Bubble formation in animals. I. Physical factors

Harvey, E. Newton; Barnes, D. K.; McElroy, W. D.; Whiteley, Arthur H.; Pease, Daniel C.; Cooper, Kenneth W.

doi:10.1002/jcp.1030240102

Cited by 351 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

141

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…4,7,13,14 Thus, e.g., in a 46 kHz acoustic field, Barger 14 measured tensile strengths ranging from 1.2 bar in water saturated with air at 760 torr to 12.1 bar when saturated at 10 torr. Likewise, in acoustic cavitation experiments at 15 kHz Sirotyuk 7 found that by reducing the content of surface-active substances in water until only traces of them were present, a tensile strength of 7.5 bar could be obtained.…”

Section: Literature Analysis and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The immediate candidate would be free gas bubbles, but they either disappear by buoyancy, or shrink and dissolve due to diffusion of gas into the liquid, driven by the excess pressure in the bubble that is set up by surface tension-they are inherently unstable. 3 Harvey et al 4 suggested cavitation nuclei to be gas pockets stabilized in crevices of solid surfaces, either bounding walls or particles present in the liquid. Many experimental results could be explained from their model, but not all, and other models of stabilization of free gas bubbles were developed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Reflections on cavitation nuclei in water

Mørch

2007

Physics of Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The origin of cavitation bubbles, cavitation nuclei, has been a subject of debate since the early years of cavitation research. This paper presents an analysis of a representative selection of experimental investigations of cavitation inception and the tensile strength of water. At atmospheric pressure, the possibility of stabilization of free gas bubbles by a skin has been documented, but only within a range of bubble sizes that makes them responsible for tensile strengths up to about 1.5 bar, and values reaching almost 300 bar have been measured. However, cavitation nuclei can also be harbored on the surface of particles and bounding walls. Such nuclei can be related to the full range of tensile strengths measured, when differences of experimental conditions are taken into consideration. The absence or presence of contamination on surfaces, as well as the structure of the surfaces, are central to explaining why the tensile strength of water varies so dramatically between the experiments reported. A model for calculation of the critical pressure of skin-covered free gas bubbles as well as that of interfacial gaseous nuclei covered by a skin is presented. This model is able to bridge the apparently conflicting results of the many scientists, who have been working in the field over the years.

show abstract

Section: Literature Analysis and Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on cavitation nuclei in water

Mørch

2007

Physics of Fluids

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This puts a first constraint on when an ice drop can explode: R i /R o has to be small enough to make the pressure fall below the cavitation threshold of the liquid, which for clean water, free of gas pockets, can easily be 100 MPa into the negative [32,33]. Of course, for millimetric droplets, the micron sized gap formed by the crack will be an effective nucleation site, lowering the nucleation threshold to ∆P ≈ 2γ/x e ≈ 0.1 MPa [34], where γ ≈ 75 mN/m is the surface tension of water at 0 • C. However, for a small cloud droplet of say R o ∼ 10 µm, equation (3) predicts a hundred fold thinner gap, and a corresponding higher threshold tension. For such droplets the cavitation threshold would form a serious barrier to explosion.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Fast Dynamics of Water Droplets Freezing from the Outside In

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A drop of water that freezes from the outside-in presents an intriguing problem: the expansion of water upon freezing is incompatible with the self-confinement by a rigid ice shell. Using high-speed imaging we show that this conundrum is resolved through an intermittent fracturing of the brittle ice shell and cavitation in the enclosed liquid, culminating in an explosion of the partially frozen droplet. We propose a basic model to elucidate the interplay between a steady build-up of stresses and their fast release. The model reveals that for millimetric droplets the fragment velocities upon explosion are independent of the droplet size and only depend on material properties (such as the tensile stress of the ice and the bulk modulus of water). For small (sub-millimetric) droplets, on the other hand, surface tension starts to play a role. In this regime we predict that water droplets with radii below 50 µm are unlikely to explode at all. We expect our findings to be relevant in the modeling of freezing cloud and rain droplets.

show abstract

“…This effect would be similar to the induction of gushing by carbon, where adsorbed gases act as the nuclei; the carbon is simply a carrier and is not itself responsible for nucleation. 18 It should be noted that a high surface viscosity is not the "cause" of gushing but only a reflection of the intense surface activity which may be necessary to stabilize nuclei. Hence it is possible for non-gushing beers to have high surface viscosities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface Viscosity and Gushing

Gardner¹

1972

Journal of the Institute of Brewing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface viscosity correlates qualitatively with gushing induced by a standard gushing test. Substances which provoke gushing cause a large increase in surface viscosity when they are added to beer. Conversely, the very high surface viscosities induced by gushing agents fall to normal or intermediate values when anti‐gushing agents are added. High surface viscosity does not ‘cause’ gushing, but appears to be a frequent concomitant of the existence of stable nuclei. These observations support a hypothetical mechanism which suggests that anti‐gushing agents should be extremely surface‐active but incapable of forming a solid‐condensed surface film.

show abstract

Bubble formation in animals. I. Physical factors

Cited by 351 publications

References 20 publications

Reflections on cavitation nuclei in water

Reflections on cavitation nuclei in water

Fast Dynamics of Water Droplets Freezing from the Outside In

Surface Viscosity and Gushing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About