think that mining Helium-3 on the surface of the moon, watching a sulphur volcano erupt on Io or sailing the methane oceans on Titan would count as exciting.
          • Isn't it the same thing, though? Of course, basic physics doesn't technically get into the way of getting to Alpha Centauri either. It's economics and technology that put the kibosh on it.

            Going anywhere in the solar system is, of course, going to be an easier proposition, and you can get some of that energy by slingshot fly-bys of planets. It's still going to involve a lot of time, a lot of shielding, and ultimately a lot of energy. I don't think technology and economics will make that a realistic goal for

      • And just to add one thing about interstellar travel at relativistic speeds: that energy per gram works both ways. If you're going at 0.9c and hit a grain of mater (e.g., ice) just half a gram in weight, that's pretty much stationary compared to your own speed, the energy in that impact is going to be equivalent to having the Hiroshima bomb strapped to your ship and detonated.

        When you're moving at relativistic speeds, every single spec of dust or ice is a relativistic weapon, packing energies measured in kil

    • by mcgrew (92797) *

      Well, the moon race was purely political. What they're doing now is far more useful and interesting. There's no way to know what kind of technology will come out of their science.

      And meanwhile, when I was 20 there were two things I knew would never happen in my life: I'd never be able to see without contacts or glasses, and I'd never go to space. The first I was used to, the second depressing, since I've always been a big SF fan.

      But I got an implant in my left eye in 2006 and no longer need corrective lense

    • These "Newtonian physics demonstrations for ten-year-olds" as you call them are done for PR purposes. They are not the raison d'etre of the space program and are not intended to be.

      The astronauts spend most of their time doing experiments that are inscrutable to the general public. Taking a small amount of time to do these experiments helps maintain a level of visibility for NASA that translates directly into public support for the program. Without public support, they would quickly lose their budget and

      • by dtmos (447842) *

        Um, no. You are obviously too young to remember NASA when it actually had public support. At that time, the public didn't support it because it could demonstrate microgravity parlor tricks. They supported it because it, and its predecessor, NACA, were on the leading edge of human achievement -- making discoveries, setting records, and in general advancing the state of the art -- in almost everything they touched.

        And apparently I need to repeat that

        According to the original Memorandum of Understanding between NASA and RSA, the International Space Station was intended to be a laboratory, observatory and factory in space.

        Fine so far, but can you recall three scientific discover

        • You are obviously too young to remember NASA when it actually had public support

          I'm quite old enough to remember when the public supported NASA without PR experiments like this. I remember being told the big bad Soviets were going to beat us to the moon, build space based weapons and destroy us all. We were all told constantly that it was our national duty to support the space program and we did.

          Those days are over and good riddance.

          I mean, what else comes out of it?

          It's not my fault that you're too stupid to use Google:
          http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/coolstation.html [nasa.gov]

          And no, before you count the it

          • by dtmos (447842) *

            Those days are over and good riddance.

            These are the days to which I refer. [nasa.gov] Read that speech. Note the minimal amount of nationalistic jingoism, and the upbeat, positive view of exploration. There's only a single, passing reference to the Soviet Union. Sure, there was a space race, but nobody liked NASA because of it. People liked NASA -- and NACA before it -- because of the X-15, because of the probes to Venus and Mars, and yes, because of the trips to the moon. NASA made people feel like they were part of human progress -- doing things

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:15AM (#38951983)

    ...into wild orbits around a knitting needle in the microgravity environment of the ISS

    Could be worse I guess; ridged potato chips, for instance.

  • Science FTW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @07:32AM (#38952081)

    I don't care what you say, that is pretty cool, On his free time he is making great videos that, potentially for hundreds of years, will be available for future generations of k-12 science classes.

    • by argStyopa (232550)

      Since, at the rate we're going, it's going to be that long before we actually venture seriously into space again.

      Alternately, there WILL be such videos, but they'll be in Chinese.

    • K-12? These videos will be available for everyone all the way up to physics graduate students and beyond.

      You have a cylindrical charged object attracting spheres under a static potential. You can discuss this with first year undergraduates being introduced to circular motion, or final year undergraduates who have learned about cylindrical motion and 3d cylindrical coordinate systems.

      You can talk to EM students, and get graduate EM students to consider the conical tapering of the needle and how it affects th

      • Why, for example, does the path of the drop along the length of the needle, slow down, stop, and reverse rather than continuing off the end of the needle? My understanding was that an electrical charge is stronger on the pointier end of an object. If so, the drop should be more attracted to the point of the needle.

        Perhaps only the central portion of the needle was charged.
  • High school was 20 some years ago and I didn't pass physics anyways.

    To me it LOOKS like gravity. But I am having a lot of trouble imagining that a knitting needle has enough mass to orbit water droplets. The description talks about another needle off camera which sounds like he is trying to keep a charge on the needle.

    So my best guess is that the water droplets are negatively charged, the needles positively charged.
    The only thing missing is the orbit. I wasn't aware you could get an orbit out of somethin

    • by T-Bone-T (1048702) on Tuesday February 07, 2012 @08:17AM (#38952437)

      Orbit is usually associated with gravity but it can happen with any attractive force.

    • Of course electricity can make things orbit. Anything that pushes stuff toghether can make things orbit.

      Also, if that something pushes with a force that doesn't change with the 1/r^2 that gravity and electricity do, you can create some quite interesting orbits. Try a string sometime.

    • Any attractive force can cause orbit. The water droplets were forced out of a syringe and have a velocity pointing away from the syringe .. when the droplets get attracted to the knitting needle they still retain that velocity/momentum .. the attraction of the needle can't erase the droplet's pre-existing velocity .. this causes the droplet to orbit .. it slowly spirals inwards because air resistance that slows down it's velocity.

    • by LeDopore (898286)

      Let me chime in with a zoom-out perspective.

      Physics is using math to predict what matter will do in certain circumstances. (I find that pretty mind-blowing - that you can *calculate* what will happen to *stuff* if the system is simple enough. Too bad the calculation approach didn't work out for me so well in the girlfriend department in high school - another story.)

      Anyway, the math behind how positive and negative charges attract is the same as the math behind how masses attract: they're both "inverse squ

      • So remind me again why this EM effect is unworkable when scaled to the size of planets, moons, and suns? Simply because these astronomical bodies don't maintain charge?

        • by j-beda (85386)

          So remind me again why this EM effect is unworkable when scaled to the size of planets, moons, and suns? Simply because these astronomical bodies don't maintain charge?

          Pretty much. Because each type of charge (positive and negative) repels like types of charges and attracts opposite types of charge, in order to get this type of attraction between two objects you need to cram a bunch of positives onto one object, and negatives onto the other. But those positives do not "want" to stay crammed onto the object - they don't "like" each other. Similarly for the negatives. If you get significant numbers of them together, they have a tendency to fly apart.

          In contrast, "gravitatio

    • in fact, electricity and gravity are identical, except that for gravity there is only one kind of "charge", and the force is only attractive. in electricity, there are two kinds of charges, and there is attraction only between opposed charges.
      in practice, if the moon was positively charged and the earth negatively charged, and there was no gravity, you could still obtain the same trajectory of the moon around the earth (provided that you have the correct charges).
      the force for gravity is (m1*m2)/(r^2), wher

  • Zero g as in dropping the 'g' off 'knitting' . It was interesting that he kept the g for orbiting, always dropped it for knittin, but there was one other word that I heard him say where he dropped the g. Is this an indication of when and where he first learnt these words? Or is it just lazy pronunciation, and he can get away with saying knittin, but not orbitin?

  • I believe if you rub the nylon knittin' needle against the teflon one, one will become positively charged and the other negatively charged. I'm not sure which one is shedding the electrons and which is picking them up, but that's the reason. I'm guessing that the nylon one gains electrons, and teflon donates them.

    He's transferring the charge from the needle to the droplets, then they're orbiting the oppositely charged needle due to electrostatic attraction. (the needle wants its electrons back, basically

    • Yes!. You just got the charges backwards. If you look up triboelectric series (example here http://www.siliconfareast.com/tribo_series.htm [siliconfareast.com]) you'll see that nylon is half way up the positive scale where as Teflon is the second from the bottom on the negative side of the scale. Positive means that it tends to donate electrons and negative means it wants to accept or 'steal' electrons.

      They key though, is the induction created to the water droplets which you can read about it here (http://www.eskimo.com/~bi

God may be subtle, but he isn't plain mean. -- Albert Einstein

Working...