The surface tension of liquids

Brown, R C

doi:10.1080/00107517408210795

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is known that surface tension governs the contact behavior of liquids (Brown, 1974) but it is hardly seen in contacts of solid bodies at the macro-and mesoscales. It is clear that it should start to play an essential role if we consider a continuous transition from an elastic solid to a very soft body such as a gel, soft rubber, and biological tissue (Style et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-adhesive Contacts With Different Surface Tension Inside and Outside the Contact Area

Popov

2020

Front. Mech. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the past decade, the influence of surface tension on contact properties has attracted much attention, especially in the context of contact of very soft materials (such as gels) or contacts at the nanoscale. However, in the most current studies it is assumed that the tension of the surface inside and outside the contact area is the same. In practical terms, this means that the object considered is an elastic body "coated" with a tensed membrane. In real contacts, there is no reason why the surface tensions of the "free interface" and the "contact interface" should be equal. On the contrary, especially in contacts of soft bodies with hard solid indenters, one can anticipate that they are completely different. In the present article, we consider an elastic contact taking into account different surface tensions inside and outside the contact area. However, the considered contacts are still "non-adhesive." This means that the three surface energies in play (two surface energies of both bodies outside the contact and the interface energy in the contact region) fulfill the criterion that the work of separation vanishes. A numerical model based on the Fast Fourier transform-assisted boundary element method is implemented and is illustrated with a few examples.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-adhesive Contacts With Different Surface Tension Inside and Outside the Contact Area

Popov

2020

Front. Mech. Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The local environment seen by an atom in the bulk of a condensed phase is different from the environment seen by the same atom on the surface [14]. In the former case, each atom is fully surrounded by other atoms and in the latter case, an atom is surrounded by other atoms only on one side, the other being exposed to the vacuum.…”

Section: A Liquid-vacuum Interfacementioning

confidence: 97%

A unified description of Surface Free Energy and Surface Stress

Di Pasquale,

Davidchack

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Even though the study of interfacial phenomena dates back to Laplace and was formalised by Gibbs for liquid-liquid interfaces, it appears that some concepts and relations among them are still causing some confusion and debates in the literature. Moreover, ever since the Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations have started to be widely used in the study of surface properties, these debates only intensified. In this work, we present a systematic description of the interfacial properties from the thermodynamic and statistical mechanics points of view. In particular, we link our derivations to MD simulations, describing precisely what different quantities represent and how they can be calculated.We do not follow the usual way that consists of describing the thermodynamics of the surfaces in general and then considering specific cases (e.g. liquid-liquid interface, liquid-solid interface).Instead, we present our analysis of various properties of surfaces in a hierarchical way, starting with the simplest case that we have identified: a single component liquid-vacuum interface, and then adding more and more complications when we progress to more complex interfaces involving solids. We propose that the term "surface tension" should not be used in the description of surfaces and interfaces involving solids, since its meaning is ambiguous. Only "Surface Free Energy" and "Surface Stress" are well defined and represent distinct, but related, properties of the interfaces. We demonstrate that these quantities, as defined in thermodynamics and measured in MD simulations, satisfy the Shuttleworth equation.

show abstract

“…A second related example is the diagram often proposed for calculating the angle of contact between a liquid and a solid in the presence of a gas, in which 'surface tensions' (forces by unit length of contact lines) are represented as three arrows drawn on the 'interface lines' (e.g. [26], 305; [27], 458; [28], 24; [29], 82). The arrows are shown as starting from the point where these lines of contact meet.…”

Section: Students Must Be Prepared To Contend With Ambiguities To Mamentioning

confidence: 99%

Misleading mathematical legitimacy and critical passivity: discussing the irreversible expansion of an ideal gas with beginning teachers

Viennot

2019

Eur. J. Phys.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the importance of developing critical analysis skills among students and science teachers, this paper specifically examines a possible barrier that beginning teachers may face in this regard.Using three examples, the paper addresses the issue of 'misleading mathematical legitimacy' (MML), where modelling negates appropriate physical analysis of a given situation while calculation and results are accurate. The first two examples refer to cases analysed in previous investigations: the 'isobaric hot air balloon' and use of the 'Young relationship' between surface tensions to determine the contact angle of a solid/liquid interface. As these examples are also teaching rituals, this new study eliminates this possible factor of critical passivity by using an unfamiliar solved exercise in which the non-quasi-static expansion of an ideal gas is treated as if the transformation were quasi-static. To document the difficulties experienced by beginning teachers (BTs) in critiquing this text, two group discussions and eight individual interviews were subjected to detailed analysis. The results confirm that MML features were central to beginning teachers' difficulties, with some less expected findings regarding elementary thermodynamics. The paper concludes with a discussion of objectives for teacher preparation.

show abstract

The surface tension of liquids

Cited by 15 publications

References 29 publications

Non-adhesive Contacts With Different Surface Tension Inside and Outside the Contact Area

Non-adhesive Contacts With Different Surface Tension Inside and Outside the Contact Area

A unified description of Surface Free Energy and Surface Stress

Misleading mathematical legitimacy and critical passivity: discussing the irreversible expansion of an ideal gas with beginning teachers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About