Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-10T03:22:17.974Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of charge emission from electrified liquid cones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

J. Fernández De La Mora
J. Fernández De La Mora
Affiliation:
Yale University. Mechanical Engineering Department, PO Box 2159 YS. New Haven, CT 06520, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The formation of stable cones in electrified liquid interfaces was explained by Taylor as a balance between electrical and capillary tensions, where the electrostatic potential varies as ϕ ∼ r½ with the distance r from the cone tip. Although Taylor's predictions for the dependence of the onset voltage for cone formation on the liquid surface tension γ and the cone dimensions agree with observed trends, his conclusion that the cone semiangle α can only take the value α = αT = 49.3° does not. A more general theory free from this paradox is constructed for highly conducting fluids by accounting for the space charge of the droplets emanating from the cone apex, whose potential has the remarkable property of also obeying Taylor's r½ law. In this formulation, where the apex of a conical meniscus of semiangle α emits an angularly uniform opposed coaxial conical spray of semiangle π—β, both β and the spray current I turn out to be fixed as functions of α; namely, β = β(α), and I = 2πγKqG(α), where Kq and q are the droplet's electrical mobility and total charge, respectively. In experiments with 5% H2SO4 in 1-octanol, the observed sprays are approximately conical with an apex nearly touching the meniscus tip. The measured and predicted β(α) relations are in reasonable agreement in the range 46° > α > 32°, where the liquid cone is stable and the spray is visible, though the data fall clearly below the theoretical curve. The predicted spray current I is also in rough agreement with preliminary experiments. The analysis applies neither to sprays of large droplets with significant inertia, nor to liquid cones in vacuo.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 243 , October 1992 , pp. 561 - 574
Copyright
© 1992 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramovitz, M. & Stegun, I. A. 1964 Handbook of Mathematical Functions. Washington: National Bureau of Standards.
Bailey, A. G. 1988 Electrostatic Spraying of Liquids. Wiley.
Benasayag, G. & Sudraud, P. 1985 In situ high voltage TEM observation of an EHD source. Ultramicroscopy 16, 1–8.Google Scholar
Fenn, J. B., Mann, M., Meng, C. K., Wong, S. K. & Whitehoouse, C. 1989 Electrospray ionization for mass spectrometry of large biomolecules. Science 246, 64–71. (See also the editorial in p. 32 of this issue, on the bio-analytical excitement created by electrospray ionization.)Google Scholar
Fernáandez De La Mora, J., Navascués, J., Fernández, F. & Rosell-Llompart, J. 1990 Generation of submicron monodisperse aerosols in electrosprays. J. Aerosol. Sci. 21 (special issue), S673–S676.Google Scholar
Friedlander, S. K. 1977 Smoke, Dust and Haze. Wiley.
Gomez, A. & Tang, K. 1991a Characterization of high charge density electrosprays of methanol. In Proc. Fifth Intl Conf. on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, ICLASS-91 (ed. H. Semerjian). NTIS Special Publication 813, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Gomez, A. & Tang, K. 1991b Atomization and dispersion of quasimonodisperse electrostatic spray systems. In Proc. Fifth Intl Conf. on Liquid Atomization and Spray Systems, ICLASS-91 (ed. H. Semerjian). NTIS Special Publication 813, Gaithersburg, MD, USA.
Gomez, A. & Tang, K. 1992 Charged droplet fission in electrostatic sprays. Science (submitted).Google Scholar
Jones, A. R. & Thong, K. C. 1971 The production of charged monodisperse fuel droplets by electrostatic dispersion. J. Phys. D: Appl. Phys. 4, 1159–1166.Google Scholar
Landau, L. D. & Lifshitz, E. M. 1960 Electrodynamics of Continuous Media. Pergamon.
Shorey, J. D. & Michelson, D. 1970 On the mechanism of electrospraying. Nucl. Instrum. Meth. 82, 295–296.Google Scholar
Smith, D. P. H. 1986 The electrohydrodynamic atomization of liquids. IEEE Trans. Ind. Applic. IA-22, 527–535.Google Scholar
Taylor, G. I. 1964 Disintegration of water drops in an electric field.. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 280, 383–397. (See also The Scientific Papers of G. I. Taylor (ed. G. K. Batchelor). vol. IV. papers 9, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 47. Cambridge University Press, 1971 .)Google Scholar
Taylor, G. I. 1965 The stability of a horizontal fluid interface in a vertical electric field. J. Fluid Mech. 2, 1–15.Google Scholar
Thong, K. C. & Weinberg, F. J. 1971 Electric control of the combusion of solid and liquid particulate suspensions.. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 324, 201–215.Google Scholar
Zeleny, J. 1914 The electrical discharge from liquid points and a hydrostatic method of measuring the electric intensity at their surface. Phys. Rev. 3, 69–91.Google Scholar
Zeleny, J. 1915 On the conditions of instability of liquid drops, with applications to the electrical discharge from liquid points. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 18, 71–93.Google Scholar
Zeleny, J. 1917 Instability of electrified liquid surfaces. Phys. Rev. 10, 1–6.Google Scholar