- Email: [email protected]
Experimental Determination of Drop Shape in Slow Steady Shear Flow
Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 224, 209 (2000) doi:10.1006/jcis.2000.6770, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on
ERRATUM Volume 219, Number 2 (1999), in the article “Experimental Determination of Drop Shape in Slow Steady Shear Flow,” by S. Guido, F. Greco, and M. Villone, pages 298–309 (doi:10.1006/jcis.1999.6458): An algebraic mistake crept into the paper in Eq. [8] (p. 300). The equation should read ¢ ¤ £ ¡ ∗2 2 a1 + b1∗ + 5b2∗ + 20c1∗ + 15k ∗ = 0;
[8]
i.e., the numerical coefficient of k ∗ should be 15 in place of 12. This mistake does not affect the results of the paper. In fact, Eq. [8] (as corrected here) expresses the constant volume constraint for the deforming drop and was used in the paper only as a check of the value obtained (by other means) for the coefficient b1 . The check is slightly less successful with the corrected formula. In this regard, the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the second column on p. 305 should read as follows: “The value of b1 obtained from volume conservation was ca. 200 ± 50 µm s2 , with a percent difference of about 50% with respect to the previously reported value. The agreement can be considered satisfactory, taking into account the difficulties associated with the evaluation of b1 .” In any event, it remains confirmed that coefficient b1 is definitely different from zero (see the first column on p. 307). This erratum is doi:10.1006/jcis.2000.6770.
209 C 2000 by Academic Press Copyright ° All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
ERRATUM Volume 219, Number 2 (1999), in the article “Experimental Determination of Drop Shape in Slow Steady Shear Flow,” by S. Guido, F. Greco, and M. Villone, pages 298–309 (doi:10.1006/jcis.1999.6458): An algebraic mistake crept into the paper in Eq. [8] (p. 300). The equation should read ¢ ¤ £ ¡ ∗2 2 a1 + b1∗ + 5b2∗ + 20c1∗ + 15k ∗ = 0;
[8]
i.e., the numerical coefficient of k ∗ should be 15 in place of 12. This mistake does not affect the results of the paper. In fact, Eq. [8] (as corrected here) expresses the constant volume constraint for the deforming drop and was used in the paper only as a check of the value obtained (by other means) for the coefficient b1 . The check is slightly less successful with the corrected formula. In this regard, the last two sentences of the first paragraph of the second column on p. 305 should read as follows: “The value of b1 obtained from volume conservation was ca. 200 ± 50 µm s2 , with a percent difference of about 50% with respect to the previously reported value. The agreement can be considered satisfactory, taking into account the difficulties associated with the evaluation of b1 .” In any event, it remains confirmed that coefficient b1 is definitely different from zero (see the first column on p. 307). This erratum is doi:10.1006/jcis.2000.6770.
209 C 2000 by Academic Press Copyright ° All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.