Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

How surface tension is measured for molten metals?

  1. Sep 30, 2017 #1

    ORF

    User Avatar

    Hello

    How the surface tension is measured for molten metals? I have heard about the sessile drop, but it seems to be a very inaccurate method...

    Thank you for your time.

    Regards.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 5, 2017 #2
    Thanks for the thread! This is an automated courtesy bump. Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post? The more details the better.
     
  4. Oct 6, 2017 #3

    Mapes

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Experimentalists have also looked at the size of a drop as it falls (e.g., the pendant-drop approach, J Tille and J C Kelly 1963 Br. J. Appl. Phys. 14 717), the maximum bubble pressure method, electrostatic levitation of oscillating droplets, and characterization of oscillating droplets in microgravity (I Egry, G Lohoefer, and G Jacobs 1995 Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 4043). The penultimate method seems to be the consensus for Earth-based characterization of the surface tension of molten metals and strongly reactive substances. The final method provides a check against the methods used to correct for the influence of the strong EM field required for levitation.
     
  5. Oct 6, 2017 #4
    Hi ORF:

    A long time ago I was involved in helping a physical chemist friend determine surface tension of mercury drops by developing a method of calculating the best fitting mathematical shape of a sessile drop to a set of observed shape measurements. As I remember, the paper that resulted reported an acceptable level of precision in he results.
    "A curve fitting method for calculating interfacial tension from the shape of a sessile drop" James N. Butler and Burton H. Bloom, Surface Science 4 (1966) 1-17.​

    Why do you think this method is inaccurate?

    Regards,
    Buzz
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted