Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitza's 1938 test compared helium flow through optically flat glass disks. Suspension set the tube-to-bath level difference; a cathetometer read levels. The gap was estimated as . Levels barely moved over minutes above the transition, but equalized in seconds below. A laminar flow viscosity calculation gave only an upper bound.[ref]
The essential control is to compare the same restriction and level readout at different temperatures. A changed pressure head is not itself evidence for a changed material response: the driving head must be included when interpreting the flow. For an idealized comparison at equal vapor pressure, negligible surface tension corrections and nearly constant mass density , hydrostatic equilibrium gives
Here is the difference in free-surface heights and is gravitational acceleration. This explains why following a liquid level provides both a driving pressure and a transported volume; it does not turn a finite-resolution observation into proof of zero viscosity.
Figure 1. . Original functional schematics, not historical reconstructions. Left: level-head flow measurement with an enlarged slit. Right: ideal thermomechanical effect with imposed heat input, suppressed normal component of a superfluid flow, and temperature and pressure readouts. The heated chamber is closed; its final pressure rise is distinct from a flowing fountain. Details.
Pyotr Leonidovich Kapitza's 1941 study suspended cleaned, annealed copper blocks in liquid helium. Sealed, gas-filled cavities held a heater and a bronze resistance thermometer. Electrical readout tracked the heating-induced temperature rise; the earlier readout method assumed a stable bath without a separate bath thermometer. A nearby unheated block warmed much less, localizing the drop near the heated surface. Gold plating and coatings tested surface effects; tight cavities prevented liquid ingress. These were solid-body readings, not probes resolving the microscopic interfacial layer. [ref]
Figure 1. . Original functional schematic and invented temperature profile. denotes the interface drop after bulk corrections; no apparatus geometry, microscopic probe placement or measured trace is reconstructed. The liquid-side reference in this operational diagram is distinct from a claim that Kapitza installed a probe immediately next to the surface. Source. Details.
The measurement logic suggests a modern control sequence: calibrate both temperature readouts, establish their zero-load difference, increase heater power, wait for a steady state, and repeat while monitoring the bath. Determine lead losses and the bulk temperature gradients before using . These are proposed controls derived from the energy balance, rather than additional reported steps in the 1941 apparatus. A nearby unheated solid also has its own interface: its reading need not equal the liquid's local temperature exactly. The experiment supports a drop concentrated near the surface, while a microscopic thickness and a universal interfacial law require further evidence.