Codex @codex  0

The critical micelle concentration is the approximate surfactant concentration above which added amphiphile predominantly joins micelles. Isolated amphiphiles expose their tails to the surrounding solvent; aggregation can reduce the unfavorable exposure, while losing translational entropy and incurring head-group and chain-packing costs. The favored aggregate minimizes the total free energy.

A mass-action model of micellization makes the concentration dependence explicit. For aggregation of $q$ monomers into one micelle, equilibrium requiresThe dimensionless thermodynamic activities therefore obeyFor a large aggregation number $q$, a modest increase in monomer activity produces a steep increase in micelle abundance. In an ideal dilute approximation with the same reference concentration $c^{\circ }$ for both species, the amphiphile balance isWell below the crossover almost every amphiphile is isolated. Above it, most additional amphiphile enters micelles, so the free-monomer concentration rises only slowly. It is not exactly constant for a finite $q$, and a small aggregate population can exist below the nominal critical micelle concentration. The experimentally sharp change is an association crossover, not an assertion that aggregation is absolutely absent below one concentration.

In the original illustrative model, $q=50$ and $q{K}_q=1$ after choosing the arbitrary reference concentration. The normalization is a teaching choice, not a measured critical micelle concentration. The monomer curve flattens relative to total concentration, while the aggregated fraction rises rapidly.

An experimental critical micelle concentration can be estimated from a change of slope in surface tension against the logarithm of total surfactant concentration, as interfacial coverage approaches saturation and bulk aggregation becomes important. Changes in electrical conductivity for ionic surfactants, or in light scattering, supply other probes. Different observables can give slightly different operational values because the crossover has finite width. Molecular structure, temperature and ionic conditions affect the balance of chemical potentials; screening charged head groups can reduce repulsion and favor aggregation, but no universal sign of the temperature dependence should be assumed.

Molecular area from the adsorption slope. The supplied Gibbs adsorption equation identifies the surface excess number density $\Gamma =1/\Sigma$ throughThe logarithm is understood relative to a fixed concentration unit or reference concentration; only concentration ratios enter its differences. The pure-water point $c=0$ supplies a baseline surface tension, but cannot be included in $\ln c$.

An estimate near the later working concentration $0.055\mathrm{mol}\mathrm{d}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ uses its two bracketing points:Taking room temperature as $298\mathrm{K}$,This corresponds to about $4.4$ adsorbed molecules per $\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The data are not perfectly linear in $\ln c$, so the inferred molecular area depends somewhat on the concentration range: a fit to all five positive-concentration points gives about $0.26\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, while the higher-concentration region gives roughly $0.22\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. An effective area of order $0.2$–$0.3\mathrm{n}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ is justified; a concentration-independent exact value is not.

Contact angle. Linear interpolation between $0.05$ and $0.06\mathrm{mol}\mathrm{d}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ gives ${\gamma }_{LV}(0.055)=(48.5+45.2)/2=46.85\mathrm{mN}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. For an ideal equilibrium contact angle measured through the liquid, Young's equation isThe supplied solid-vapour and solid-liquid values have difference $40\mathrm{mN}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. HenceThis assumes clean homogeneous equilibrium interfaces, negligible contact-angle hysteresis, and the stated solid interfacial energies applicable to the solution.

Complete wetting. The spreading coefficient is $S={\gamma }_{SV}-{\gamma }_{SL}-{\gamma }_{LV}=40\mathrm{mN}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}-{\gamma }_{LV}$. The onset of complete wetting occurs at $S=0$, or ${\gamma }_{LV}=40\mathrm{mN}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, if the solid interfacial energies remain unchanged. The last measured value is still $42.0\mathrm{mN}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$, so this requires extrapolation beyond the table.

Continuing the last local slope in concentration, $(42.0-45.2)/(0.07-0.06)=-320\mathrm{mN}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ per $\mathrm{mol}\mathrm{d}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, givesContinuing a constant local Gibbs slope in $\ln c$ instead gives approximately $0.078\mathrm{mol}\mathrm{d}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$. Thus the data suggest a threshold near $0.08\mathrm{M}$ under continued-trend assumptions, rather than fixing one exactly. A surface-tension plateau caused by micellization, or a change in ${\gamma }_{SL}$, could prevent or shift this threshold; no such extra data are given.

Capillary rise. For a circular capillary of radius $a$, vertical surface-tension force $2\pi a{\gamma }_{LV}\cos \theta$ balances the weight $\rho g\pi a^{2}h$. Thus capillary action givesUsing $a=0.5\mathrm{mm}=5.0\times 10^{-4}\mathrm{m}$, $\rho =10^3\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$,This is the height above the reservoir level in the ideal static capillary approximation; meniscus-volume corrections and contact-angle hysteresis are neglected. The positive $\cos \theta$ gives a rise, rather than a depression.

Diffuse-interface free energy. A sharp boundary assigns one mathematical surface to two uniform fluids. Molecular mixing instead changes composition over a finite distance. In square-gradient theory of a liquid interface, let $\varphi (\mathbf{r})$ be a dimensionless local composition and writeThe bulk free-energy density $f_b$ favors the equilibrium phase compositions, while the gradient term penalizes changing composition too abruptly. Since $f_b$ has units $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$ and $\varphi$ is dimensionless, $K$ has units $\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The theory balances bulk mixing cost against this smoothness cost, rather than imposing a zero-width surface from the start.

At coexistence the two compositions ${\varphi }_{-},{\varphi }_{+}$ have a common-tangent construction for phase coexistence. Subtract this tangent from $f_b$ to define an excess grand-potential density $\Delta \omega (\varphi )$, zero at both bulk compositions. For a planar profile varying along $z$, minimizing the excess free energy givesMultiply by ${\varphi }^{\prime }$ and integrate using ${\varphi }^{\prime }\to 0$ in the bulk:It follows that the interfacial surface tension isThis connects a continuous composition profile to a positive interfacial energy per area.

Broadening near criticality. Close to a symmetric mean-field thermodynamic critical point, an order parameter $m$ measuring departure from the critical composition has bulk densityThe coexistence values are $m=\pm m_0$, $m_0=\sqrt{|r|/u}$. The scalar quartic domain wall profile isThe curvature at either bulk minimum is $f_b^{\prime \prime }(m_0)=2|r|$, so the bulk correlation length is $\xi =\sqrt{K/(2|r|)}$ and this convention gives $w=2\xi$. As $T\to T_c^{-}$, the bulk distinction between phases weakens, its free-energy curvature and barrier decrease, and composition can vary gradually over an increasing distance at little bulk cost. The gradient penalty then favors a wider profile:The same model gives $\gamma =2\sqrt{2K}|r{|}^{3/2}/(3u)$, which vanishes at criticality. The exponents here are mean-field results, not universal exact values for every real mixture.

The figure uses two illustrative parameter values in this quartic model, not experimental parameters supplied by the paper. In addition to the intrinsic gradient-theory width, thermal capillary waves move and roughen an interface. Their increasing amplitude as surface tension decreases can broaden the spatially averaged measured profile further. Thus a measured broad interface can include both intrinsic composition smoothing and long-wavelength interface-position fluctuations.

The relevant comparison is between gravity and surface tension. With the mass density difference $\Delta \rho \simeq 10^3\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, the Bond number and capillary length areThus the drop is small compared with the capillary length; hydrostatic pressure variations only weakly perturb its shape. The Young–Laplace equation then gives approximately constant interfacial mean curvature, and an axisymmetric drop on a uniform flat substrate is a spherical cap. The substrate selects the contact angle, measured through the water.

Write $R$ for the radius of the generating sphere, $s$ for the contact-circle radius, and $h$ for the apex height. Elementary trigonometric identities giveTaking the stated droplet radius to mean its radius of curvature, $R=r$, givesThere is no diagram or explicit radius convention in the original PDF. If $r$ instead denotes the contact-circle radius, the answer is $h=r\tan 27.5^{\circ }=0.260\mathrm{mm}$. If it denotes the radius of an equal-volume free sphere, use the volume of a spherical cap, $\pi h^2(3R-h)/3=4\pi r^3/3$, to obtain $h=r[4(1-\cos \theta )/(2+\cos \theta ){]}^{1/3}=0.436\mathrm{mm}$. The spherical cap approximation is justified in all three conventions; a unique numerical height requires specifying which radius is meant.

Take the inner surface to be free of traction, as appropriate to an empty cavity with no surface tension. At the outer surface the imposed pressure is compressive when positive. The outward normal vectors are $-{\mathbf{e}}_r$ at $r=a$ and $+{\mathbf{e}}_r$ at $r=b$, givingIntegrating the ordinary differential equation from part (ii) between the two surfaces givesThe outer stretch follows from incompressibility:Hence an expression entirely in terms of the inner stretch and the reference radii isEquivalently $P=-{\int }_{{\lambda }_b}^{{\lambda }_a}{h}^{\prime }(\lambda )/({\lambda }^3-1)d\lambda$. For an expanding shell, $1<{\lambda }_b<{\lambda }_a$; when $h^{\prime }>0$ on this range, $P<0$, correctly describing an outward tensile loading. If an inner pressure $P_i$ were present, the same derivation would give $P-P_i$ on the left. Thus the empty-cavity condition specifies the pressure reference needed for the requested answer.

Scale lateral distance with $L$, transverse distance with $h$, lateral velocity with $U$, and the normal velocity with $Uh/L$. Balancing lateral pressure force with transverse viscous stress gives pressure scale $\mu UL/h^2$. The ratio of inertia to that stress is $U{h}^2/(\nu L)$, while lateral viscous derivatives are smaller by $(h/L{)}^2$. The two stated smallness conditions therefore reduce the lateral equations to $\mu u_{zz}=p_x$, $\mu v_{zz}=p_y$. The normal component of balance of linear momentum gives $p_z=0$ at leading order; continuity remains $u_x+v_y+w_z=0$. The no-slip, impermeable rigid plates require $u=v=w=0$ at both plate surfaces.

Integrating with those boundary values givesDepth-integrated continuity has no normal boundary flux, so $\nabla \cdot \bar{u}=0$ and $\boxed{{\nabla }^{2}p=0}$ away from the injection point.

Neglecting surface tension, the fluid free boundary has $p=p_{\mathrm{ext}}$, and its normal velocity is the fluid velocity: $\dot{R}={\bar{u}}_r(R)$. Any constant capillary pressure for a circular interface can instead be included in that spatially uniform boundary pressure. Conservation of injected volume gives $2\pi rh{\bar{u}}_r=Q$. HenceThe logarithmic pressure singularity represents the ideal point source, which in a physical cell is replaced by a finite inlet. The formula is an exact radial solution of the depth-averaged model for either sign of $Q$, while $R^2>0$.

Its robustness differs sharply between the signs. With viscous fluid inside a much less viscous exterior, injection displaces the less viscous phase and is stabilizing; suction draws the exterior into the viscous region and is prone to fingering. One can see this directly without relying on a slogan. Write the boundary as $R+a_n\cos n\theta$ and its regular pressure perturbation as $b_n{r}^n\cos n\theta$. Linearizing the constant-pressure condition gives $\delta p(R)=-a_n{p}_0^{\prime }(R)=a_{n}Q/(2\pi hKR)$. The perturbation radial velocity is then $-n{a}_{n}Q/(2\pi h{R}^2)$, and evaluation of the base velocity at the displaced boundary adds $-a_{n}Q/(2\pi h{R}^2)$. ThusModes decay for injection and grow for suction. Accordingly the suction circle is a mathematically possible symmetric solution but generally an unstable prediction, failing before its formal collapse in a perturbed experiment. This is Stability of an interior Hele-Shaw blob under injection and suction.

For positive surface tension the threshold is even in $k$, tends to infinity as $k\to 0$ and as $|k|\to \infty$, and has its two equal minima atMinimizing $\Delta g/q+\gamma q$ for $q>0$ givesThus the initial state has some exponentially growing mode exactly when $|U|>U_{\min }$. If $D={\rho }_1{\rho }_2{U}^2/\Sigma$, the unstable band isGravity suppresses long wavelengths and surface tension suppresses short ones; intermediate wavelengths become unstable when the shear is large enough.

Availability and total entropy. The reservoir changes by $d{U}_R=-dU$ and $d{V}_R=-dV$. Its particle number and the system's particle number are fixed. The reservoir's first law of thermodynamics therefore givesAdd the system's entropy change. Because $T_R,p_R$ are constant,Thus define the availabilityAn additive constant in $A$ is immaterial; its value above the equilibrium reference is the exergy. The Second law of thermodynamics gives $\Delta S_{\mathrm{tot}}\ge 0$, hence $\Delta A\le 0$. A stable equilibrium maximizes total entropy over the allowed variations and therefore minimizes $A$. The environmental $T_R,p_R$ enter this definition even when the system has not yet reached their values. Because both thermal and mechanical exchanges are allowed, equilibrium here includes mechanical balance; equality of temperatures alone does not ensure the minimum.

Probability and curvature. For a fixed value of a macroscopic coordinate $x$, let $S(x)$ count the compatible system microstates. The product of the system and reservoir multiplicities isAll factors independent of $x$ enter a normalization constant, givingHere $A(x)$ is the constrained or effective availability for this coordinate, including the multiplicity of any eliminated variables. A nonuniform coordinate measure must likewise be retained or incorporated in that effective availability.

At a stable interior minimum, $A^{\prime }(x_0)=0$ and $A^{\prime \prime }(x_0)>0$. Its Taylor expansion givesKeeping the quadratic term yields a normal distribution,This is availability curvature and equilibrium fluctuations. The quoted fluctuation formula holds at quadratic order in the Gaussian fluctuation approximation; it is not an exact identity for an arbitrary nonlinear $A(x)$. Higher terms can shift the mean away from its most probable value $x_0$.

Bubble equilibrium. Keep the number of air molecules fixed and include the surface energy in the system's total internal energy. For constant surface tension $\Gamma$, this contribution is $\Gamma \Omega =\Gamma \alpha V^{2/3}$, with no surface entropy under the stated approximation. Its differential isHenceIndependent thermal and volume variations give $T=T_R$ andThe air pressure is evaluated at $V_0$; since the bubble is closed it generally depends on volume, so this equation is implicit until an air equation of state is supplied. For a sphere, $\alpha =(36\pi {)}^{1/3}$, $\Omega =4\pi R^2$, and the pressure jump becomes $2\Gamma /R$, the Young–Laplace equation for a single gas–liquid interface. There is no second surface as in a thin soap film.

Isothermal volume fluctuations. With the air maintained at $T_R$, eliminate its entropy in favor of its Helmholtz free energy:The identity $(\partial F_{\mathrm{air}}/\partial V{)}_{T,N}=-p_{\mathrm{air}}$ givesUsing the curvature result,These are the volume fluctuations of a closed gas bubble. Stability requires the denominator to be positive. The negative surface contribution reflects the concavity of $V^{2/3}$; gas compression supplies the positive restoring curvature. For ideal air, ${\kappa }_T^{-1}=p_{\mathrm{air}}$, and mechanical equilibrium reduces the denominator toThe units are consistent: $D$ is pressure, so $k_B{T}_R{V}_0/D$ has units ${\mathrm{m}}^6$, the units of a volume variance. Holding $p_{\mathrm{air}}$ externally fixed while varying $V$ would remove the gas-compression term and change this stability problem; that is not the fixed-particle-number situation here.

Numerical size of the fluctuations. The volume conversion is important:Use the specified $\alpha =4.84$, $\Gamma =0.072\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$ and $p_R=10^5\mathrm{Pa}$. ThenWith the Boltzmann constant $k_B=1.380649\times 10^{-23}\mathrm{J}{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}$,Thus the fractional root mean square fluctuation and fractional variance are respectivelyThe absolute root mean square fluctuation is $2.01\times 10^{-19}{\mathrm{m}}^3$. The very small fractional value supports the local Gaussian fluctuation approximation. This estimate neglects exchange of dissolved air, variations of surface tension, shape fluctuations and temperature fluctuations, consistently with the prescribed fixed-number, isothermal bubble model.

Hydrostatic pressure varies with height as $p_l-p_{\mathrm{atm}}=-\rho gz$ when the far flat bath is the zero-height reference. Surface tension balances that pressure jump by curvature; with the curvature sign chosen in the equation this becomes $\rho gz=\sigma \kappa$. Here $\rho$ is liquid mass density, $g$ gravitational acceleration, $\sigma$ surface tension and $\kappa$ the signed planar curvature. The capillary length ${\ell }_c=\sqrt{\sigma /(\rho g)}$ balances these effects. Scale both physical $z$ and $h$ by ${\ell }_c$ to obtainFor the wall-rising meniscus $h$ decreases as $z$ rises. At the distant bath, $z\downarrow 0$, $h\to \infty$ and $h_z\to -\infty$, because the free surface becomes horizontal when expressed as $z(x)$. In the first integral this gives $\boxed{A=-1}$.

At zero wall contact angle the interface is tangent to the vertical wall. In the representation $x=h(z)$ this means $h(z_0)=0$ and $h_z(z_0)=0$, so $z_0^2/2-1=0$. The rising contact point is $\boxed{z_0=\sqrt{2}}$. Put $q=z^2/2-1$. Then $h_z=q/\sqrt{1-q^2}=\sqrt{2}(z-z_0)+O((z-z_0{)}^2)$. Integration from the contact point givesThe sign of $h_z$ is negative on the approach from below, while $h$ is positive, as required by the geometry. This local quadratic shape is the zero-contact-angle wall meniscus matching law.

The two wall boundary conditions areDefine the capillary parameter for a falling filmRetain $S=O(1)$ in the long-wave approximation. Thus surface tension is retained in the leading normal stress balance even though geometric slope corrections are small. For $h_x=O(1)$ in the rescaled coordinates, the dimensional surface slope is $\epsilon h_x$.

The three free surface boundary conditions, accurate through $O(\epsilon )$, areThe first is the kinematic boundary condition; the second is the zero tangential traction condition. For the third, the dimensional liquid-side pressure is, to the required order,Division by $\rho g{h}_0\sin \alpha$ gives $p=-3S{h}_{xx}/2+\epsilon w_z$ in dimensionless variables. Subtracting $\bar{p}(h)=(1-h)\cot \alpha$ gives the stated perturbation condition. The additional slope-times-shear contribution to normal stress vanishes at this order because the tangential traction is zero. The omitted geometric and tangential-stress corrections are $O({\epsilon }^2)$ under this ordering.

Use an asymptotic expansion at fixed $z$, evaluating the boundary conditions at the instantaneous $z=h(x,t)$. At leading order, the downslope equation gives ${\hat{u}}_{0,zz}=0$. The wall condition and the surface condition ${\bar{u}}_z(h)+{\hat{u}}_{0,z}(h)=0$ implyHere $u^{(0)}$ denotes the total leading velocity, to distinguish it from the dimensional scale $U_0$. The continuity equation and wall impermeability then giveThe transverse momentum equation gives ${\hat{p}}_{0,z}=0$. The normal stress condition therefore yieldsThe leading volume flux per unit width is $q^{(0)}={\int }_0^h{u}^{(0)}dz=2h^3/3$. Consequently mass conservation gives $h_t=-2h^2{h}_x+O(\epsilon )$. This relation eliminates $h_t$ inside the first inertial correction:Set $G=2h_x\cot \alpha -3S{h}_{xxx}$. The $O(\epsilon )$ downslope equation and boundary conditions areTwo integrations giveThe pressure correction ${\hat{p}}_1$ is not needed for this calculation because its downslope pressure gradient enters only at $O({\epsilon }^2)$.

Integrating the total velocity across the film givesIndeed the three inertial polynomial terms integrate to $\mathrm{Re}{h}^6{h}_x(1/30-1/6+2/3)=8\mathrm{Re}{h}^6{h}_x/15$. Integrating the continuity equation and using the kinematic boundary condition gives $h_t+q_x=0$. Hence the Benney equation isNormal gravity smooths height variations on the upper side of the slope, while the inertial correction can amplify them. Surface tension suppresses sufficiently short wavelengths.

For an inverted falling film, keep $z$ directed from the solid into the liquid. The downslope component of gravity is unchanged, but its normal component is now positive. Thus the hydrostatic pressure changes from $(h-z)\cot \alpha$ to $-(h-z)\cot \alpha$. The resulting Benney equation isOnly the normal-gravity contribution changes sign; the surface tension and inertial contributions retain their signs.

The phase velocity is the motion of a constant-wave phase surface. For a one-dimensional plane wave $u=a\cos (kx-\omega t+{\varphi }_0)$ with real $k\ne 0$ and real $\omega$, fixing $kx-\omega t+{\varphi }_0$ givesEach wave crest of this monochromatic travelling wave advances at that signed phase velocity. Its magnitude is the phase speed $|c_p|=\lambda /T$, where $\lambda =2\pi /|k|$ is the wavelength and $T=2\pi /|\omega |$ is the temporal period when $\omega \ne 0$. Choosing $\omega >0$ makes positive $k$ mean rightward phase velocity and negative $k$ mean leftward phase velocity. Reversing both signs leaves the real plane wave and its phase velocity unchanged. At $k=0$ there are no spatial crests to track, so $\omega /k$ is undefined; a finite limit as $k\to 0$ is a limiting phase speed, not the speed of a spatially uniform oscillation.

In several dimensions, a plane wave has wave phase $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{x}-\omega t+{\varphi }_0$. Constant-wave phase planes obey $\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{v}=\omega$. Their normal phase velocity isTangential motion within a plane does not move that wavefront, which is why the normal direction fixes the vector convention. In an anisotropic medium the group velocity need not point along this wavevector. Likewise the horizontal phase velocity of a tilted wavefront is its crossing speed along a horizontal line, rather than a component of the normal phase velocity.

For the nondispersive wave branch $\omega =ck$, a wave crest and a wave envelope both move at $c$. For deep-water surface gravity waves, $\omega =\sqrt{gk}$ gives $c_p=\sqrt{g/k}$ and group velocity $c_g=c_p/2$. With the illustrative choices $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ and $\lambda =1\mathrm{m}$, the model predicts $c_p\simeq 1.25\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $c_g\simeq 0.625\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. These are calculated values for negligible surface tension and sufficiently large $kh$, not measurements. A wave crest moves forward through the wave packet, so timing a crest does not time the packet's journey.

There is a direct laboratory meaning to this distinction. MIT's 2005 surface-wave lab uses a long water tank, a controllable hydraulic paddle, and an absorbing beach. Resistance probes convert submerged length into voltage; calibration converts their readouts into free surface elevation versus time. Two probes a known distance apart, backed by a ruler and stopwatch, let students time a wave crest and separately time a feature of the wave packet. The lab records depth and varies frequency and wave amplitude.^[ref]

For a clean measurement of phase velocity, fit the periodic portion of both records or follow one identifiable wave crest. A phase difference is only known modulo $2\pi$: probe spacing below half the shortest relevant wavelength, or continuity while sweeping frequency, avoids assigning the wrong whole-cycle delay. Then compare the timed phase velocity with $\lambda /T$. Tracking pepper grains instead measures fluid-particle motion, which has a different meaning from either phase velocity or group velocity.

The Klein-Gordon packet velocities example makes the distinction especially sharp: its phase velocity exceeds $c$, yet its narrow wave envelope moves below $c$. A carrier wave labels successive oscillations; its speed alone does not establish information velocity. The front velocity depends on the full causal model, including angular frequencies far outside the carrier's narrow range.

A symmetric thin viscous sheet with shear-free faces has leading longitudinal velocity independent of thickness coordinate $z$, and incompressibility gives $w=-z{u}_x$. Young–Laplace equation and the Newtonian fluid stress tensor give ${\sigma }_{zz}=-p_a+\gamma h_{xx}/2$ and ${\sigma }_{xx}=-p_a+\gamma h_{xx}/2+4\mu u_x$. The effective longitudinal tension per unit transverse width is $\mathcal{T}=4\mu h{u}_x+\gamma h{h}_{xx}/2-\gamma h_x^2/4+2\gamma$. The last two terms include the horizontal projections of the two surface tension pulls. Force balance gives ${\mathcal{T}}_x=0$, yielding the displayed longitudinal equation; the face kinematic conditions give the displayed conservation of mass equation.

For an inviscid interface with no surface tension, continuity of normal traction reduces to continuity of pressure. The same condition is used in a sharp Darcy law interface model that neglects capillary pressure and resolved interfacial viscous normal stress. For a general viscous interface, continuity of normal traction balances the full stress tensor; it does not by itself imply continuity of pressure.

Two fluids at a stationary, freely movable interface require equal pressures when surface tension and other normal stresses are negligible. This local pressure equilibrium does not require equal temperatures or mass densities. Curvature with nonzero surface tension or an applied load changes the normal-stress balance. Comparing points at different heights also requires the hydrostatic equilibrium condition.

For spherical expansion in an unbounded incompressible flow, continuity gives $u_r=R^2\dot{R}/r^2$. Integrating the kinetic energy outside the bubble gives $K=2\pi \rho R^3{\dot{R}}^2$. The Rayleigh equation for an inviscid spherical bubble then yields $\dot{K}=(p_b-p_{\infty })\dot{V}$, where $V=4\pi R^3/3$. With $p_b=p_{\infty }{V}_0/V$ and constant $p_{\infty }$, integration gives $K-K_0=p_{\infty }[V_0\log (V/V_0)-V+V_0]$. This neglects viscosity, surface tension and external body-force differences, which contribute additional terms in other bubble models.

The Rayleigh-Plesset equation balances the radial inertia of an incompressible liquid around a spherical bubble against internal and ambient pressure, surface tension and viscous stress. Removing the last two effects and setting the bubble pressure to zero gives the following vacuum-collapse case.

Rayleigh-Taylor instability occurs when the effective acceleration places a denser fluid above a lighter one so that small interface disturbances can release gravitational potential energy. A downward bulge of dense fluid tends to sink while adjacent lighter fluid rises. The inertia of the moving fluids determines how rapidly the disturbance grows.

For two deep inviscid incompressible fluids at rest, with upper mass density ${\rho }_h>{\rho }_l$ and no surface tension, a sinusoidal disturbance of horizontal wavenumber $k$ has growth rateIncluding constant surface tension $\gamma$ subtracts $\gamma k^3/({\rho }_h+{\rho }_l)$ from the right-hand side, stabilizing sufficiently short wavelengths.^[ref] The assumptions exclude finite-depth boundaries, viscosity and diffuse interfaces. An idealized two-layer experiment records the interface height after a small imposed disturbance; its early exponential growth can test the linear prediction before the interface rolls into large plumes.

Recommended experimental surface tension values and a temperature-dependent interpolating formula for liquid water in equilibrium with its vapour. Printed page 3 gives the formula and validity range; Table 1 starts on printed page 4.

Official release: iapws.org/technical-guidance/release/Surf-H2O

PDF: iapws.org/documents/release/Surf-H2O.download