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

Interesting, water wont spash in a vaccum

  1. Mar 31, 2005 #1
    Interesting, water wont spash in a vacuum

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18624935.200

    What could be some usefull implication with this?
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 31, 2005 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    I have no idea, but what a delightfully cool result!
    Thank you very much.
     
  4. Mar 31, 2005 #3
    Perhaps the splash wasnt visible, but there was definitely some deformation like russ_watters is saying. It is an inelastic collision, in some form.
     
  5. Mar 31, 2005 #4

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I am not sure what they mean by "the splash disappeared"?

    What happened to the drop? Did the drop adhere to the surface? Did it bounce off while maintaining the integrity of the droplet? Unfortunately the referenced article is pretty weak.

    Isn't droplet formation the result of surface interaction between 2 fluids? So I am not surprised that removing air (one of the fluids) changes thing.

    Come on Russ, think for a second, do you really believe that meteor impact on the surface of a planet is analogous to droplet formation in a fluid? I don't.
     
  6. Mar 31, 2005 #5

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Of course it is.



    I am curious as to what did happen in the experiment. The article seems to regard that as inconsequential.
     
  7. Mar 31, 2005 #6

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Really? what is the surface tension of a planet?
     
  8. Mar 31, 2005 #7

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    At 70 F and 0.36 psia (0.025 bar absolute) water boils. So the 0.2 bar quoted is just above the saturation point of water.

    Just guessing here, but I suspect the reason the splash "disappears" has something to do with it being so close to the boiling point. The article doesn't mention the temperature the drop was at. If it were as warm as 140 F, the water would have boiled.

    Also I checked the surface tension, and stays roughly constant over that range.
     
  9. Mar 31, 2005 #8
    I should imagine a good use for this would be spot cooling or coating.

    For example on small SMT devices, or precision engineering components where things need to be coated without contaminating other surrounding areas.

    Again the question I'd ask is, so what did happen??? Bounced as a perfect globular shape, formed a perfect smeisphere on the point of impact?
     
  10. Mar 31, 2005 #9

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

  11. Apr 1, 2005 #10

    Q_Goest

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Apparantly it has nothing to do with the boiling point of the fluid with respect to pressure. Here's a summary of another article referencing the same experiment.

    Ref: http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050322.splash.shtml

    What this is saying is that there are two factors which have a significant influence on the amount of splashing, surface tension and gas density. In general, it seems the lower the surface tension, the easier it is to get the liquid to splash. Second, the more dense the gas, the easier it is for the liquid to splash. So a liquid with a low surface tension impacting a solid surface in a high density gas will be the easiest to splash. In this case, I think "splash" might best be defined as the ability of the fluid to break up into droplets upon impact. If the liquid doesn't splash, it will simply wet the surface as is shown in the high speed still photos on the link above.

    This is particularly interesting to me because it may directly relate to a phenomena regarding the transfer of liquid helium - something I have a professional interest in.
     
  12. Apr 2, 2005 #11
    This i believe can be related to pure logic.... Imagine this, a drop of water falls on the surface ~ elastic collision ~ the drop which was squished due to impact comes up, meet's surrounding air molecules and the water which is made of molecules of water or other smaller droplets of water itself ~ split up, some move up, some reflect back down to the ground and so on......

    This naturally would depend on the density of the air moloecules as more the air molecules more the chances of the water droplet scattering....

    And it would aslo depend on the surface tension as the greater the surface tension greater is the ability of the small water droplets to stick together and lower the surface tension lesser the the chance that the droplets of water will stay together....

    what do u guyz think?
     
  13. Apr 2, 2005 #12

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Actually, I'll correct myself. You said it's analagous. It's not merely an analogy, they operate on the same principles.

    That's how you get secondary cratering, a central peak and many other features that both phenomena exhibit.
     
  14. Apr 4, 2005 #13

    Clausius2

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I don't know what do you mean with splashing, but apart of surrounding air there is the gravitational force. I don't believe a drop falling in a liquid is not going to cause none effect no matter there is no air.
     
  15. Apr 4, 2005 #14

    Integral

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This is not about cratering, that is why I say this is not analogous to meter impact. The analogy would be a model of the behavior of the METEOR, not the material that was in the crater. Note that at the energies observed here one surface can be considered infinite density and infinitely rigid. They are observing the behavior of a droplet. And a relatively low energy droplet at that. So please do not put this phenomena in the same box as high energy cratering collisions. Or even collisions between bodies of similar density.


    Clearly if you impact a fluid surface in a vacuum there would still be material pushed aside. I think what this result implies is that the appearance of the splash would be much different form what we normally see. It implies that it would not segment into droplets in the same fashion. Droplets may well be due to viscous drag of the atmosphere. It would be very interesting to see video of such a splash.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2005
  16. May 25, 2005 #15
    Could the no splash effect be due to the energy from the impact?
    which causes any sort of "splash" to be instantly boiled off due to the pressure being so low?
     
  17. May 25, 2005 #16
    I think the reason we are use to seeing splashing is because as a drop falls through air it develops a depression on the underside looking much like an umbrella. This traps air when the drop hits the surface. Pressure increases for the air bubble and it accelerates up and out taking some water with it.

    I wonder what dropping a cannon ball into a pool of water with no air would look like. Would we see some splashing then?
     
  18. May 26, 2005 #17
    Well, I don't see why not. They didn't drop a solid object into a fluid body. They dropped a fluid object onto a solid body.

    Then again, maybe not. I can imagine it either way, I guess.
     
  19. May 26, 2005 #18

    DaveC426913

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It would look like a room full of vapour. You won't have liquid water in a vacuum for very long...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Interesting, water wont spash in a vaccum
  1. Vaccum pockets (Replies: 13)

  2. On vaccum energy (Replies: 2)

Loading...