Comparing Fractal Dims by Hg & Profilometry

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salish99
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fractal
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the differences between fractal dimensions determined by surface profilometry and mercury (Hg) porosimetry. Specifically, for samples 1-5, Hg porosimetry shows an increasing fractal dimension from 2.5 to 3, while surface profilometry reveals a decreasing trend from 3 to 2.5. This inverse relationship highlights that profilometry measures the external surface characteristics, while porosimetry captures internal structures. The two methods provide complementary data, essential for a comprehensive understanding of material geometry.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of fractal geometry and dimensions
  • Familiarity with surface profilometry techniques
  • Knowledge of mercury porosimetry methods
  • Basic principles of material characterization
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the principles of fractal geometry in material science
  • Explore advanced techniques in surface profilometry
  • Study the applications of mercury porosimetry in high surface area materials
  • Investigate the integration of data from both profilometry and porosimetry for comprehensive analysis
USEFUL FOR

Material scientists, researchers in surface characterization, and professionals involved in the analysis of porous materials will benefit from this discussion.

Salish99
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
What is the difference between fractal dimension determined by surface profilometry and Hg porosimetry?
For example, for a given dataset, say samples 1-5, the backbone fractal dimension determined by Hg porosimetry increases from 2.5 to 3 (the percolation fractality is 3 for all samples).
For Surface profilometry determined on a 2D surface (not a line!) with z as the third dimension, the data is exactly inversed, it decreases from 3 to 2.5
(see example data below)
Why?

What is the difference between the two methods?

thanks.

Data# Hg Profilom.
1 2.5 3
2 2.6 2.9
3 2.7 2.8
4 2.8 2.7
5 2.9 2.5
 
Engineering news on Phys.org


Perhaps I am missing something...but those experiments don't measure the same thing. Profilometry will give you a wet blanket approximation of the surface. It has no information about the internal structure or surface area under the measured hyperplane. Porosimetry basically gives the opposite result in high surface area materials...it gives most of the internal surfaces but no relational geometry...the total geometry is realized by putting Both of the datasets together.
 


Thanks for your reply.

Thant might be it.
I also thought that one output is the outer blanket, and the other the internal structure, but outer or inner surface would have the same characteristics, no?
Anyways, your explanation might explain why they don't correlate linearly, but with inversely.

Thx.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
8K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
8K
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K