Why measured contact-line roughness exceeds the elastic-line model prediction · revision history

Revision 1

Accepted · first revision · record

Title

Why measured contact-line roughness exceeds the elastic-line model prediction

Plain

A liquid edge creeping over a dirty surface catches on tiny defects and becomes ragged, and the theory of a springy line pinned by randomly placed defects predicts how ragged. Experiments find a rougher edge than the theory, and nobody knows what the theory leaves out.

Precise

Model the contact line as an elastic line with long-range elasticity (elastic $\mathrm{energy}\sim \mid k\mid\,\mid h_k\mid^2$ for a deformation $h_k$ of wavenumber $k$) in a random field of defects. Numerical simulations of this model give the roughness exponent at depinning $\zeta = 0.388 \pm 0.002$ (first-order renormalization-group estimate $1/3$), while experiments (liquid helium on cesium, water-glycerol mixtures on disordered surfaces) have reported values near 0.5. Identify what the model omits (nonlinear elasticity at large deformation, thermal activation, crossover or finite-size effects, viscous dissipation, or analysis artefacts) and show that the corrected model reproduces the measured $\zeta$ and depinning exponents.

Settled by

An experiment on a surface with designed, characterized disorder that measures $\zeta$ over a wide range of scales, matched by simulations of the line model with the same disorder and any added nonlinear elasticity or thermal effects.

Kind

phenomenon

Answer type

mechanism

References

(empty)

Literature status

contested

Status note

(empty)

Posed since

(empty)