Andrzej Latka
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Andrzej Latka has a total of 8 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
Sidney R. Nagel
The James Franck Institute and Department of Physics, The University of Chicago 1 , 929 E 57th Street, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
4 shared publicationsAriana Strandburg-Peshkin
The James Franck Institute and Department of Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
2 shared publicationsCacey S. Stevens
The James Franck Institute and Department of Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
2 shared publicationsJuan J. de Pablo
Institute for Molecular Engineering, The University of Chicago 2 , 5801 South Ellis Avenue, Chicago, Illinois 60637, USA
2 shared publicationsArnout M. P. Boelens
Institute for Molecular Engineering The University of Chicago 5801 South Ellis Avenue 60637 Chicago Illinois USA
1 shared publication- Arnout M. P. Boelens
Department of Energy Resources Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- 1 February 2018
- Published by AIP Publishing in Physics of Fluids
- Vol. 30 (2) , 022105
Drop splashing is independent of substrate wetting
A liquid drop impacting a dry solid surface with sufficient kinetic energy will splash, breaking apart into numerous secondary droplets. This phenomenon shows many similarities to forced wetting, including the entrainment of air at the contact line. Because of these similarities and the fact that forced wetting has been shown to depend on the wetting properties of the surface, existing theories predict splashing to depend on wetting properties as well. However, using high-speed interference imaging, we observe that at high capillary numbers wetting properties have no effect on splashing for various liquid-surface combinations. Additionally, by fully resolving the Navier-Stokes equations at length and time scales inaccessible to experiments, we find that the shape and motion of the air-liquid interface at the contact line/edge of the droplet are independent of wettability. We use these findings to evaluate existing theories and to compare splashing with forced wetting.
- 1 February 2018
- Published by AIP Publishing in Physics of Fluids
- Vol. 30 (2) , 022105
Drop splashing is independent of substrate wetting
A liquid drop impacting a dry solid surface with sufficient kinetic energy will splash, breaking apart into numerous secondary droplets. This phenomenon shows many similarities to forced wetting, including the entrainment of air at the contact line. Because of these similarities and the fact that forced wetting has been shown to depend on the wetting properties of the surface, existing theories predict splashing to depend on wetting properties as well. However, using high-speed interference imaging, we observe that at high capillary numbers wetting properties have no effect on splashing for various liquid-surface combinations. Additionally, by fully resolving the Navier-Stokes equations at length and time scales inaccessible to experiments, we find that the shape and motion of the air-liquid interface at the contact line/edge of the droplet are independent of wettability. We use these findings to evaluate existing theories and to compare splashing with forced wetting.
- Open Access
Drop splashing is independent of substrate wetting
A liquid drop impacting a dry solid surface with sufficient kinetic energy will splash, breaking apart into numerous secondary droplets. This phenomenon shows many similarities to forced wetting, including the entrainment of air at the contact line. Because of these similarities and the fact that forced wetting has been shown to depend on the wetting properties of the surface, existing theories predict splashing to depend on wetting properties as well. However, using high-speed interference imaging we observe that at high capillary numbers wetting properties have no effect on splashing for various liquid-surface combinations. Additionally, by fully resolving the Navier-Stokes equations at length and time scales inaccessible to experiments, we find that the shape and motion of the air-liquid interface at the contact line at the edge of the droplet are independent of wettability. We use these findings to evaluate existing theories and to compare splashing with forced wetting.
Open AccessDrop splashing is independent of substrate wetting
A liquid drop impacting a dry solid surface with sufficient kinetic energy will splash, breaking apart into numerous secondary droplets. This phenomenon shows many similarities to forced wetting, including the entrainment of air at the contact line. Because of these similarities and the fact that forced wetting has been shown to depend on the wetting properties of the surface, existing theories predict splashing to depend on wetting properties as well. However, using high-speed interference imaging we observe that at high capillary numbers wetting properties have no effect on splashing for various liquid-surface combinations. Additionally, by fully resolving the Navier-Stokes equations at length and time scales inaccessible to experiments, we find that the shape and motion of the air-liquid interface at the contact line at the edge of the droplet are independent of wettability. We use these findings to evaluate existing theories and to compare splashing with forced wetting.
- Open Access
- 31 July 2012
- Published by American Physical Society (APS) in Physical Review Letters
- Vol. 109 (5) , 054501
Creation of Prompt and Thin-Sheet Splashing by Varying Surface Roughness or Increasing Air Pressure
A liquid drop impacting a solid surface may splash either by emitting a thin liquid sheet that subsequently breaks apart or by promptly ejecting droplets from the advancing liquid-solid contact line. Using high-speed imaging, we show that surface roughness and air pressure influence both mechanisms. Roughness inhibits thin-sheet formation even though it also increases prompt splashing at the advancing contact line. If the air pressure is lowered, droplet ejection is suppressed not only during thin-sheet formation but also for prompt splashing.
- 31 July 2012
- Published by American Physical Society (APS) in Physical Review Letters
- Vol. 109 (5) , 054501
Open AccessCreation of Prompt and Thin-Sheet Splashing by Varying Surface Roughness or Increasing Air Pressure
A liquid drop impacting a solid surface may splash either by emitting a thin liquid sheet that subsequently breaks apart or by promptly ejecting droplets from the advancing liquid-solid contact line. Using high-speed imaging, we show that surface roughness and air pressure influence both mechanisms. Roughness inhibits thin-sheet formation even though it also increases prompt splashing at the advancing contact line. If the air pressure is lowered, droplet ejection is suppressed not only during thin-sheet formation but also for prompt splashing.
- Open Access
Creation of prompt and thin-sheet splashing by varying surface roughness or increasing air pressure
A liquid drop impacting a solid surface may splash by emitting a thin liquid sheet that subsequently breaks apart or by promptly ejecting droplets from the advancing liquid-solid contact line. Using high-speed imaging, we show that air pressure and surface roughness influence both splash mechanisms. Roughness increases prompt splashing at the advancing contact line but inhibits the formation of the thin sheet. If the air pressure is lowered, droplet ejection is suppressed not only during thin-sheet formation but for prompt splashing as well. The threshold pressure depends on impact velocity, liquid viscosity and surface roughness.
Open AccessCreation of prompt and thin-sheet splashing by varying surface roughness or increasing air pressure
A liquid drop impacting a solid surface may splash by emitting a thin liquid sheet that subsequently breaks apart or by promptly ejecting droplets from the advancing liquid-solid contact line. Using high-speed imaging, we show that air pressure and surface roughness influence both splash mechanisms. Roughness increases prompt splashing at the advancing contact line but inhibits the formation of the thin sheet. If the air pressure is lowered, droplet ejection is suppressed not only during thin-sheet formation but for prompt splashing as well. The threshold pressure depends on impact velocity, liquid viscosity and surface roughness.