A Study of Splashes

by A. M. Worthington

For, (1), we may suppose that the flame burns off minute particles of dust; (2), we know from Aitken's experiments[I] that dust from the atmosphere will not settle on a surface hotter than the air; (3) an electrified sphere descending through the air would attract dust to its surface unless it happened, as well might happen, that the air round about it, with its contained dust, had become itself similarly charged through the working of the electrical machine.

In further confirmation of our view that the leading clue to the explanation of the motion is the struggle between the adhesion of the rigid sphere and the tangential momentum of the liquid, we may cite the following points:—

A liquid sphere makes a "rough" splash, and the photographs obtained show that the lower part of the in-falling drop is swept away by the tangential flow, while the upper part is still undistorted. Here we have cohesion but no rigidity.

Also we find that the "rough" splash is obtained by any process which gives a non-rigid surface to the sphere. Thus the splash made by a marble freshly roughened by sand-papering, or by grinding between two files and let fall from the very small height of 7·5 cm., can be practically controlled by attending to the condition of the surface. If the surface is quite dry and still covered with the fine powder resulting from the process of roughening, the splash is "rough," and a great bubble of air is taken down. But if this coat of powder, which has neither cohesion nor shearing strength, be removed by rubbing, the splash (under this low velocity) is "smooth." Again, a marble freshly sand-papered and covered with the resulting powder, if let fall from 12 or 15 cm., gives a rough splash. The same marble picked out of the liquid and very quickly dropped in again from the same height, will give again a rough splash. Here the liquid film is thick and "shearable." But if the same sphere be allowed to drain or be lightly wiped, the splash will be smooth. We may conjecture that in this case enough fluid is left to fill up the interstices, but that the coat is not thick enough to shear easily. If, however, the sphere be thoroughly dried, the splash becomes "rough" again. This gives us the explanation of the facts already recorded in respect of the splash of a wet sphere. This splash was always irregular; the liquid drifted to one side where it would shear, while it disappeared from the other or became there too thin to shear, though sufficient to fill up crevices.

EXPLANATION OF THE RIBS OR FLUTINGS IN THE SPLASH OF A SMOOTH SPHERE.

The fact thus established experimentally, that the surface of a smooth sphere must be rigid if the film is to envelop it closely, suggests also a satisfactory explanation of the flutings. For we know from other researches on the motion of liquids,[J] that a layer of liquid actually in contact with a solid can have no motion relative to the solid, but must move with it. Thus in the film or sheath which rises over and envelops the sphere, the layer of liquid next to the solid must be moving downwards with it, while the outermost layers at least are moving upwards; thus there must be a strong viscous shear in the film impeding its rise. If by any fortuitous oscillation a radial rib arises, this will be a channel in which the liquid, being farther from the surface, will be less affected by the viscous drag; it will therefore be a channel of more rapid flow and diminished pressure, into which, therefore, the neighbouring liquid will be forced from either side. Thus a rib once formed is in stable equilibrium, and will correspond to a jet at the edge of the rim. This explains the persistence of the ribs when once established, and we may attribute their regular distribution to the fact that they first originate in the spontaneous segmentation of the annular rim at the edge of the advancing sheath. This explanation quite accords with the appearance of such figures as Fig. 6 of [page 91] and Figs. 1 and 2 of [page 113], in which, firstly, we see that the flutings are absent from that part of the sheath which has left the sphere, and, secondly, we see how much higher in every case the continuous film has risen in that part which has left the sphere than in the part which has clung to it, and has been hindered by the viscous drag. Especially is this the case in Fig. 2, Series XIV ([p. 105]), where the liquid was pure glycerine. The effect of the viscous drag is, in fact, most marked in the most viscous liquid, and it is also in the viscous liquid that the ribs are most strongly marked.

INFLUENCE OF THE NATURE OF THE LIQUID EXPLAINED.

Finally, in confirmation of our explanation, we have the fact that with a liquid of small density and surface-tension, such as paraffin oil, a much smaller velocity of impact with a highly polished sphere suffices to give a "rough" splash than with water, a liquid of greater density and surface-tension, the reason being without doubt that the tangential velocity given by the impact is greater with the lighter liquid, as, indeed, is proved to be the case by the greater height to which the surrounding sheath is thrown up. The surface-tension also being smaller, the less is the abatement of velocity on account of work done in extending the surface.

FOOTNOTES:

[I] See Nature, vol. xxix., January 31, 1884.