Slashdot Mirror


Bang But No Splash

BishopBerkeley writes "When a drop of ethanol is dropped on a surface at low pressures (1/5 atmosphere or less), it makes no splash. Science offers a brief synopsis and fascinating pictures of the phenomenon. The results seem to confirm the (perhaps counterintuitive) prediction that more viscous liquids are more likely to splash, not less likely . Links to the researchers' home page at U of Chicago (as of now, the site is timing out) and pdf version of the article on arxiv can be found on the Science page also."

66 of 252 comments (clear)

  1. Synopsis: by martensitic · · Score: 3, Informative
    I do not have access to this item.

    Fascinating. ----- Ut Tensio, Sic Vis

    --
    Ut Tensio, Sic Vis
    1. Re:Synopsis: by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Informative

      The PDF has the pictures. I wish people wouldn't link redundant urls.

  2. Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Your Free Registration does not grant access to this item:
    Full Text : Cho,Sucking Away the Splatter, ScienceNOW 2005: 4

    1. Re:Nice! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess the conversation was something like:

      <sciencemag> Hi, we'd like to increase our readsership, in the following demographic: nerds
      <osdn> Okay, we can give you the following options:
      <osdn> "Sponsored Link", that'll cost you 100$
      <osdn> "Flash ad", in science section, at 1000$
      <osdb> "Flash ad", front page article, 2000$
      <osdn> "Article in Science Section", it 5000$
      <osdn> or, our most wanted product:
      <osdn> "Article, Front page". 10000 $. Really really a lot of value.
      <sciencemag> Can the article be a simple subscription link ?
      <osdn> You pay, you do whatever you like
      <sciencemag> What's the catch ?
      <osdn> Well, we can't guarantee when we'll post it, as we're currently running a big Google campain. But it should be possible in a couple of days.
      <sciencemag> Okay, we'll take that front page thing. Bye.
      <osdn> Thanks. At your service.

    2. Re:Nice! by Eccles · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your Free Registration does not grant access to this item:
      Full Text : Cho,Sucking Away the Splatter,


      With a title like that, you would think it's "adult" content they're charging for...

      --
      Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  3. Ethanol by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Funny

    Uh oh. Someone left some ethanol next to bored scientists again.

    People like my friends know the right thing to do, but it appears that this knowledge is not common enough.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Ethanol by mattcasters · · Score: 2
      Indeed, it immediately reminded me of a Monty Python sketch: The society for putting things on top of other things...http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/on topof.htm/



      OK, I'll say it: watching drops splash or not all day: SILLY!!

      --
      News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
  4. Hmm by iLEZ · · Score: 4, Funny

    " Your Subscription does not grant access to this item: Full Text : Cho,Sucking Away the Splatter, ScienceNOW 2005: 4"

    Sounds like a whole different kind of webpage..

    --
    You cant fight in here, its a war room!
  5. Bang AND splash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    When a few drops of ethyl alcohol are dropped into a low-tolerance system, you get bangs, splashes, crashes, all kinds of stuff.

    More study is clearly needed.

  6. An accessible page, more types of fluids tested by ylikone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Click here to see.

    --
    Meh.
    1. Re:An accessible page, more types of fluids tested by andy753421 · · Score: 5, Informative

      For everyone without real player just change the *.splash.rm to *.splash.avi on the video link since even the 'AVI format' link points to a real media file.
      The movie seems to me much more effective than the jpg image, I was supprised by them skipping head so far between the 3rd and 4th frame, seems leaves out some of the important parts..

    2. Re:An accessible page, more types of fluids tested by shockbeton · · Score: 4, Informative

      The link to the AVI is erroneous on the parent's linked-to page. It should be:

      http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/05/050322.sp lash.avi

      A marvelous movie!

    3. Re:An accessible page, more types of fluids tested by FatBear · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes it is a good movie. I see that the drop in the top frame is flattened, presumeably due to the resistance of the thicker air it is passing through. The drop in the lower frame/lower atmospheric pressure is more nearly a perfect sphere. Maybe that accounts for the splash/no splash effect? Kind of like the difference between a belly flop (flattened sphere) and a clean dive.

    4. Re:An accessible page, more types of fluids tested by FatBear · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's what it looks like as it leaves the spigot, but it quickly assumes a spherical shape as it falls. Surface tension pulls the same on all surfaces of the drop, so it would pull it into a sphere. In a vacuum it should attain a perfect sphere, though it may take some time because of sloshing around inside the drop. Atmospheric drag would tend to flatten the bottom of the drop as it falls. If you look at the film clip (see previous posting) you will see that the drop falling through the denser atmosphere is noticeably flattened, while the drop falling through the thinner atmosphere is more spherical.

  7. We know quarks, but not this... by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Isn't it amazing that we're investigating quarks but haven't yet fully understood the properties of athmosphere and vacuum? We could have found those phenomena 400 years ago, but no...

    Makes one wonder what else the laws of physics are hiding from us yet... and whether we have really tried to analyse physics systematically enough.

    1. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by hey! · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, to be fair to the upper crust Elizabethan gentleman scientists of yore, photography wouldn't be invented for another two hundred years, and high speed emulsions for some decades after that. Now those 20th century scientists -- thats a different kettle of fish.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by efatapo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This doesn't seem that counter-intuitive though...High viscosity liquids have a greater molecular attraction to one another than low viscosity liquids. They would therefore show a resistance to spreading out on the glass. This would give them more solid-like properties and therefore would be more like a ball hitting a wall, where energy is transfered in a rebound. The lower viscosity liquids would not be held tightly together and would therefore spread out easier.

      To test this it seems like you could perform the experiment at higher temperatures. The hypothesis would be that the higher temps overcome the molecular interactions and decrease the viscosity.

      I just looked at the pictures and am a biochemist so take this analysis, like everything else on /., with a grain of salt. But this seems to make sense to me.

      ---
      Daniel Coughlin's Photographs

    3. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Isn't it amazing that we're investigating quarks but haven't yet fully understood the properties of athmosphere and vacuum? We could have found those phenomena 400 years ago, but no...
      I'm not sure this is new. A housemate (who worked in a dairy) told me many years ago that milk is transported in vaccuum tankers to avoid it arriving as butter.
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    4. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but did the milk SPLASH when it hit the vacuum tanker?

      And did you cry about it subsequently?

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    5. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by nameer · · Score: 5, Interesting
      This one has me stumped:

      A small balloon is inflated in atmospheric pressure until it pops. The resulting fragments are a few large pieces of latex.

      A simmilar balloon is inflated by tying it off, placing it in a bell jar, and evacuating the jar. When the balloon pops, the result is a shredded mess of many small pieces of latex.

      The guy at the museum who showed this demonstration couldn't explain to me why it did this. He just kept saying, "It pops everywhere at once". Okay, but why?

      --
      "Uh... yeah, Brain, but where are we going to find rubber pants our size?" --Pinky
    6. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by Idarubicin · · Score: 5, Interesting
      It's one of those things that's utterly obvious--after the experiment is done.

      Given no a priori knowledge of this experiment, I could come up with convincing thought experiments and analogies to explain either possible outcome (low viscosity or high viscosity being less likely to splash).

      For example, what happens when a ball of soft putty drops on a surface? It definitely doesn't produce an apparent splash. The "intuitive" interpretation might be, then, that high viscosity liquids are less able to splash, based on our experience with a large, viscous semisolid.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    7. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by Phleg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This sounds like something that could be easily explained. When you blow into a balloon, the air inside does not stretch the latex evenly in all directions. By evenly, I mean that the latex is thicker and thinner in some areas than others due to imperfections in manufacturing. When you blow up the balloon, these imperfections aren't accounted for and there are likely to be a few "weakest" areas with some stronger ones around.

      In theory, removing the surrounding air would eliminate or significantly reduce the opposition to this "uneven" (when considering the imperfect makeup of the balloon itself) distribution, and allow the air inside the balloon to distribute itself so that all points on the balloon's surface experience the same tension to strength ratio. Once a certain threshold is exceeded, they would then all exceed it at the same time, and result in many many tears, opposed to just a few.

      --
      No comment.
    8. Re:We know quarks, but not this... by fanblade · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't like the other replies to this experiment. They talk about equal distribution of pressures and such, but I think that increasing inside pressure and decreasing outside pressure should create the same effect in that regard. I also don't buy the explanation that it pops "everywhere at once." I would guess that there is always a single starting point for the break. I mean, even if we say that it breaks at TWO points at once, one break probably happens a nanosecond or so before the other. I'm betting that the "everywhere at once" analysis is actually describing a super fast ripple effect that can't be observed in real time.

      The pressure differential between the inside of the balloon and the outside is probably identical in both cases when the balloon pops. So the net force acting on the surface of the ballon at the moment of the pop should be the same. The only difference is the absolute pressure. I think this is the key.

      The pressure in the jar is so low that when the balloon breaks, there is no force pushing inward on the ballon. The net force is basically equal to the force pushing outward. At regular atmospheric pressure there is more force on the inside but also resistance from the outside. I think the outside pressure affects the rubber after the instant of the pop by slowing it down. Maybe this keeps the rubber stable enough to only break into a few pieces.

  8. since the article is already /. by leuk_he · · Score: 2, Funny

    (1 seems to be subscription only, other is alredy /.?)

    Lets continue doing those experiments with alcohol ourself. In a plane. Mixed with lots of water (beer) , mixed with less water (jenever). Ans splashing.

    Anything more useful to report about alcohol abuse?

  9. How would superfluids behave? by ram4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It would be interesting to investigate how superfluids behave.

    Since the article hints that the more viscosity, the lower the pressure must be to avoid splashing of the droplet, would superfluids (which have no viscosity at all) behave as expected even under the atmospheric pressure, or even a higher pressure?

    Offhand, why are they using ethanol and not water for their study though?

    1. Re:How would superfluids behave? by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Informative

      To follow up on your follow-up, water is hard to splash because it's a polar molecule. There's a slight positive charge off to one side and a slight negative charge off to the other. Hence, the molecules of water tend to attract each other. They also attract lots of other stuff, which is why water is so great as a solvent, why you get a meniscus at the top of a test tube, why rain droplets form nice round bubbles on the surface of your car, etcetera.

      Sometimes in science I tend to get caught up with the complex math and theory, and forget the basic stuff. Water is a truly fascinating material, and can give us a lot of insight into the workings of the world.

  10. ScienceNOW text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sucking Away the Splatter

    LOS ANGELES--Nature may abhor a vacuum, but a vacuum abhors a mess. In the absence of air, a droplet of liquid can crash into a smooth surface without splattering, physicists report. The odd phenomenon might be useful for controlling droplet formation in technological processes like inkjet printing.

    Splashdown. A drop of ethanol hits a smooth glass at atmospheric pressure (above) and 1/5 atmospheric pressure (below).
    CREDIT: Lei Xu et al./The University of Chicago

    It seems obvious and inevitable that a fast-moving droplet will splatter when it hits a hard surface. Researchers have studied the distribution of droplet sizes and energies in such splashes, and physicists Lei Xu, Sidney Nagel, and colleagues at the University of Chicago were searching for ways to control those sizes and energies when they discovered something unexpected: By pumping away some of the surrounding air they could eliminate the splatter entirely.
    Within a tall vacuum chamber, the researchers released droplets of alcohol onto a dry glass plate from heights ranging from 20 centimeters to 3 meters. They recorded the resulting splashes with a high speed video camera as they varied the pressure in their apparatus, sucking it down as low as one hundredth of atmospheric pressure. The droplets struck the surface with speeds ranging from 2 to 7 meters per second, and for a given speed, the researchers found they could eliminate the splash by lowering the pressure beyond a specific threshold.

    The team explains the results with a simple theory. As a drop strikes a surface, liquid begins to spread sideways at supersonic speed, creating a shockwave. The shockwave pushes back on the liquid, and if that force is greater than the internal forces holding the drop together, the shockwave will lift the liquid off the surface and create a splash. Reducing the pressure reduces the force exerted by the shock wave.

    Ironically, the theory predicts that a thicker liquid should splash more than a thinner one. The researchers tested this curious prediction by studying the splash made by three types of alcohol with different viscosities. Indeed, the more viscous the alcohol, the lower the pressure needed to prevent splashing, the team reported here this week at a meeting of the American Physical Society.

    "It's not uncommon to see a lovely phenomenon, but it is uncommon to get all the factors straight," says Walter Goldburg, an experimenter at the University of Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania. Bulbul Chakraborty, a theoretical physicist at Brandeis University in Waltham, Massachusetts, says the researchers' analysis opens the way to controlling splashing in, for example, spray coating surfaces with various substances.

  11. a very interesting question... by dAzED1 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Our images illustrate an
    important puzzle: why do we see a corona form at all? At the substrate surface the liquid momentum points horizontally outward. Without a layer of fluid to push against (such as in the photographs of Edgerton), how does the expanding layer gain any momentum component in the vertical direction?

    That is an interesting question...sounds like a potential thesis for a few people out there.

    1. Re:a very interesting question... by rorrison · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Off the top of my head... as the liquid is moving horizontally along the surface, it encounters air molecules, which causes the leading edge of the surface to pile up. As it piles up, it acquires the vertical component. Less air pressure -> less air molecules encountered -> less piling up -> less vertical component -> less splashing.

      Friction with the surface will slow down the liquid at the surface, but without the air resistance liquid not in contact with the surface just flows over the slower liquid at the surface and so doesn't pile up.

      Of course, IANAP, so this worth exactly what you paid for it. If, on the other hand, I happen to be right -- remember, you heard it here first!

  12. LESS viscous liquids are more likely to splash by Dikeman · · Score: 2, Informative

    The posting says:
    "The results seem to confirm the (perhaps counterintuitive) prediction that more viscous liquids are more likely to splash, not less likely"

    While the article says:
    "Xu tested water splash as well. Water exhibits the same behavior, but its higher surface tension narrows the range of splash-forming impact velocity and creates a much larger margin for experimental error.
    "It's much harder to splash than ethanol," he said."

    Is say, this is a classic RTFA

    1. Re:LESS viscous liquids are more likely to splash by Herbster · · Score: 5, Informative

      uh. surface tension and viscosity are NOT the same thing.

  13. Here's the picture by hairykrishna · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The pdf link's a little slow and I'm sure people don't want to register for the article so I upped the image onto my website:

    http://www.hairykrishna.f2s.com/droplet.html

    --
    "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
  14. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  15. As Dave Barry pointed out.... by MemeRot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We invented nuclear bombs before we invented intermittent wipers for cars. Progress is never a smooth line.

    1. Re:As Dave Barry pointed out.... by That's+Unpossible! · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but they only decided to proceed on the nuclear bombs when they realized dropping intermittent wipers on the Japanese would not end the war.

      --
      Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
    2. Re:As Dave Barry pointed out.... by RobiOne · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but immagine the Japanese's horror if they did drop intermittent wipers all over them!

      They'd think we'd wipe them out.

      --
      -- Robi
    3. Re:As Dave Barry pointed out.... by Flavio · · Score: 2, Informative
      A nuclear bomb can be detonated by taking two lumps of metal and banging them together real fast. The romans could have done that, easily.

      That's ridiculous. Your two lumps of metal are highly enriched uranium or plutonium, neither of which occur naturally. The process to obtain them in sufficient quantities requires huge amounts of energy, raw materials and precision engineering.

      So no, the Romans couldn't have done that, and specially not easily.

  16. Air pressure is critical by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was discussed in Science News (or maybe elsewhere) some time back so I'm working from memory. One of the things reseachers noted was that air was crucial for splashing. It's rather intuitive in a way. All of the momentum is downward, then converted to radially outward. What makes it go up? The leading edge of the droplet is rushing outward. With the right speed and gas pressure, it splashes up like popping the hood of your car while going down the highway. Get rid of the speed or the gas and it will stay low.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:Air pressure is critical by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It's rather intuitive in a way. All of the momentum is downward, then converted to radially outward. What makes it go up?

      How about a partially elastic collision with the surface (it bounces)?

      How about collision with the leading edge of the spreading droplet (there is drag on the spreading drop as it extends across the surface--fast liquid building up behind could still splash over that barrier, even in the complete absence of atmosphere)?

      Always be afraid of "intuitive" reasoning in physics when you're dealing with very slow or very fast processes that operate on very small or very large scales. :)

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    2. Re:Air pressure is critical by jbeaupre · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hey, don't shoot the messenger. I'm just telling you what I remember from the article. As for elastic collision, liquids have no elasticity in the way you are suggesting. Bouncing comes from bulk compression. Fluids, well, flow unless constrained. A droplet isn't constrained so it splats. Except for a miniscule shock propagation wave, you won't get KE->PE->KE of a bounce. But your point about it splashing over itself is a good observation. Sort of creating its own pool then splashing it out. I wonder if they considered it. I apologize for the word intuitive. It's a subjective term.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  17. looking at the pix by GuyFawkes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it looks like all the "splash" is created by the outward spread of the liquid from ground zero, it rushes outwards, but appears to "catch air" presumably because the surface tension / minimum stable raduis has been exceeded, and from that point on it becomes chaotic mixture of small droplets going every which way.

    --
    http://slashdot.org/~GuyFawkes/journal
  18. Re:Camera - OT by cluke · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good job too. Imagine leaving that into the chemist to get developed. "Just the the one set of my 47,000 prints please". And then you get them all back with a 'photography tips' sticker on as you had your thumb over the lens.

  19. More beer research ... by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

    You might also want to read the following papers:

    A Comparison Analysis of the Greater Carbohydrate and Increased Photosynthetic Element Count of Budweiser Versus the Similar Enzyme Content of Bud Light

    Next to medicine and biowarfare, brewing and fermentation technology is a major funding source for microbiology.

    Some research suggests that drinking beer may stop your hair from turning grey

    And possibly the most expensive PDF's in the world

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  20. elegant by FLOOBYDUST · · Score: 5, Funny

    Science at its best. Their explanation passes the three fingers rule. If a complicated subject can be distilled into a written answer that makes sense and can be covered with three fingers, that is elegance. However, don't be confused with answers that makes sense after ingesting three fingers of straight ethanol......

  21. Simulations? by geordieboy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What would be great is to check this phenomenon out with computer simulation. It might be tough to set up though, since you'd have to deal with a compressible gas phase and incompressible fluid phase, and keep track of the fluid surface to account for surface tension. I'm sure it could be done though. Axisymmetric simulation would probably be fine to start off.

    --
    The world is everything that is the case
  22. I think this is the ink application they mentioned by kb9vcr · · Score: 2, Funny

    Note: This printer has been designed to work in a low atomosphere environment for optimal ink transfers. Reduce air pressure to 17.2 kPa before printing else warrenty will be VOID.

  23. Re:Bad link by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The OP is probably at an institution where they have a site subscription to Science (most American universities worth their salt do, for example), so when they go to the link they get the article right away. If Hemos is somewhere that has a site subscription to Science, he'd get the same thing, and it would be a relatively subtle thing to figure out whether nonsubscribers can read the article or not.

  24. Keyword: multiphase flows, fluid-fluid interaction by xlurker · · Score: 2, Informative
    What would be great is to check this phenomenon out with computer simulation.

    That's exactly the first thing I thought of. And this begs to be simulated.

    It might be tough to set up though, since you'd have to deal with a compressible gas phase and incompressible fluid phase, and keep track of the fluid surface to account for surface tension.

    You pretty much described what is done. The Navier-Stokes equations for compresible and incompressible fluids are used. But in this case air-compression is so low, that incompressiblity could be assumed. All of the difficulty here is tracking the surface and maintaining surface tension. From the equations you can read that the surface tension will depend on two things: pressure jump and the jump of the normal derivative of the fluid velocity. Possibly an artificial surface tension could be added that depended on the change of curvature of the interface surface.

    I'm sure it could be done though. Axisymmetric simulation would probably be fine to start off.

    Only recently, the preferred approach to date uses a method called the level set method. Here the interface is explcitly tracked. Problems arise here because originally the numerical methods and underlying mathematics that are used weren't set up for changing domains i.e. changing differential equations in the middle of a discrete spacial cell in (a finite element).

    --
    ______________________________________________
    sigamajig...
  25. Real world.. by Keamos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can someone explain to me what the significance of this in the real world is? I'm failing to see this (honestly, I'm not trying to be a troll)

    1. Re:Real world.. by jmichaelg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      We don't know ahead of time what information will turn out to be useful and what will turn out to be arcane so we just gather what knowledge what we can and plod along. It's a strategy that's worked quite well so far.

      Some examples..Transistors arose from some guys shooting the breeze 20-30 years earlier as to how electrons moved around. What they were saying made no sense at all but it paid off big time. A guy sitting in a patent office speculates that light is comprised of particles and uses it to explain why electrons stream out of certain metals. Same guy speculates about what it's like to sit on a photon as it screams along and draws a few conclusions that 35 years later, rock the world. Another guy grows 1000s of peas, counts, by hand, how many of eight different traits show up in subsequent generations and figures out that wrinkled peas require wrinkled parents. Thirty years later, some other guys pick up on that idea and study fruit flys and come up with an arithmetic argument based on percentages that some traits are based on discrete loci. Weird stuff in 1911 that blossomed into billion dollar corporations 70 years later. A pair of mathematically gifted brothers figure out some equations about how fluids move over surfaces. That knowledge sits around for more than a 100 years before a different pair of brothers in a bike shop put the knowledge to an interesting use.

      You just never know what's worth knowing so we gather what we can.

    2. Re:Real world.. by Nasher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Coatings springs to mind. There might be some application in coating surfaces to a high degree of tollerance.

  26. further research by emilng · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was curious enough about what you said to do some further research. I found the following:

    Protein denatures as you beat it up with the whisk Fat globules are dispersed into smaller and smaller droplets as well,,,hey, how would you like to be whipped with sharp slicing pieces of metal?????? All the while, water is swirling and moving creating eddies of air like a sunami in your bowl Sugar is looking for a safe place to land in all the confusion.... End Result: Uncoiled protein (denaturation) surrounds the air bubbles Sugar lands on the denatured protein and holds on for dear life Fat surrounds the sugar, protein and air bubble, trapping the water Now multiply this scene by about 2 zillion K-billion times You have created an interlaced 3-dimesnional net we call a foam (remember our dispersion chart???? Foam is a gas dispersed in a liquid.....air trapped in milk)

    So you wouldn't be able to get the milk to turn into whipped cream which turns into butter without the air for the fat, protein, and sugar to cling to. So this is why the milk is shipped in a vacuum.

    Full text: http://www2.muw.edu/~jfitzger/page81.html

  27. Distorted Shape by LanceTaylor · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I noticed that the drop that made the biggest splash was already distorted before impact. The drop that didn't make a splash was a perfect sphere up until the moment of impact.

    1. Re:Distorted Shape by Jozer99 · · Score: 2, Informative

      That was caused by air resistance. A drop falling in pressure such as the atmosphere gets destorted, that is why raindrops have that famous teardrop shape. In the lower pressures, the effect is much less.

    2. Re:Distorted Shape by synaptik · · Score: 2, Informative
      That was caused by air resistance. A drop falling in pressure such as the atmosphere gets destorted, that is why raindrops have that famous teardrop shape. In the lower pressures, the effect is much less.

      Except that raindrops are not teardrop shaped. Thanks for playing.

      --
      HSJ$$*&#^!#+++ATH0
      NO CARRIER
    3. Re:Distorted Shape by Orp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      that is why raindrops have that famous teardrop shape

      NO! Large falling raindrops do not have a teardrop shape - they are flattened with the major axis roughly parallel with the ground - shaped more like a hamburger bun before they break apart. Friction with the air causes the drop to distort as you indicate and high pressure is found below the drop, low above it.

      --
      A squid eating dough in a polyethylene bag is fast and bulbous, got me?
  28. Bang But No Splash by williecdog · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't know about you guys, but this sounds like an effective form a birth control....

  29. Axisymmetric simulation NOT correct by elgatozorbas · · Score: 2, Informative
    Axisymmetric simulation would probably be fine to start off.

    Wrong

    Strange enough, axisymmetric simulation would probably of little use. Falling drops are one of those phenomena where a completely (or almost completely) symmetrical initial condition leads to a very asymmetrical result. In practice you do not get a circular 'wall' of fluid, but rather a kind of 'crown'. (Google came up with this example). The number of peaks of the crown has been investigated by someone, but I have forgotten who. More about symmetrical conditions leading to asymmetrical results can be found in the book Fearful symmetry.

  30. Finally my question has been answered: by kramerino · · Score: 3, Funny

    If a drop of ethanol is dropped on a surface at low pressures (1/5 atmosphere or less), and nobody else is around to see it, does it make a splash?

  31. From TFA... by Otto · · Score: 4, Informative

    "In an engine you break the gasoline into millions of pieces and then ignite them in a chamber, making a controlled explosion. You do that continuously in your car," Xu said. "A higher gas pressure might do a better job of breaking the fuel into smaller, more uniform pieces. But determining that would require further experiments more accurately simulating the splash process as it occurs under fuel-combustion conditions," he said.

    --
    - Give a man a fire and he's warm for a day, but set him on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
  32. An obvious case of the by madris · · Score: 2, Funny

    "splash-drop" effect.

  33. Re:Bad link by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
    it would be a relatively subtle thing to figure out whether nonsubscribers can read the article or not.

    Bah! Subtle my eye! It's trivial to run your links through an anonymizer to ensure full public access is allowed. Of course, doing this would constitute effort, and it's abundantly clear that /. editors avoid that at all cost...

    --
    If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  34. Does this apply to other situations? by cellocgw · · Score: 2

    I fear this will collapse into a joke thread, but seriously:
    How would the shape of the well-known mushroom cloud change if the detonation occurred in a vaccuum? Would the characteristic double-shockwave be supported by the solids, or does it depend on the atmospheric pressure?

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  35. what a waste! by Stankatz · · Score: 2, Funny

    When a drop of ethanol is dropped on a surface...

  36. putty is a very bad example by bodrell · · Score: 3, Informative

    Because it's a non-Newtonian fluid. More specifically, it's a Bingham plastic. I wouldn't expect any non-Newtonian fluid to behave in a "normal" way. They don't flow like water (plug flow, rather than laminar) and have very funky properties, in general. It's complicated to discuss viscosity of a Bingham plastic, but I think ketchup is another example.

    --
    Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
  37. A Natural Fission Reactor by duffahtolla · · Score: 3, Informative
    I doubt that story too, but I remembered reading about nature achieving a self sustaining reaction on its own.

    From here

    A Natural Fission Reactor For thirty years it was assumed that the first nuclear chain reaction to occur on Earth was that set up by Fermi in Chicago in 1942. However, it has now been established that a natural reactor operated in a natural uranium deposit in west Africa 1.8 billion years ago. Evidence for this came in an interesting way. Natural uranium from Gabon was exported to France; an examination of the isotopic content showed that the proportion of uranium-235 was slightly lower than normally found This small difference was investigated and traces of the fission products of uranium were found in higher proportions than in normal uranium ore. This suggested that at some time in the geological history of the uranium, some of it had undergone a fission reaction. But how could a chain reaction have been established in natural uranium? The seam of ore, which was being extracted, was unusually rich in uranium-235 (up to 10 per cent). Geological conditions were responsible for accumulating large quantities in a small area. The water of crystallisation of the minerals in the ore might have acted as a moderator. It is now believed that a natural fission chain reaction must have taken place in the ore approximately 1800 million years ago. It may have run for just over 100 years, emitting a thermal power of tens of kilowatts (any greater power would have led to the evaporation of the water required as a moderator). In the course of its lifetime, it would have consumed a similar amount of uranium as a present-day power reactor consumes in a year.