4.4 Article

Thickness profiles of giant soap films

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW FLUIDS
卷 8, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.8.034001

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates the production, drainage, and stability of foam films, focusing on the regime of large velocities and large film sizes. The thickness profile of the film is found to follow an exponential pattern influenced by gravity and surface elasticity. A proposed model takes into account the interplay between gravity, film elasticity, and film extraction, and accurately predicts experimental data.
Production, drainage, and stability of foam films, i.e., films in contact with their menisci, are fascinating problems that remain still unsolved. In this article, we propose to explore the regime of large velocities and large film sizes. This is not accessible in experiments classically conducted in the literature and allows us to study the regime of large extension and large extension rates. With our setup, we make soap films up to 2 m high by pulling a horizontal fishing line driven by belts out of a soapy solution at velocities ranging from 20 cm/s to 250 cm/s. We characterize the thickness profile of the central part of the film that behaves like a rubber band under tension. We show that its thickness profile is well described by a static model in which a homogeneous elastic film is stretched by its own weight. This leads to an exponential thickness profile with a characteristic length given by a competition between gravity and surface elasticity. The prefactor is fixed by the shape and area of the film, governed by the fishing line motion but also by a continuous extraction of foam film from the lateral menisci, thicker than the central part, and that progressively invades the film from its lateral boundaries. The model we propose captures the subtle interplay between gravity, film elasticity, and film extraction and leads to predictions in good agreement with our experimental data.

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

4.4
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