I came up with a new theory on adhesive strength

  • Thread starter Thread starter unscientific
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Strength Theory
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a new theory proposed by a participant regarding adhesive strength, focusing on the mechanics of adhesive forces in relation to shearing forces. The scope includes theoretical exploration of adhesive interactions, mechanical reasoning, and the conceptual modeling of adhesive behavior using spring-like elements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes that adhesive strength can be modeled by considering the adhesive as composed of tiny segments acting like springs, with each segment contributing to the overall adhesive force in response to shear forces.
  • The same participant suggests that the adhesive forces can be represented mathematically as a series of layers of springs, where the contribution of each layer diminishes with depth.
  • Another participant challenges the initial hypothesis, arguing that a free-body diagram indicates that the forces involved are equal and opposite, questioning the validity of the inequalities presented in the theory.
  • This challenger also references existing theories of adhesion that involve molecular bonding and mechanical responses to shear loading, suggesting that these established theories already cover the phenomena being discussed.
  • A later reply emphasizes that the forces in the free-body diagram act in the same direction, contradicting the initial claim about their relationship.
  • Another participant expresses skepticism about the forum being a suitable place for developing new theories, implying a preference for established concepts over speculative ideas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit disagreement regarding the validity of the proposed theory and its underlying assumptions. Some support the exploration of new models, while others advocate for established theories of adhesion, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes assumptions about the nature of adhesive forces and their modeling, which may not be universally accepted. The reliance on diagrams and hypothetical constructs introduces additional complexity that is not fully resolved within the conversation.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13
First, I pondered about the concepts of force and pressure, force can't exist without pressure, vice versa. Imagine a an adhesive sandwiched between a tabletop and a silicon wafer. (this is part 1)

Now, when you exert a shearing force Fshear above the adhesive and between the silicon thickness, the adhesive-silicon force exerts an adhesive force opposite in direction to the shearing force. Simultaneously, the adhesive-table force exerts an adhesive force opposite in direction to the shearing force.

This is shown as in diagram 1.

At the point of cohesive failure,

Fshear = F'si + F'table

If F'si > F'table,
the point of rupture would be the table-adhesive contact

If F'table > F'si,
the point of rupture would be the silicon-adhesive contact.

Now, I know that F'table is less than Ftable, where Ftable is the TRUE or MAXIMUM adhesive contact force between the adhesive and table.
Furthermore, I know that F'si is less than Fsi, where Fsi is the TRUE of MAXIMUM adhesive contact force between the adhesive and silicon.
 

Attachments

  • diagram 1.jpg
    diagram 1.jpg
    12.5 KB · Views: 479
Engineering news on Phys.org
Now, if the shear force was applied BETWEEN the silicon and the surface of the table, but very close to the surface of the table, the adhesive force between Silicon and adhesive can be IGNORED, as they do not come into play.

Now, looking from the plan view (from Above), I imagine the surface of the adhesive to be composed of tiny segments, each producing a adhesive force to resist the shear force.(diagram2)

Now, here's when i come up with my theory: I imagine the adhesive forces to be composed entirely of springs, where an infinitesimally SMALL and THIN(2d) part of the adhesive surface contains a "spring", that will contribute to part of the adhesive force. Now, when u apply a shear force that is parallel to the surface of the adhesive, the adhesive behaves like springs in parallel, each contributing directly where Fadhesive = kx1 + kx2 + kx3 + kx4...

Now, i imagine there to be composed of N number of layers of springs, each of 0 thickness, and each layer interacts with each other like springs in parallel. So the first layer in contact with the surface-adhesive will exert a force of nkx where n is the number of springs in a layer. Then the second layer will exert a force of nkx/2, 3rd layer nkx/3, 4th layer is nkx/4 ...until when at the infiniteth layer, that layer does not exert any force opposing Fshear.
This is logical, as u imagine a high TOWER of adhesive, as shown in diagram 3, where the lowest layer(infiniteth) does not contribute any adhesive force.
 

Attachments

  • diagram 3.jpg
    diagram 3.jpg
    12.5 KB · Views: 501
  • diagram 2.jpg
    diagram 2.jpg
    13.8 KB · Views: 501
Now, if the shear force was applied BETWEEN the silicon and the surface of the table, but very close to the surface of the table, the adhesive force between Silicon and adhesive can be IGNORED, as they do not come into play.

Now, looking from the plan view (from Above), I imagine the surface of the adhesive to be composed of tiny segments, each producing a adhesive force to resist the shear force.(diagram2)

Now, here's when i come up with my theory: I imagine the adhesive forces to be composed entirely of springs, where an infinitesimally SMALL and THIN(2d) part of the adhesive surface contains a "spring", that will contribute to part of the adhesive force. Now, when u apply a shear force that is parallel to the surface of the adhesive, the adhesive behaves like springs in parallel, each contributing directly where Fadhesive = kx1 + kx2 + kx3 + kx4...kxn (Where n = no. of springs in each layer)

Section 2: "So its all comes down to layers.."

Now, i imagine there to be composed of p number of layers, each of 0 thickness, and each layer interacts with each other like springs in parallel. Let there be N number of springs interacting between 2 layers, each with a "stiffness" constant of klayer. So the first layer in contact with the surface-adhesive will exert a force of nklayerx where n is the number of springs within a layer.

So, the TOTAL "spring-adhesive" forces in layer 1 is just nkx, between layer 1 and layer 2 is Nklayerxlayer (springs between layer 1 and 2 are in series), layer2-3 is Nklayerxlayer/2, layer 3-4 is Nklayerxlayer/3, until the infiniteth layer its 0 (the base of an infinitely long series of springs does not contribute any restoring force.

Therefore, the total "adhesive" forces = nkx + Nklayerxlayer (1 + 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 + ...1/(p-1))
 
Unfortunately for your hypothesis, a simple free-body diagram of the adhesive region in your diagram shows that F'si = -F'table. So your inequalities don't make much sense.

We already have a theory describing adhesion; it involves molecular bonding. It describes the mechanical response to shear loading. It describes deadhesion by crack propagation. It even describes the http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.biophys.30.1.105" . I recommend checking it out.

EDIT: I'm assuming both forces, as drawn, act on the adhesive. In any case, their magnitudes (if not their directions) are equal, as shown by a free-body diagram.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
they are in the same direction, check out diagram 1.
 
Sorry, this isn't a forum for developing new theories.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K