What Does Oil/Water Curvature Indicate about Emulsions and Microemulsions?

Thread starter superwolf
Start date Apr 24, 2009
Tags

Curvature

AI Thread Summary

Oil/water curvature is a critical factor in understanding emulsions and microemulsions, where microemulsions exhibit high oil/water curvatures and emulsions show small curvatures. This curvature is inversely related to the radius of the droplets, meaning smaller droplets have larger curvature values. The high curvature in microemulsions indicates a greater tendency for the oil and water phases to mix, resulting in a more stable system. In contrast, the lower curvature in emulsions suggests larger droplet sizes and less stability. Understanding these curvature differences is essential for applications in various industries, including food and pharmaceuticals.

Apr 24, 2009

superwolf

When it comes to emulsions and microemulsions; what does oil/water curvature mean?

What does it mean that microemulsions have high oil/water curvatures, while emulsions have small oil/water curvatures?

Last edited: Apr 24, 2009

Physics news on Phys.org

Apr 24, 2009

Mapes

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Curvature is inversely proportional to radius (for a sphere, curvature [/itex]\kappa=2/R). Smaller spheres thus have larger curvature values.

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...

View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...

View full post »