# Difference between revisions of "Liquid Flow through Aqueous Foams: The Node-Dominated Foam Drainage Equation"

(→Soft Matter Details) |
(→Soft Matter Details) |
||

Line 32: | Line 32: | ||

The researchers used a creative method to observe the propagation of the wetter flow through the dry foam. The added fluid had fluorescein salt which was imaged using UV light and a CCD camera. The experimenters found that the liquid fraction of the foam is proportional to the intensity of the fluorescing, so were able to "see" the front of wet foam progress. | The researchers used a creative method to observe the propagation of the wetter flow through the dry foam. The added fluid had fluorescein salt which was imaged using UV light and a CCD camera. The experimenters found that the liquid fraction of the foam is proportional to the intensity of the fluorescing, so were able to "see" the front of wet foam progress. | ||

− | To ensure that the experimental work is robust, the authors look at distilled water, tap water, various soap concentrations (all above the [[Critical Micelle Concentration | critical micelle concentration), and determine that these changes had no effect. | + | To ensure that the experimental work is robust, the authors look at distilled water, tap water, various soap concentrations (all above the [[Critical Micelle Concentration | critical micelle concentration]]), and determine that these changes had no effect. |

To keep the foam from coarsening (which it naturally would over time), the researchers constantly generate foam at the bottom of the tube so that the volume fraction at any height is constant. I'm not clear on the relative rates and how foam moving up the tube would affect the volume of fluid propagating down the tube. | To keep the foam from coarsening (which it naturally would over time), the researchers constantly generate foam at the bottom of the tube so that the volume fraction at any height is constant. I'm not clear on the relative rates and how foam moving up the tube would affect the volume of fluid propagating down the tube. |

## Revision as of 02:16, 1 December 2009

## Overview

- [1] Koehler, S., Hilgenfeldt, S., & Stone, H. Physical Review Letters.
**82**, 21. 4232-4235 (1999). -
**Keywords:**Foam, Drainage, Plateau Border, Tetrakaidecahedron (Kelvin Cell)

## Summary

Koehler, Hilgenfeldt, and Stone write about fluid flow through the network of channels in a soap foam. The article presents an existing theory, experimental results, and new theory more closely matching the experimental results.

The network of channels in a dry foam (much more air than liquid) are the liquid layers in between polyhedral air bubbles. Along the edges of the polyhedra, there are thin "Plateau borders" or channels which meet at vertices of the polyhedra in volumes the authors call nodes. See Figure 1 for a diagram of one network unit.

The researchers are actually interested in the flow through the channels and nodes, but rather than struggle to image very small channels, they decide to learn from bulk flow through the foam driven by gravity: "forced drainage." They introduce fluid to the top of a column of foam at a controlled rate <math>Q</math> and observe the front of wetter foam penetrate through the column of dry foam at velocity <math>\nu_f</math>. A quantity <math>V_s</math> is defined as the volumetric flow into the top of the tube divided by the cross-sectional area of the tube. The experimenters looked at three sizes of bubbles.

The penetration speed <math>\nu_f</math> increases with <math>V_s</math> as <math>\nu_f=\nu_0V_s^\alpha</math>, but with what power <math>\alpha</math>?

The older theory is based on assuming rigid channel walls which results in Poiselle flow through the channels. In this theory, the nodes are not important.

Equation 6 from [1]: <math>\nu_f=(V_0^{rigid}V_s)^{1/2}</math>, <math>V_0^{rigid}=\frac{\delta_a\rho gL^2}{3\delta_\epsilon\delta_\mu \mu}</math>

The new theory is termed channel-slip theory, leads to plug flow, and viscous damping in the nodes.

Equation 9 from [1]: <math>\nu_f=((V_0^{slip})^2V_s)^{1/3}</math>, <math>V_0^{slip}=\frac{2\delta_a\rho gL^2}{\mu\delta_\epsilon^{1/2}I}</math>

- I is dimensionless, viscous forces in nodes

The 1/3 power which comes out of the channel-slip theory matches the exponent of approximately .36 determined experimentally and presented in Figure 3.

## Soft Matter Details

**Experimental Methods:**
The researchers used a creative method to observe the propagation of the wetter flow through the dry foam. The added fluid had fluorescein salt which was imaged using UV light and a CCD camera. The experimenters found that the liquid fraction of the foam is proportional to the intensity of the fluorescing, so were able to "see" the front of wet foam progress.

To ensure that the experimental work is robust, the authors look at distilled water, tap water, various soap concentrations (all above the critical micelle concentration), and determine that these changes had no effect.

To keep the foam from coarsening (which it naturally would over time), the researchers constantly generate foam at the bottom of the tube so that the volume fraction at any height is constant. I'm not clear on the relative rates and how foam moving up the tube would affect the volume of fluid propagating down the tube.

**Theoretical Methods:**
To create Figure 1, Koehler *et. al.* used Surface Evolver from the University of Minnesota Geometry Center: [1].

Deciding which term dominates in equation 4

Dimensional analysis equation 7

**Next Steps?**