Repository logo
 

Derjaguin and the DMT Theory: A Farewell to DMT?

cam.issuedOnline2022-05-07
dc.contributor.authorGreenwood, JA
dc.contributor.orcidGreenwood, JA [0000-0003-2699-9847]
dc.date.accessioned2022-05-24T15:17:20Z
dc.date.available2022-05-24T15:17:20Z
dc.date.issued2022
dc.date.submitted2022-01-11
dc.date.updated2022-05-24T15:17:20Z
dc.description.abstract<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>There is a widespread belief that in the 1970s, two conflicting theories of the adhesion of a spherical particle to a substrate were published: the JKR and DMT theories. And that the dispute was resolved when Tabor introduced a parameter <jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>$$\mu$$</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> </mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula>, such that for small <jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>$$\mu$$</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> </mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula>, DMT was correct, while for large <jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>$$\mu$$</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> </mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula>, JKR was correct. We point out that there never were two theories of contact: the dispute was about the magnitude of the pull-off force (with an implication that since the DMT value was obtained by a <jats:italic>thermodynamic</jats:italic> method, it must be correct). And what Tabor actually said was simply that for large <jats:inline-formula><jats:alternatives><jats:tex-math>$$\mu$$</jats:tex-math><mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mi>μ</mml:mi> </mml:math></jats:alternatives></jats:inline-formula>, the neglect of surface forces in the JKR theory was acceptable, and that he distrusted the neglect of deformation by the large surface forces immediately outside the Hertzian contact in the DMT theory. We point out the errors in both the DMT/MDT thermodynamic method and the MDT force method (preferred by MDT) but also argue that once Derjaguin and his collaborators (MYD) established that Hertzian geometry does not occur, no theory based on that geometry should be taken seriously. Derjaguin’s well-merited fame rests on more important contributions.</jats:p>
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.84841
dc.identifier.eissn1573-2711
dc.identifier.issn1023-8883
dc.identifier.others11249-022-01599-y
dc.identifier.other1599
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/337428
dc.languageen
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSpringer Science and Business Media LLC
dc.publisher.urlhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11249-022-01599-y
dc.subjectDerjaguin
dc.subjectDMT
dc.subjectJKR
dc.subjectForce method
dc.subjectThermodynamic method
dc.titleDerjaguin and the DMT Theory: A Farewell to DMT?
dc.typeArticle
dcterms.dateAccepted2022-04-01
prism.issueIdentifier2
prism.publicationNameTribology Letters
prism.volume70
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1007/s11249-022-01599-y

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
11249_2022_Article_1599.pdf
Size:
2.61 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Published version
Licence
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
No Thumbnail Available
Name:
11249_2022_Article_1599_nlm.xml
Size:
191.78 KB
Format:
Extensible Markup Language
Description:
Bibliographic metadata
Licence
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/