Talk:Surface tension

message: After the opening paragraphs, the first subtitle "Cause" is followed by an incorrect explanation of surface tension.  The polar molecules or ions which create surface tension do so by forming an increased number of pole-to-pole bonds in the plane of the surface, as a result of the molecular or ionic poles turning away from the open face where no bonds can be formed. The increased attractions in the plane of the surface create the elastic surface tension.  Surface tension acts parallel to the surface only and has no perpendicular (i.e. inwardly directed) component.  It is, as its name implies, a surface tension, not a bulk tension.  The bulk tensile strength of the liquid is something else altogether.  A metal wire has high tensile strenght, as does liquid water at room temperature.  While a metal wire has high tensile strength, it is still not in tension if there is no load.  Ditto for bulk liquid.  Surface tension, on the hand, is in fact a measure of tension, not tensile strength.  It creates internal pressure as does an inflated balloon, without need of forces perpendicular to the local surface.  The distinction is fundamental to a correct description of surface tension.
OLDGRAYGEEK (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is an inwardly directed force that causes more molecules to travel underneath the surface. That is what makes changing the surface area of water require energy. KoolKamaroKid (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: New Explanation Required

message: That flower photo looks more like a buoyancy effect.
davidzuccaro 10:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Its my photo. Clearly the reasonb the flower floats is buoyancy. Clearly the reason the water doesn't flow over the top is surface tension. William M. Connolley 15:04, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are right. Davidzuccaro (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Photo conversation

message: Isn't there a Surface Tension short story about spacefaring humans who land in some planet and leave some altered beings with a "human spark"?
These humans live in a pond and eventually evolve a technology that enables them to break the surface tension and to do interpondary travels, clearly a parallel of escape velocity and interplanetary travel.
Hi. Indeed there is. I think it was called "seedling stars" by James Blish. I have a copy somewhere...
best wishes
Robinh 15:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The short story

message: The article contains the paragraph:
::Surface tension, measured in newtons per meter (N·m-1), is represented by the symbol σ or γ or T and is defined as the force along a line of unit length perpendicular to the surface, or work done per unit area.
This is incorrect. The force of surface tension is parallel to the surface and normal to the line along which it is measured. I will correct this later today. Karlhahn 16:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistake in article

message: I changed "taught thread" which doesn't make any sense, to "taut thread".
I think this article needs to be improved, although I'm no expert. Surface tension is something that we understand intuitively because of the way we see its effects every day in the meniscus of a cup off coffee, the cohesion of a soap bubble, and the bulge at the top of a column of mercury in a clinical thermometer or a mercury barometer. An encyclopaedia article should probably engage the reader in that way, but our current article seems to treat the subject as some bit of high physics for the initiated. Rosejpalmer 03:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another mistake

message: I have added several subsections: "Water strider physics" "Liquid in a Vertical Tube" and "Pool of liquid on a nonadhesive surface". These are targeted to a less technical audience than the equation-laden sections that follow later on. Those later sections still need work to put more words to the equations. Without such explanations, the equations are of benefit only to those who are versed in mathematical physics. Karlhahn 03:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New subsections added

message: I've busied myself today expanding and reshaping this article. I guess I have to be a real nerd to be so captivated by the subject of surface tension that I would go to this much effort. I am beginning to think a supplementary page might be in order that would contain the heavy-duty math. I had started this effort with the goal in mind of making the article more accessible and engaging to non-math type readers. I fear I have not succeeded, since everything in physics always leads to math. So I am open to suggestions about keeping only the descriptive material on the main page and moving the math-content to a supplementary page. You can include your comments both here and at my user talk page. Karlhahn 21:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your new aditions are great and I fully agree with splitting all the math and thermodynamics into a more technical article Knights who say ni 12:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More New Material

message: Several of the equations at the end of the page are shown in raw Tex.
Also, why isn't MathML used when supported instead of inaccessible graphics? --Belg4mit 03:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of TeX within the  TeX code  tags is what is recommended in the Wikipedia editing help guide for rendering math formulas. Sometimes the server-side engine that renders this stuff into graphic form is over-burdened, and it can fail to render (which apparently happened to you). When it does, just reload the page, and it usually works. As for the use of MathML, most peoples' browsers do not have the plug-in for this. Karlhahn 15:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Equations

message: i think the last column (10 nm) has a problem Openlander 07:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What probem?--Siddhant 06:58, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Error in deltaP table

message: In the diagram of the cross section of a needle floating on water, aren't the two forces fs fictitious? In the case of no wetting, wouldn't all the forces from the water on the needle be normal to the surface, ie along radii of the needle? And wouldn't the vector sum (integral) exactly balance the weight?
For the coin and the flower floating on the water, couldn't we call this effect buoyancy by means of a virtual boat, the boat being the volume below the main surface in which the water has been displaced? Arcbimedes principle holds exactly as with a real boat, the displaced volume being equal to the weight of the coin, flower, etc, the "boat" itself being massless.
As an explanation of surface tension, isn't the tension the result of the molecules, on average, being a little further apart (in directions within the surface) than the mean separation for the given temperature in the bulk liquid?
Brantacan 16:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you imagine the surface as being an elastic sheet, then the two diagonal forces are the forces on that sheet. If you allow that surface tension forces are parallel to the surface, then this is how the diagram must be. Similar diagrams are given in physics texts. With regard to a "virtual boat," hydrostatic forces in the depression do come into play to some degree, but if the object is denser than water, by definition, hydrostatic forces are insufficient to keep the object afloat. There must be a contribution from something else, and that something else is surface tension. Since the article is not about bouyancy, the hydrostatic forces on the coin are not discussed (even though they are present). Karl Hahn (T) (C) 19:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Some questions about the article on surface tension

message: This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of April 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
:1. Well written?: pass but see if more links can be incorperated into the text.
:2. Factually accurate?: fail. Very little material is sourced, and citations are limited
:3. Broad in coverage?: pass
:4. Neutral point of view?: pass
:5. Article stability? B- not stable enough
:6. Images?: pass, though the pictures could be a little better organized.
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far.
 — Sefringle 20:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I am a bit disturbed by the anthropomorphism in the article. For instance "the liquid squeezes itself", "For the liquid to minimize its energy state", "... the surface will want to assume".
I am particulary bothered by "Without a single calculation, the soap-film solves the complex minimization equation on its own". I don't think we want to give the mental image of soap-film doing math. Do apples solve gravity equations when they fall?
I would like to see the article re-worked to eliminate such language. Instead of "the liquid squeezes itself", "the liquid is compressed by the molecular attraction until". Replace "For the liquid to minimize its energy state" with "In order to reach a minimal energy state, the surface area must be minimized by having the fewest number of boundary molecules". Replace "the surface will want to assume" with "the surface will assume".
Finally, replace the bit about the thinking soap-film with the observation that the answer to complex math problems can be discovered via empirical methods. Instead of calculating how long it takes an apple to fall, I can always just meausure it.
Hint, if you are tempted to use the pronoun "it", don't. Watch the verbs. If the liquid is "acting out" the verb, it is probably not what is wanted.
Tony
147.177.179.147 14:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your objections to use of the pathetic fallacy, but often it's useful to personify an object in explaining it, particularly in layman's terms. Saying that soap bubbles solve partial differential equations is stretching it, though. It's not like if we can't solve an equation, we just put it on a wire with soap film.--Loodog 00:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better wording would be that the soap film "arrives at the solution to" rather than it "solves" the minimization. The fact does remain, however, that there are plenty of differential equation that can't be solved, but rather only approximated. Of course there are many physical objects that solve equations -- any time you apply heat to an object or any time you play a musical instrument are just two examples. But the soap film is outstanding in that the object actually takes on the exact shape of the solution function. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you are so clever dosen't mean that everyone else will understand it. Your point is valid, but this page should be understandable to people who aren't academics or whatever.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexcooldude (talk • contribs) 10:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Personifying surface tension

message: It says minimum. Why not maximum, because the surface tension can be reduced only to a maximum amount. unsigned post by  at 05:02 on 19 April 2007
:Surface tension is constant for a given liquid, so it is neither maximum nor minimum. Surface tension does, however, cause surface area to be minimized if there are no other influences. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 12:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: minimum?

message: Since the last review I have reworked the article for better organization with particular attention to organization of the images. I have also added numerous references. The section on thermodynamics contained development of various equations -- I have pared that down to the equations themselves (readers interested in the development can seek the references), and I have tried to make the explanatory text in this section clearer and more concise. Overall I have tried to make the article flow from the general to the particulars as it progresses. I have added two new sections into which some material from other sections was merged. This addresses all the issues cited by the last reviewer except that of article stability. Of course, as a single editor I have no control over that, but I can only hope that the improved organization will lead to less radical edits by other.
I have subsequently resubmitted the article for review. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 15:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rework based upon review results from April 2007

message: From the perspective of content, I think the article is very complete, and goes over the topic in much detail (maybe even a little too much). The referencing and citations is mostly there, though there are still a couple of gaps; at the least, editors should cite the source of where equations came from originally (don't place the citation on the equation itself, but on the reference to the equation in the text).
The major problem with this article in its present form is organization. The large number of fairly long and wordy section headers aren't doing any help to readers of the article; in fact, that's probably going to turn off many potential readers as "too technical". These should be simplified. This will be easy in some areas, for example, 'the cause of surface tension' can be reduced to 'causes' (the article title should not be repeated in section headers anyway, per WP:MSH). Some of the other section headers might be more difficult to shorten. It seems like several sections mainly consist of examples that explain some application of surface tension, and then provide the science and mathematical equations to back it up. Maybe the best solution here is to combine these example sections as subsections (3rd level headings) within a main section called 'examples', and place them near the end of the article. The text in the 'in everyday life' section might be used to provide some lead, introductory text to the new examples section.
The 'measuring methods' and 'thermodynamics' sections should ideally be located early in the article; at least before the examples. Change 'measuring methods' to 'methods of measurement'.
I think there's far too many images in the 'in everyday life' section. They seem to be clumped together and there's not really enough text, so it's hard to see the significance of each of these photos. Maybe these should be spread out a bit more; include some of these with some of the specific examples in other sections as they come up in the text?
I'm not really sure exactly where to place the 'contact angles' section; it seems out of place as-is. Maybe the physics definition section should be renamed and/or reorganized, and this information should fall under there? Or maybe reword the subsection title more as an example?
I would think that the physics definition section should probably appear as the very first major subsection, since a basic definition is essential to the article.
Hope this helps improve the article. I'll place this on hold at WP:GAC for about one week, so that these issues can be resolved. Cheers! Dr. Cash 02:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has been promoted to GA status, having met all issues that were raised. Some additional references still should be added, but for the most part, it is well-cited and meets the GA criteria. Dr. Cash 03:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: What is the surface tension [N/m] of vegetable oils (like apricot seed oil) ..?
(Oleum amygdalae persic, CAS 72869-69-3)
Electron9 10:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick Google search on just one example came up with , which has the surface tension of olive oil. I'm sure you can do the same with other common food-oils. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 17:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Surface tension of vegetable oil?

message: Isnt capillary action an indirect consequence of surface tension?
Because, surface tension causes the pressure difference on curvatures, and as a result of this pressure difference the liquid rises or falls in a capillary. This implies that capillary action is not due to surface tension but due to the pressure difference created by surface tension. Any comments?
--Siddhant 07:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In all cases where surface tension affects the shape of the liquid, it is a consequence of pressure difference due to surface tension. That is what the Young-Laplace equation is all about. So if you say that capillary action is an indirect effect of surface tension, you would have to say the same thing about formation of drops, waterstriders' impressions on the water's surface, shape of the edge of a puddle, and just about every other effect documented in the article. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 09:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Capillary action

message: 0. Kudos. 
:I am very impressed by the diversity of topics and phenomena described. The article is written with great care, love and passion. Thanks!
Now couple critical remarks.
1. Missing table.
:I got to this page when wanted to check the coefficient of surface tension for water. I remembered the number 72 - 73, but was not sure. Browsing through the article, I failed to find the value I was looking for. Tried searching for 72 and 73 - not there. Well, much later than I needed the number, I found it, buried in the Puddles on a surface section. 
:Suggestion: provide a table with gamma values for a few substances. Especially because a few less 'basic' tables are already there.
2. Misplaced barometer
:Section Liquid in a vertical tube starts with mentioning of a mercury barometer as an example of a meniscus. If one reads the article quickly, she may get an impression that the measurement of pressure somehow related to the surface tension. It is very confusing.
:Suggestion: remove barometer from this section, for example move it to Puddles on a surface. In fact, if Liquid in a vertical tube will be moved after Puddles on a surface, it would be more logical and easier for a reader. Puddles on a surface is illustrated very well, it is easier to describe meniscus after this section.
Alex -- talk 07:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing table and misplaced barometer

message: Error 1: Young's Equation
The discussion on contact angle neglects the presence of the free energy of the solid-vapor surface, which also plays an important role in determining the contact angle.  As a result this is inconsistent with the wiki entry on "Contact Angle"(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_angle).  The equation "Gamma_ls=-Gamma_la*cos(theta)" should be Young's equation: "Gamma_sv-Gamma_sl=Gamma_la*cos(theta)".
Error 2: Getting Gamma_ls from knowing Gamma_la*cos(theta)
The claim in the second to last sentence that you can get Gamma_ls from knowing the contact angle a liquid with known Gamma_la is incorrect.  Knowing the contact angle and the surface tension of the liquid is not sufficient to measure the solid-liquid free energy per unit area.  A direct result of Young's equation is that you can only measure the difference in the free energies of the solid-vapor interface and the solid-liquid interface.  
Error 3: Negative Surface tension
Also the last sentence of this section states that the liquid-solid surface tension (Gamma_ls) is negative when the contact angle is less than 90deg.  Since surface tension is also the free energy per unit area, it is impossible for an interface to have a negative free energy and be in equilibrium.  A negative surface tension would mean that an interface would want to maximize its total area in order to minimize energy, which would imply that the solid or liquid would break into its molecular constituents and become a gas (if Gamma_lv<0 or Gamma_sv<0) or would begin to solubilize (if Gamma_sl<0).  This error results from not using Young's equation.  
When the contact angle is less than 90deg this means:
Gamm_la*cos(theta) > 0  -> Gamma_sv-Gamma_ls>0  
or in words, the free energy of the solid-vapor surface is greater than the solid-liquid interface.
This is my first ever comment and I've no experience editing content.  Can someone help fix these errors?
Charile Foxtrot Bravo (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the section as indicated above. I also updated the diagram accordingly. My intent when I wrote the original draft of that section was to keep it as simple as possible. I thought that including the solid-vapor term would be confusing to many readers. I invite others to comment on this issue. Let me know if I did the right thing here. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 00:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

text: One more comment -- I believe that a liquid/solid tension can be negative -- as it would be for say water and cellulose. Since the solid's surface area is limited, liquid in contact with a solid with which it has a negative γ the liquid has no opportunity to break up into molecule-sized pieces (that is a gas), as long as its tension with its vapor is positive. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in Discussion on Contact Angle  

message: In this edit, the following change to the lead paragraph was added. "...It is what causes the surface of a portion of liquid to be attracted to another surface, such as that of another portion of liquid (as in connecting bits of water or of mercury)..." I am not an expert on surface tension, but I always thought surface tension is about liquid molecules being more attracted to the nearby liquid molecules than the (on average) further away gas molecules (in case of a liquid-gas interface). So not about "surface ... attracted to another surface", since the fluid interior plays an important role. In general this surface attraction concept sounds a bit overly simplistic, not really being true. -- Crowsnest (talk) 13:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attracted to another surface 

message: Why not merge the two definitions into something like this: surface tension is the opposing force applied to an external object by the surface of a cohesive liquid due to an increase in the potential energy of the liquid. This definition requires an external object, but isn't that what tension implies? Otherwise you're talking surface energy right? Or are two definitions really necessary? If so why? -Shootbamboo (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge of definitions? Rationalizing definition 

message: I cant help but post this. I am having an exam next week and surface tension was a portion that confused me. But after reading this article, its all clear.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nradam (talk • contribs) 09:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia rocks 

message: The figure accompanying the section on "Water striders" has a funny mistake in its legend. The legend reads: "A water strider, a common neuston that skims on surface tension." In fact, the photograph shows TWO water striders in a close embrace. I suppose they are mating. Interestingly, both animals have at least four 'feet' on the water's surface. An experiment: could one strider carry another piggyback (with the rider's feet up), or would they sink?
MoQG (talk) 00:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  LOL at figure legend 

message: In the caption it says "Surface tension prevents the water from submerging the flower." I think this is misleading as it can be thought that it is surface tension alone the one keeping the flower from sinking while what is doing is keeping the water from filling the space between petals now filled with air. This makes the entire system (flower + air) less dense than water. It is also possible that even removing the air the flower still floats as many other vegetable tissue does. living plants, unlike animals, have a high number of dead cells (see Xylem) which means lots of space normally filled with (usually) air. Maybe something like "Surface tension prevents water filling the air between the petals and possibly submerging the flower."  franklin  23:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  daisy in water 

message: This is a pretty picture, but it's terrible for illustrating surface tension. It looks like the paperclip is resting on some kind of blue membrane and not on the water. The article has several good and clear illustrations of surface tension so how about if we get rid of this one? Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 03:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * That is hardly going to happen since the image is an FP. On the other hand, even if it were not water but a membrane, is showing surface tension. As I said elsewhere, even a dumbbell on a glass table will show surface tension. Just in case you got the wrong idea, the daisy flower is not proposed for delisting from FP because of the existence of that picture. Even if there were no other PF about surface tension the reasons about the quality and easiness of being repeated are the same.  franklin  04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First keep in mind that this isn't about the daisy picture but rather the paperclip picture. I'm not talking about deleting the paperclip picture altogether, just removing it from this article. Rev. Willie Archangel (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * It is in my mind. That's why my statement about the daisy flower was conditional to the existence of a wrong idea. About removing the one with the paper clip it is definitely possible. Now, it would make sense only if either it gets delisted as FP (since you are not going to delete an FP from the article that makes it FP) or if a similar image (the flotation of the paper clip or the coin are classics) with as hight technical standards as this appear.  franklin  04:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Diliff, I think that the mosquito image (or waterbugs, whatever they are) that you provided is far superior than the paperclip on blue rubber image.  Why?  The point of using pictures is to demonstrate a concept.  The blue cup paper clip is confusing because we are seeing something and are uncertain what it is we are seeing.  The mosquito image, on the other hand, is to many people, including myself, a familiar image, and now, if it is used in this article, it can help to illustrate the concept of surface tension.  Is it clear that the insects are on water?  Perhaps not, but it doesn't look like something else.  Why can't we use that image instead? 98.71.219.134 (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears that you're arguing a moot point. It's not in question whether we can use the mosquito image - it's already in the article. But why can't we use both images? The paperclip image shows the surface of the water far more clearly. And a paperclip is a perfectly useful object to demonstrate surface tension IMO. In my experience, it's an everyday object that is commonly used to demonstrate surface tension to a layman. Can you think of a better popular science demonstration that allows something denser than water (something solid, that is.. to appear to 'float' on the surface of water? As far as I'm concerned, as long as the caption explains what we're seeing (and there might be work needed there, I'm not arguing against that), there's absolutely nothing wrong with keeping the image in the article. I'm going to revert the removal of the image once again, and I would ask that you please not remove it again until this discussion is a little more mature? So far I don't think anyone has provided any particularly pesuasive arguments for the removal of it. Ðiliff   «» (Talk) 15:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The paperclip image doesn't show the water more clearly, because it doesn't show the water at all. The paperclip is resting on a piece of blue plastic wrap. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you're being ridiculous. I'm going to take the photographer's word on this. :-P Ðiliff   «» (Talk) 16:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I'm putting two and two together. According to the image file User:Noodle snacks commenting here is also the photographer of the image. OK, I'll agree that it actually is water. But if we have to go through all this to prove that it really is water, the suitability of the image for this purpose is questionable at best. I don't disagree that the image is visually appealing and technically well done -- but it's not an effective illustration of surface tension. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: You're reading of that discussion is flawed. It clearly shows that this image is worthless for demonstrating surface tension. People couldn't tell what it was until you told them. -Atmoz (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you are right, I'm completely misinterpreting statements such as: "That picture looks pretty realistic to me. I don't think it's a fraud", "I see nothing in the color of the water that makes me to believe it isn't water.", "This is an amazing photograph. Anyone can balance a paperclip on water and get that "Cushion" effect, but to photograph it so dramatically takes a lot of skill and effort." and "Right. The whole point is that surface tension does make something of a cushion effect, or a fabric layer rather--the water bulges up out of the glass like a muffin and the paper clip depresses the surface a little still on it without actually falling completely into the water." Noodle snacks (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * What I was trying to say is that this image have a distracting element. I agree there is no problem with the blue and the EV. But it is a distracting element, or at least it seems to be since so many people complain and ask and so many conversations are made on the same topic. The image instead of making you think "oh! there is a piece of wire on the water" it makes you wonder "what is that? Is it water?". It is the same effect as any usual distracting element (like a guy in a red T-shirt in a funeral). I guess the number of discussions on the same topic prove that. I agree that the picture there should be one with a paper clip on a glass of water (there is another one already done in the page or a new one can be done). For me that's the classics one. That's the example I saw when I was little from my father and at school.  franklin  04:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

text: NS, would you win this argument in a court of law?  Perhaps so.  Is that what you're looking for?  "Victory"?  There have been times when I've been shocked that a large number of editors couldn't grasp my point, and I've had to learn that while this doesn't mean my arguments were invalid, but that the logic behind my arguments wasn't the point.  The point is developing consensus so we move forward together.  A substantial number of editors have indicated that your picture--however technically correct--does not for them fulfill what they want to see to illustrate surface tension, and that indeed, they find it counterproductive.  You have every right to stand up for yourself and your ideas if you want, but friend, I think you're missing the big picture here (pun genuinely unintentional--I didn't realize what I was doing until I had typed it). 98.71.219.134 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * The reason is distraction. It is the same as taking a landscape picture in which there is a particular rock that is too peculiar (just to give an example). What is happening with this picture is that many are drawn to think more about the origin of the color of the liquid than about the phenomenon of the surface tension. The number of discussions on the topic show that this is the case. In the same way one could crop the landscape picture to remove the rock one can take a picture in which the water doesn't look that way. Suppose you use Ice cream instead of water ( or some soft drink ) people won't complain for the ice cream or the soft drink being colorful, but the ice cream or the soft drink would be catching (unnecessarily) some of the attention in the same way the blue in this one is doing. Since it is not necessary, is avoidable and is stealing some of the attention from the main point it is a distraction. And in most of the common cases people ask for distractions to be avoided or removed.  franklin  23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is NOT the color.  It is that it does not look like water or any other liquid.  It looks like a sheet of vinyl or rubber. 98.71.218.248 (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it looks significantly different to any of the other images shown. It's pretty hard to make water look like water while still showing the surface depression caused by the paperclip. Ðiliff   «» (Talk) 11:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the above images supplied by Kaldari are much better, simply because my first response to seeing them is that I am looking at a paper clip "floating" on water.  But the image currently in the article looks like the paperclip is resting on a sheet of blue vinyl, so the whole point of the illustration is lost.  I see that you also liked at least a couple of Kaldari's pictures.  Would you support using one of those instead? 98.71.218.248 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Paperclip image

message: Some thoughts in reply to above commments . . . 
*a paperclip is a perfectly useful object to demonstrate surface tension IMO. In my experience, it's an everyday object that is commonly used to demonstrate surface tension to a layman.   Well, yes, I actually agree that not only is a paper clip an acceptable object to demonstrate surface tension, it's actually superior to any bugs, exactly because of the relative density youi mention.  But if you think that the objection is to the paper clip, I (and others, I believe) have failed to make ourselves clear.  No one is objecting to the use of a paper clip.  The objection is to the appearance that the paper clip is resting, not on a liquid, but on a solid surface, be it a rubber sheet or saran wrap or whatever.  Whether we take the photographer's word on it or not (I, for one, take him at his word), it fails to convey the concept of surface tension and the significance thereof.
**The very fact that you can see the surface so clearly is what makes the image valuable in my view. You could easily replicate the appearance by holding a glass up to a window and looking from a low angle. I may modify the caption to better explain the appearance in a day or two if it will satisfy you. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: NS, would you win this argument in a court of law?  Perhaps so.  Is that what you're looking for?  "Victory"?  There have been times when I've been shocked that a large number of editors couldn't grasp my point, and I've had to learn that while this doesn't mean my arguments were invalid, but that the logic behind my arguments wasn't the point.  The point is developing consensus so we move forward together.  A substantial number of editors have indicated that your picture--however technically correct--does not for them fulfill what they want to see to illustrate surface tension, and that indeed, they find it counterproductive.  You have every right to stand up for yourself and your ideas if you want, but friend, I think you're missing the big picture here (pun genuinely unintentional--I didn't realize what I was doing until I had typed it). 98.71.219.134 (talk) 06:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

text: * The reason is distraction. It is the same as taking a landscape picture in which there is a particular rock that is too peculiar (just to give an example). What is happening with this picture is that many are drawn to think more about the origin of the color of the liquid than about the phenomenon of the surface tension. The number of discussions on the topic show that this is the case. In the same way one could crop the landscape picture to remove the rock one can take a picture in which the water doesn't look that way. Suppose you use Ice cream instead of water ( or some soft drink ) people won't complain for the ice cream or the soft drink being colorful, but the ice cream or the soft drink would be catching (unnecessarily) some of the attention in the same way the blue in this one is doing. Since it is not necessary, is avoidable and is stealing some of the attention from the main point it is a distraction. And in most of the common cases people ask for distractions to be avoided or removed.  franklin  23:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is NOT the color.  It is that it does not look like water or any other liquid.  It looks like a sheet of vinyl or rubber. 98.71.218.248 (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it looks significantly different to any of the other images shown. It's pretty hard to make water look like water while still showing the surface depression caused by the paperclip. Ðiliff   «» (Talk) 11:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the above images supplied by Kaldari are much better, simply because my first response to seeing them is that I am looking at a paper clip "floating" on water.  But the image currently in the article looks like the paperclip is resting on a sheet of blue vinyl, so the whole point of the illustration is lost.  I see that you also liked at least a couple of Kaldari's pictures.  Would you support using one of those instead? 98.71.218.248 (talk) 12:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: There have been many changes to the statement about if inorganic salts decrease or increase surface tension. Bring your opinions, references and ideas here for discussion. I found this paper  talking about common salt.  franklin  17:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influence of inorganic salts in surface tension 

message: Doesn't make sense/help me understand what surface tension is at all. "This paper clip which was under the water level, has risen gently and smoothly. Surface tension prevents the paper clip from submerging and from overflowing the blue glass."  How has it risen gently and smoothly?  What caused it to?  I would expect a heavy object like that to sink or stay static - but to rise?  What causes that?  "Surface tension prevents the paperclip from overflowing the blue glass?"  That doesn't make any sense whatsoever - the water might overflow, not the paperclip.  Please rewrite this caption so it actually explains what is being shown! especially as the image is FP on the front page right now! 86.133.53.223 (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paperclip image caption 

message: It tells right in the 2nd paragraph: "Since the molecules on the surface of the liquid are not surrounded by like molecules on all sides, they are more attracted to their neighbors on the surface." Where this came from? The attraction is the same (or even lower because the density of molecules at the surface is lower). But every molecule at the surface simply has a smaller number of interacting neighbors. Loosing attractions with other  molecules at the surface leads to energy losses. Therefore, liquid tend to minimize its surface to minimize energy. This is explanation.Biophys (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I read that paragraph as following: molecules of the liquid attract each other (e.g. through VdW forces). It does not say about the magnitude of the force, it hinges on the number of surrounding molecules. Energy minimization is also correct, but not that intuitive. Phrasing could be improved, but I don't see a fundamental problem. Materialscientist (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It tells: molecules of the liquid "are more attracted to their neighbors on the surface.". This is plain wrong, is not it? And why they should be "more attracted" if they are not surrounded by other molecules of the liquid? It does not make any sense, much less intuitive. And this is used as an explanation of surface tension. Did it come from any textbook? Biophys (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I tried to rewrite it, and further fixes are welcome. For one thing I disagree with your explanation - surface tension is a force and originates from intermolecular forces. Energy and its minimization are derivative topics here. Materialscientist (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it comes from intermolecular forces, but this passage claimed such forces are stronger for the molecules closer to the surface, and that is the reason of surface tension. That is incorrect I believe. In fact, the forces between two dipoles can indeed be stronger in vapor than in liquid, for example due to different macroscopic dielectric constants of the media, but this is not the explanation.Biophys (talk) 13:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong explanation?

message: Who's it going to be in this repeat of a legendary bout? The handsome FP, veteran of  and rumoured wearer of rubber outfits in his spare time, or the old and experienced silverback that's got him beat on megapixels? But remember the rules: if they can't make it out of the gallery, Takeshi may triumph in the end. Good luck to our contestants! 
In plain English: If no article is found where :File:Paper Clip Surface Tension 1 edit.jpg can be used somewhere other than a gallery, its FP status will get the chop. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paperclip death match 

message: Interfacial tension redirects but there is no definition or explanation of how it is distinct from surface tension.BenPlotke (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we move this article ("Surface tension") to "Interfacial tension", maybe? Would make sense to have an article about the broader one of the two topics --Distelfinck (talk) 14:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Interfacial tension redirect

message: I feel the image with the label: "Diagram of the forces on two molecules of liquid" is drawn in a misleading way. The arrow heads represented in the diagram are showing the forces of attraction the other molecules have for the given molecule and at the same time it shows the force of attraction the given molecule applies to the other molecules producing a net zero force in the case of each arrow. That is misleading. Only the forces acting on the given molecule should be shown and the other arrow heads directed into the molecule should be erased. The inner molecule will have a net zero force acting on it but the molecule on the surface should have a net force pulling it in toward the interior of the liquid. As it is shown the surface molecule does not illustrate that. 
If an object is applied to the surface, for which the liquid has weak adhesive forces compared to the cohesive forces of the liquid, the weight of the body will press the surface downward, distorting the surface, and the cohesive forces of the liquid molecules on the surface will be directed slightly upward in such a manner that it produces a net force that supports the object. There are, however, adhesive forces of attraction of the object for the liquid pulling the object downward, and buoyant forces pushing up on the object as it sinks into the liquid and those are typically not illustrated. If the applied object has a adhesive force for the liquid greater than the cohesive forces of the liquid then capillarity will take effect, and pull the object into the liquid, hence it will not float.Zedshort (talk) 22:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes and illustration  

message: June 12 2012. This is a wonderful article it helped me with my homework! It is very easy to read and I enjoyed this I now much more about Surface tension and Viscosity now. Thanks again! 184.66.64.28 (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helpful. 

message: In the second sentence, is "floating" really the right word?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMattB (talk • contribs) 11:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Floating"? 

message: Water is a polar molecule (because of its electronegativity) hence its good surface tension (that is actually not mentioned in this article, although i see this written by others online - if they are incorrect, can this be addressed in the article?). I am curious about another polar molecule that is way more polar than water (yet still liquid), and that is Sulfur dichloride can you provide the γ gamma value? SCl2's tension may be further increased with a salt as with water, perhaps something fluoride.. Charlieb000 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for another entry in data table 

message: I had thought it was common knowledge that powerful magnets could affect the surface tension of some fluids such as water. This is a rather popular idea on the internet in any case. I was really hoping to find some information verifying or denying this in the wiki article, and of course, if it is true, then how much magnet power for how long (just a couple examples) would be required to do this would keep me from having to search for this info on woo-fringe sites instead. :-) Palyne (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnets and surface tension 

message: In the table near the end, just before the large Data Table, pressure is given as a ratio to P0 = 1 atmosphere, i.e. P/P0 is reported.  The corresponding drop diameters are given in "nm", nanometers.  The information here should correspond to an earlier table giving simply P, the pressure above one atmosphere, as a function of drop diameters in millimeters and fractions.  This earlier table, found just before the heading "Floating Objects", is more or less consistent with the formula for pressure of a spherical droplet, P = (surface_tension)*2/radius.  The latter table would be reasonable if the diameter units were "um" micrometers, rather than "nm," though the figures are somewhat lower than the formula would predict for um units.  Given that the two tables give essentially identical information, the latter table might be omitted
72.224.68.250 (talk) 01:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units error in P/P0 table near end, before final Data Table 

message: Why the "approximately" when talking of free drops shape in the 'Causes' section? --84.125.11.33 (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minimum surface -> "approximately spherical"? 

message: I'd like to reorganize the article structure especially the effects sections. The two sections need to be put together and reorganized. Before starting the job, if anyone has suggestions or disagreements, I propose the following steps:
# group both Effects sections into one, for example after the Physics section
# rearrange the effects subsections, for example (titles to be defined)
## liquid/solid : formation of liquid puddle on a solid surface (Water-A, Puddles on a surface)
## liquid/solid : capillary action in a tube (Liquid in a vertical tube)
## solid/liquid : flotation on dense objects on liquid surface (Water-C)
## liquid/gas : formation of drops and stretching of liquid (Water-B, The breakup of streams into drops)
## liquid/gas : soap bubbles (Surfactants-1)
## liquid/liquid : water and oil emulsion (Water-D, Surfactants-2)
## liquid/liquid : tears of wine (Water-E)
--Djiboun (talk) 10:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article structure 

message: The equation under Floating Objects has no explanation for most of the variables in use.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.186.15 (talk) 15:43, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Floating Objects Equation 

message: The figure under the causes subheading with the free body diagram showing the forces on the molecules of water is wrong. Well, I think it is at least. Surely if all the black vectors need to be flipped 180 degrees? Its surface tension, not surface compression. From the view point of a fluid molecule it will experience a 'pulling' force acting on it and not a pushing one. Thus the diagram needs to be changed or taken out. Unless I have missed something fundamental.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thunder852za (talk • contribs) 09:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Figure Force Balance Wrong? 

message: Molescus is when a substance or liquid has a horizontal convex or concave curvature due to its own molecules. A molescus is formed by surface tention and depending on the substance and the molecules that are invoved the molsecus will sit iether in a convex form such as water in which the molecues will be attracted by the glass beaker for instance and the centre point of gravitational pull will remain at a higher point then the surrounded edges, or a parrallel form in which the liquid will create a perfect straight line or a concave curvature sitting where the liquid has compounding atoms creating a negative force thus resulting in the drop of the substance.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.190.217.3 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Molescus 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Surface tension. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012031017/http://www.ksvinc.com/surface_tension1.htm to http://www.ksvinc.com/surface_tension1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706231759/http://www.ppsi.ethz.ch/fmi/xsl/eqi/eqi_property_details_en.xsl?node_id=1113 to http://www.ppsi.ethz.ch/fmi/xsl/eqi/eqi_property_details_en.xsl?node_id=1113
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: The June 2018 version of this article was submitted to the WikiJournal of Science. 
It was peer reviewed by two academics in the field. Their reports point serious flaws and suggest many improvements. 
At the moment, no further work on the article is taking place at the WikiJournal. I am posting this notice in the hope that the reports may be used for directly improving the Wikipedia article.
For the WikiJournal of Science, Sylvain Ribault (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review at the WikiJournal of Science 

message: The surface tension table lists "Water	0	75.64". At zero deg C, water is frozen into ice. How does it have a surface tension at that point? I think some sort of note explaining this entry is appropriate. Does anyone have the ability to edit the page to provide some sort of footnote for that table?
AristosM (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does it mean to have water surface tension at 0 deg C? 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Newton per metre. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 21:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Newton per metre" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Solid 2405:205:1388:AEFA:1A01:4C36:2080:975E (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physics