Surface Energy of Solids

Bikerman, J. J.

doi:10.1002/pssb.19650100102

Cited by 70 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In this situation no information could be obtained on SE and ST; some guesses were discussed in [5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. Following Shuttle worth [5], we mentally divide this piece "into two parts by a plane … and the two parts are separated."…”

Section: Investigation Methods For Physicochemical Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(2) The ST and SE "are physically equivalent" [6]; they were tacitly assumed to exist at the same time [4][5][6][7][8][9]. The possibility of their mutual transforma tions has never been discussed (except the just pub lished work [12]).…”

Section: Investigation Methods For Physicochemical Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…he stated [7]: "… no energy can be attributed to the surface of a solid, or at best such surface energy cannot be measured even if it existed." And later: "No method so far suggested for measuring SE or ST of sol ids is satisfactory … perhaps our failure is explained simply by the fact that the quantity we are seeking does not exist."…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A new view of the “surface energy-surface tension” problem

Marichev¹

2012

Prot Met Phys Chem Surf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

4951 The notions of the "surface energy" (SE) and "sur face tension" (ST) were discussed well before seminal Gibbs works [1] who defined SE σ only for liquids: "…when one of the masses is solid there is no such equivalence between the stretching of the surface and the forming of new surface." He emphasized: "… tensions of the surfaces may evidently have different values in different directions, and are entirely different from the quantity which we denote by σ, which is not connected with any idea of direction" (see for details [2,3,4]). Shuttleworth [5] was the first to introduce as the ST of solids and derived his equation defining the relation between σ and γ. It is the basic equation of the theory of the ST of solids accepted by the majority of experts, with a few exceptions, e.g. in [3,4] this equation was shown to contradict all available experimental data. In the last decade, some new approaches and equations for ST of solids have appeared, but they have not yet been generally appreciated. Besides, the Shuttleworth equation follows from them as a particular case, and this raises doubts because an incorrect equation can not be derived from a correct theory.Brown [6] discussed simple ideas that might sound now like new ones in application to SE and ST of liq uids and solids. For example: "… in accordance with the principle that every system moves towards a state of minimum potential energy the surface of a liquid shows a tendency to contract. At this stage, SE is therefore the reality and that ST is a fiction which is mathematically equivalent to SE… It is erroneous to conclude that ST is non existent because … postulate of molecular cohesive forces leads in the first place to an explanation of SE. On the contrary, if SE exists, it must to perform work any theory which accounts for SE in liquids must, of necessity, also account for ST. Free energy per unit area and tension per unit length in a liquid surface are physically equivalent (not merely mathematically)." Brown concluded: "My sole pur pose has been to ask those who concede a physical 1 The article is published in the original. existence to SE, but not ST, whether they have any more reason for doing this than for regarding, say, the weight of a body as a fiction, but its gravitational potential energy as a reality. I believe that ST and SE are no more or less real than any other types of force and energy". One of Brown's opponents insisted [6]: "…I doubt whether the word "real" has any place in physics, which I take to be the science of measurable properties. If by "real" you mean measurable, and by "fiction" not measurable, then you must admit that ST of liquids is real because it is directly measurable, while SE is much more doubtful."The latter point of view became more popular in the sixties and seventies, when Bikerman wrought sev eral articles expressed doubts in the existence of the SE, e.g. he stated [7]: "… no energy can be attributed to the surface of a solid, or at best such surface energy cannot be measured even if it existed." And later: "...

show abstract

Section: Investigation Methods For Physicochemical Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Investigation Methods For Physicochemical Systemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A new view of the “surface energy-surface tension” problem

Marichev¹

2012

Prot Met Phys Chem Surf

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note that point 1 must be regarded only as provisional, since paradoxically, many solids are stably far rougher than would appear to be possible due to the capillary pressure of individual asperity (Bikerman, 1965 ). Regarding point 2, materials may also interact electrostatically in the presence of ionizable groups, but in nearly all biofl uids the ionic strength is suffi ciently high to ensure that electrostatic charges are effectively screened according to Goüy-Chapman theory (Moore and Spencer, 2001 ).…”

Section: Interfacial Interactionsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Biocompatibility of implantable systems

Ramsden

2013

Implantable Sensor Systems for Medical Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The surface energy quantifies the disruption of intermolecular bonds that occurs when a surface is created. It can also be defined as the work required to cut the bulk material and lead to crack formation [98]. The surface energy is usually measured through contact angle experiment by a contact angle meter using liquids such as water and diiodomethane as measuring medium.…”

Section: Materials and Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microstructure-Based Computational Fatigue Life Prediction of Structural Materials

Li¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Surface Energy of Solids

Cited by 70 publications

References 58 publications

A new view of the “surface energy-surface tension” problem

A new view of the “surface energy-surface tension” problem

Biocompatibility of implantable systems

Microstructure-Based Computational Fatigue Life Prediction of Structural Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About