4.7 Article

Self-propelled jumping upon drop coalescence on Leidenfrost surfaces

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 752, 期 -, 页码 22-38

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2014.319

关键词

breakup/coalescence; condensation/evaporation; drops and bubbles

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [CBET-08-46705, CBET-12-36373]
  2. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency [N66001-10-1-4048]
  3. Canada Research Chair program
  4. Canada Foundation for Innovation
  5. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
  6. Directorate For Engineering
  7. Div Of Chem, Bioeng, Env, & Transp Sys [1236373, 0846705] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Self-propelled jumping upon drop coalescence has been observed on a variety of textured superhydrophobic surfaces, where the jumping motion follows the capillary-inertial velocity scaling as long as the drop radius is above a threshold. In this paper, we report an experimental study of the self-propelled jumping on a Leidenfrost surface, where the heated substrate gives rise to a vapour layer on which liquid drops float. For the coalescence of identical water drops, we have tested initial drop radii ranging from 20 to 500 mu m, where the lower bound is related to the spontaneous takeoff of individual drops and the upper bound to gravitational effects. Regardless of the approaching velocity prior to coalescence, the measured jumping velocity is around 0.2 when scaled by the capillary-inertial velocity. This constant non-dimensional velocity holds for the experimentally accessible range of drop radii, and we have found no cutoff radius for the scaling, in contrast to prior experiments on textured superhydrophobic surfaces. The Leidenfrost experiments quantitatively agree with our numerical simulations of drop coalescence on a flat surface with a contact angle of 180 degrees, suggesting that the cutoff is likely to be due to drop-surface interactions unique to the textured superhydrophobic surfaces.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据