Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

Recommended Posts

n a prior Chart of the Week (COTW) titled Bringing Common Sense to Trading Part I, I explained how to determine turning points and continuation points with price action alone. This week I am going to show why prices trended as they did Friday.

 

In that prior COTW, I also told you that price oscillators, various other indicators and drawing lines to determine turning points or support and resistance have nothing to do with prices reversing when they do. Friday's drop should reinforce that fact for you. To an extent, these analysis tools do have a self-fulfilling prophecy at times since so many people have been taught to believe the fallacy and use them.

 

The internet based online trading education industry perpetuates these hocus-pocus indicator based methods. Not much has changed over the years. When I started to learn about trading the markets there was no online education, since there was no internet. However, there were mailed letters that gave recommendations and some education. Like most online educators now, those letters also used the indicator mythology.

 

It's not easy getting started with so much information to sift through about how to use these types of technical analysis to trade and invest. I did not side-step the learning and use of indicators, but I did eventually see the truth. Through these COTW letters and our other services I hope you will see through these deceptions that create confusion about price movement.

 

Okay, let me explain what happened on Friday.

 

GetChart.aspx?PlayID=66663

 

Before we get to Friday, above is a chart that I posted at the Pristine Facebook Fan Page and the Group Page last Wednesday. In it I showed why sellers would show up the next day, and they did. I also said that ES (ES is the e-mini contract for the S&P 500) retraced further than I thought it would, but those Topping Tails (TT) suggest that short-sellers are waiting to pound it again. This alone did not suggest or predict how much prices would fall on Friday. However, what made that possible was the way prices moved up to the area of the prior TTs.

 

The key here is the fact that there is virtually no overlapping of the candles on the way up. Each candle started at or very near the prior candle close and did not retrace back into the prior candle. In other words, this is a continuous fluid movement. There is no uncertainty among the majority traders. Prices are going up; buy or get out of the way!

 

This arrangement of candles displays strength, power and momentum. But if that is the case, how could prices fall as far and as hard as they did? While this arrangement of candles does display strength, it is the weakest link also. As I have explained in the past, one of the most powerful concepts to understand is that of supply and demand. Where sellers and buyers are and when there is a Void of them.

 

The way prices moved up into the supply area and the TTs (little to no overlap between candles) it created what I refer to as a Pristine Price Void (PPV). When prices move upward so fast there is no support under prices. There are no pullbacks or sideways consolidations. So there is nowhere to buy a pullback based on a price support as a reference point (demand area). There is a Void of support or demand because prices moved higher so fast. In addition, as current prices move sideways over time they move away from any small support area that might be there. This makes any small support area irrelevant.

 

This is a common question students have. What about that small area of price support? What is more powerful or meaningful, that small area of consolidation or the bearish daily time frame and intra-day bearish shock? It's the weight of the evidence to consider as a whole, not one piece of information.

 

Pristine Tip: A truly strong momentum move does not need support. It creates it. I discussed this in the COTW Bringing Common Sense to Trading Part I. Look for momentum moves that begin from a consolidation and have a PVV overhead. Not moves that end at the top of a range.

 

GetChart.aspx?PlayID=66664

 

In the chart above, I've shown the daily time frame at the upper left and the 60-min. time frame. In the 60-min. you can see how little congestion (stall in prices moving higher) there is, especially on the Tuesday the 16th. As prices moved sideways and away from what little intra-day overlapping there was, it made those areas less relevant as a reference point of support.

 

The essence of a Head and Shoulders top is that the upward move has ended when the new high fails (the head) and that the time moving sideways (the Shoulders) signals distribution. That price pattern creates a Void below. Also in this example, there is a shock that occurred on the 18th and confirmed the bearishness of the bigger daily picture.

 

GetChart.aspx?PlayID=66665

 

Let's assume that you had no idea of the bearish big picture and potential for the larger decline. It's conceivable that you could have thought that prices have fallen a lot and would bounce on Friday and looked for long trades. Well that's fine, but unless the price action becomes climactic near a prior support area or there is an actual trend change on the time frame being traded (in this case the 5-min.), there would be no objective reason to buy. This is a rule all Pristine students and prop traders are taught from the start. Include it into your trading plan and it will eliminate a lot of unnecessary loses.

 

I hope this COTW has helped you understand why prices moved as they did on Friday and see that the commonplace indicator based mythology is unnecessary and misleading.

 

I will be presenting a Free Workshop on Tuesday October 30th. At it I will be discussing what we covered today and other Pristine trading strategies. It will be similar to the coaching sessions I do with students and hope to talk to you there.

All the best,

 

Greg Capra

President & CEO

Pristine Capital Holdings, Inc.

pristine-logo-small.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Similar Content

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Date : 28th January 2020. New Homes Sales add to the woes 28th January 2020.USA30, H1US new home sales dipped -0.4% in December to a 694k pace, after November’s revised -1.1% drop to 697k (was 719k). October was bumped down to 705k, versus 710k. This is the lowest since July. Sales were at a 564k rate last December. Regionally, sales declined in the Northeast and South, and rose in the Midwest and West. The month’s supply of homes rose to 5.7 from 5.5 (revised from 5.4). The median sales prices increased 3.3% to $331,400 after November’s -0.8% slide to $320,900 (revised from $330,800). That’s a +0.5% y/y clip versus 4.0% y/y in November (revised from 7.2% y/y). The drop in sales and downward revisions are a disappointment. Housing was a significant plus point for the US economy in 2019.US equities are sharply lower, following on the heels of the plunge in stocks globally on heightened worries over the spreading coronavrius and concern about slowing global economic growth. The USA100 trades 1.76% lower at 9150, the USA500 is 1.41% lower at 3249 with the USA30 is down over 400 points (1.4%) at 28,586, from the breach of the 200-period moving average on Fridays close.Always trade with strict risk management. Your capital is the single most important aspect of your trading business.Please note that times displayed based on local time zone and are from time of writing this report.Click HERE to access the full HotForex Economic calendar.Want to learn to trade and analyse the markets? Join our webinars and get analysis and trading ideas combined with better understanding on how markets work. Click HERE to register for FREE!Click HERE to READ more Market news. Stuart Cowell Head Market Analyst HotForex Disclaimer: This material is provided as a general marketing communication for information purposes only and does not constitute an independent investment research. Nothing in this communication contains, or should be considered as containing, an investment advice or an investment recommendation or a solicitation for the purpose of buying or selling of any financial instrument. All information provided is gathered from reputable sources and any information containing an indication of past performance is not a guarantee or reliable indicator of future performance. Users acknowledge that any investment in FX and CFDs products is characterized by a certain degree of uncertainty and that any investment of this nature involves a high level of risk for which the users are solely responsible and liable. We assume no liability for any loss arising from any investment made based on the information provided in this communication. This communication must not be reproduced or further distributed without our prior written permission.
    • You have a low IQ rating. Unfortunately there is no cure Hope this helps
    • WARNING- If you have been the victim of a scam you do not possess the basic skills required to trade successfully in the first place Period. End of Discussion. This applies to well in excess of 80% of you here period end of discussion the statistics remain constant Period end of discussion. Most dumb ordinary people (but particularly fat stupid americans ) are too thick to do much beyond work at burger joint PERIOD END OF DISCUSSION MOST TRADERS LOSE PERIOD End of discussion Dont forget to like and subscribe Order of stupidity on traderslobotomy 1-fat stupid americans 2 Asians 3 East europeans Period end of discussion Order of website by useful information rating 1-This video is no longer available 2- Please check your internet connection 3 345 Billion other 4 TRADERS LOBOTOMY Period end of discussion    
    • Online Trading Scams   4-6 minutes Home Features   Online trading scams are a most specious type of fraud, combining the safety of online anonymity with the high personal importance of your investments. Imagine your 401(k) disappearing in a second because a shifty online presence claimed it could offer you enticing returns on investment. Here are a few examples of online stock trading scams so you can keep yourself out of hawk from financial fraud. Image 1 of 1 Fraudulent Pre-IPO Investing In this type of online trading scam, an investor buys a stake in a company before its initial public offering (IPO) of securities. There is a high level of risk in any pre-IPO investment, but an investor can face several pitfalls in this situation. First, the offering may be illegitimate. Any company that wants to sell securities to the public must file the transaction with the SEC or qualify for an exemption. If this has not happened, you could lose your total investment. Second, the company may never actually go public. Fraudsters may use the IPO's hype to lure investors and gain money without going public. The best way to avoid this type of online trading scam is similar to other scams: investigate. Knowing more about the company will give you better insight as to whether the offer is legitimate or fraudulent. Research the company. What services or products does it provide? Can you access the company's financials? Review the management team. A history of SEC investigations and unhappy investors is a bad sign. Take the time to do the homework and you'll find yourself in a safer position. Ponzi Schemes A good, old-fashioned Ponzi scheme is easier to pull off online these days, making it a common and lucrative online trading scam. A classic Ponzi scheme goes like this: An advertisement is placed that proclaims a "high-yield investment program" where investors buy stakes in a scheme that takes advantage of their lack of investing experience and knowledge. When the initial investment plus returns is dispersed, the investors are likely to reinvest. The returns, however, are actually the initial investments paid by new entrants, not profits made from real investments. Online, anonymity protects Ponzi-scheme promoters, making it easy for them to disappear when the scheme ends. This type of online trading scam preys on investor ignorance. Investors are lured by promises of high returns that appear real, and tricky transfers to new schemes give the illusion that the account is solvent. Keep out of this kind of scam by investigating the promoter. Find out if the investment is registered with the SEC. Arm yourself with knowledge about this type of scams. Remember, if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Pump and Dump Schemes This type of online trading scam leads to overvalued stocks from misleading statements and promises of insider tips. In a pump and dump scheme, a promoter issues a call for investors to buy a stock because the promoter knows something special about the company (the pump). Then, as investors buy into a stock and inflate the price, the fraudsters cash out on their original shares (the dump). This type of scam is commonly seen on the internet, where message boards can catch fire with promises of fast returns and insider info. When the fraudsters dump their stocks, the average investors lose their money as the stock devalues quickly. As with any other online trading scam, remain skeptical. Don't buy into an investment too rashly, and take standard analysis like company profiles and financial statements into account. Investigate the promoter. What does he have to gain from your investment? Verify claims independently; don't rely on one source. If you believe you've stumbled upon an online trading scam, don't invest. Take a moment to view the fund or investment from all angles and determine whether you've found a legitimate venture. Check credentials and research sources. The best way to avoid an online trading scam is to be knowledgeable. At TopTenREVIEWS We Do the Research So You Don't Have To.  Disclaimer: We provide this information as an analysis of the most up-to-date sources, but we do not attempt to interpret SEC regulations. If you need any clarifications on any of the laws or rules presented in this article, it's best to notify an attorney who specializes in securities law.
    • Due to overwhelming demand.. Adhesion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia     Jump to navigation Jump to search For other uses, see Adhesion (disambiguation).   Dew drops adhering to a spider web Play media   Adhesion of a frog on a wet vertical glass surface. IUPAC definition Process of attachment of a substance to the surface of another substance. Note 1: Adhesion requires energy that can come from chemical and/or physical linkages, the latter being reversible when enough energy is applied. Note 2: In biology, adhesion reflects the behavior of cells shortly after contact to the surface. Note 3: In surgery, adhesion is used when two tissues fuse unexpectedly.[1] Adhesion is the tendency of dissimilar particles or surfaces to cling to one another (cohesion refers to the tendency of similar or identical particles/surfaces to cling to one another). The forces that cause adhesion and cohesion can be divided into several types. The intermolecular forces responsible for the function of various kinds of stickers and sticky tape fall into the categories of chemical adhesion, dispersive adhesion, and diffusive adhesion. In addition to the cumulative magnitudes of these intermolecular forces, there are also certain emergent mechanical effects. Contents 1 Surface energy 2 Mechanisms 2.1 Mechanical 2.2 Chemical 2.3 Dispersive 2.4 Electrostatic 2.5 Diffusive 3 Strength 4 Other effects 4.1 Stringing 4.2 Microstructures 4.3 Hysteresis 4.4 Wettability and adsorption 4.5 Lateral adhesion 5 See also 6 References 7 Further reading Surface energy   Diagram of various cases of cleavage, with each unique species labeled. A: γ = (1/2)W11 B: W12 = γ1 + γ2 – γ12 C: γ12 = (1/2)W121 = (1/2)W212 D: W12 + W33 – W13 – W23 = W132. Surface energy is conventionally defined as the work that is required to build an area of a particular surface. Another way to view the surface energy is to relate it to the work required to cleave a bulk sample, creating two surfaces. If the new surfaces are identical, the surface energy γ of each surface is equal to half the work of cleavage, W: γ = (1/2)W11. If the surfaces are unequal, the Young-Dupré equation applies: W12 = γ1 + γ2 – γ12, where γ1 and γ2 are the surface energies of the two new surfaces, and γ12 is the interfacial energy. This methodology can also be used to discuss cleavage that happens in another medium: γ12 = (1/2)W121 = (1/2)W212. These two energy quantities refer to the energy that is needed to cleave one species into two pieces while it is contained in a medium of the other species. Likewise for a three species system: γ13 + γ23 – γ12 = W12 + W33 – W13 – W23 = W132, where W132 is the energy of cleaving species 1 from species 2 in a medium of species 3.[2] A basic understanding of the terminology of cleavage energy, surface energy, and surface tension is very helpful for understanding the physical state and the events that happen at a given surface, but as discussed below, the theory of these variables also yields some interesting effects that concern the practicality of adhesive surfaces in relation to their surroundings.[2] Mechanisms There is no single theory covering adhesion, and particular mechanisms are specific to particular material scenarios. Five mechanisms of adhesion have been proposed to explain why one material sticks to another: Mechanical Adhesive materials fill the voids or pores of the surfaces and hold surfaces together by interlocking. Other interlocking phenomena are observed on different length scales. Sewing is an example of two materials forming a large scale mechanical bond, velcro forms one on a medium scale, and some textile adhesives (glue) form one at a small scale. Chemical Two materials may form a compound at the joint. The strongest joints are where atoms of the two materials share or swap electrons (known respectively as covalent bonding or ionic bonding). A weaker bond is formed if a hydrogen atom in one molecule is attracted to an atom of nitrogen, oxygen, or fluorine in another molecule, a phenomenon called hydrogen bonding. Chemical adhesion occurs when the surface atoms of two separate surfaces form ionic, covalent, or hydrogen bonds. The engineering principle behind chemical adhesion in this sense is fairly straightforward: if surface molecules can bond, then the surfaces will be bonded together by a network of these bonds. It bears mentioning that these attractive ionic and covalent forces are effective over only very small distances – less than a nanometer. This means in general not only that surfaces with the potential for chemical bonding need to be brought very close together, but also that these bonds are fairly brittle, since the surfaces then need to be kept close together.[3] Dispersive Main article: Dispersive adhesion In dispersive adhesion, also known as physisorption, two materials are held together by van der Waals forces: the attraction between two molecules, each of which has a region of slight positive and negative charge. In the simple case, such molecules are therefore polar with respect to average charge density, although in larger or more complex molecules, there may be multiple "poles" or regions of greater positive or negative charge. These positive and negative poles may be a permanent property of a molecule (Keesom forces) or a transient effect which can occur in any molecule, as the random movement of electrons within the molecules may result in a temporary concentration of electrons in one region (London forces).   Cohesion causes water to form drops, surface tension causes them to be nearly spherical, and adhesion keeps the drops in place.   Water droplets are flatter on a Hibiscus flower which shows better adhesion. In surface science, the term adhesion almost always refers to dispersive adhesion. In a typical solid-liquid-gas system (such as a drop of liquid on a solid surrounded by air) the contact angle is used to evaluate adhesiveness indirectly, while a Centrifugal Adhesion Balance allows for direct quantitative adhesion measurements. Generally, cases where the contact angle is low are considered of higher adhesion per unit area. This approach assumes that the lower contact angle corresponds to a higher surface energy.[4] Theoretically, the more exact relation between contact angle and work of adhesion is more involved and is given by the Young-Dupre equation. The contact angle of the three-phase system is a function not only of dispersive adhesion (interaction between the molecules in the liquid and the molecules in the solid) but also cohesion (interaction between the liquid molecules themselves). Strong adhesion and weak cohesion results in a high degree of wetting, a lyophilic condition with low measured contact angles. Conversely, weak adhesion and strong cohesion results in lyophobic conditions with high measured contact angles and poor wetting. London dispersion forces are particularly useful for the function of adhesive devices, because they don't require either surface to have any permanent polarity. They were described in the 1930s by Fritz London, and have been observed by many researchers. Dispersive forces are a consequence of statistical quantum mechanics. London theorized that attractive forces between molecules that cannot be explained by ionic or covalent interaction can be caused by polar moments within molecules. Multipoles could account for attraction between molecules having permanent multipole moments that participate in electrostatic interaction. However, experimental data showed that many of the compounds observed to experience van der Waals forces had no multipoles at all. London suggested that momentary dipoles are induced purely by virtue of molecules being in proximity to one another. By solving the quantum mechanical system of two electrons as harmonic oscillators at some finite distance from one another, being displaced about their respective rest positions and interacting with each other's fields, London showed that the energy of this system is given by: E=3hν−34hνα2R6{\displaystyle E=3h\nu -{\frac {3}{4}}{\frac {h\nu \alpha ^{2}}{R^{6}}}} While the first term is simply the zero-point energy, the negative second term describes an attractive force between neighboring oscillators. The same argument can also be extended to a large number of coupled oscillators, and thus skirts issues that would negate the large scale attractive effects of permanent dipoles cancelling through symmetry, in particular. The additive nature of the dispersion effect has another useful consequence. Consider a single such dispersive dipole, referred to as the origin dipole. Since any origin dipole is inherently oriented so as to be attracted to the adjacent dipoles it induces, while the other, more distant dipoles are not correlated with the original dipole by any phase relation (thus on average contributing nothing), there is a net attractive force in a bulk of such particles. When considering identical particles, this is called cohesive force.[5] When discussing adhesion, this theory needs to be converted into terms relating to surfaces. If there is a net attractive energy of cohesion in a bulk of similar molecules, then cleaving this bulk to produce two surfaces will yield surfaces with a dispersive surface energy, since the form of the energy remain the same. This theory provides a basis for the existence of van der Waals forces at the surface, which exist between any molecules having electrons. These forces are easily observed through the spontaneous jumping of smooth surfaces into contact. Smooth surfaces of mica, gold, various polymers and solid gelatin solutions do not stay apart when their separating becomes small enough – on the order of 1–10 nm. The equation describing these attractions was predicted in the 1930s by De Boer and Hamaker:[3] Parea=−A24πz3{\displaystyle {\frac {P}{area}}=-{\frac {A}{24\pi z^{3}}}} where P is the force (negative for attraction), z is the separation distance, and A is a material-specific constant called the Hamaker constant.   The two stages of PDMS microstructure collapse due to van der Waals attractions. The PDMS stamp is indicated by the hatched region, and the substrate is indicated by the shaded region. A) The PDMS stamp is placed on a substrate with the "roof" elevated. B) Van der Waals attractions make roof collapse energetically favorable for PDMS stamp. The effect is also apparent in experiments where a polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) stamp is made with small periodic post structures. The surface with the posts is placed face down on a smooth surface, such that the surface area in between each post is elevated above the smooth surface, like a roof supported by columns. Because of these attractive dispersive forces between the PDMS and the smooth substrate, the elevated surface – or “roof” – collapses down onto the substrate without any external force aside from the van der Waals attraction.[6] Simple smooth polymer surfaces – without any microstructures – are commonly used for these dispersive adhesive properties. Decals and stickers that adhere to glass without using any chemical adhesives are fairly common as toys and decorations and useful as removable labels because they do not rapidly lose their adhesive properties, as do sticky tapes that use adhesive chemical compounds. It is important to note that these forces also act over very small distances – 99% of the work necessary to break van der Waals bonds is done once surfaces are pulled more than a nanometer apart.[3] As a result of this limited motion in both the van der Waals and ionic/covalent bonding situations, practical effectiveness of adhesion due to either or both of these interactions leaves much to be desired. Once a crack is initiated, it propagates easily along the interface because of the brittle nature of the interfacial bonds.[7] As an additional consequence, increasing surface area often does little to enhance the strength of the adhesion in this situation. This follows from the aforementioned crack failure – the stress at the interface is not uniformly distributed, but rather concentrated at the area of failure.[3] Electrostatic Some conducting materials may pass electrons to form a difference in electrical charge at the joint. This results in a structure similar to a capacitor and creates an attractive electrostatic force between the materials. Diffusive Some materials may merge at the joint by diffusion. This may occur when the molecules of both materials are mobile and soluble in each other. This would be particularly effective with polymer chains where one end of the molecule diffuses into the other material. It is also the mechanism involved in sintering. When metal or ceramic powders are pressed together and heated, atoms diffuse from one particle to the next. This joins the particles into one.   The interface is indicated by the dotted line. A) Non-crosslinked polymers are somewhat free to diffuse across the interface. One loop and two distal tails are seen diffusing. B) Crosslinked polymers not free enough to diffuse. C) "Scissed" polymers very free, with many tails extending across the interface. Diffusive forces are somewhat like mechanical tethering at the molecular level. Diffusive bonding occurs when species from one surface penetrate into an adjacent surface while still being bound to the phase of their surface of origin. One instructive example is that of polymer-on-polymer surfaces. Diffusive bonding in polymer-on-polymer surfaces is the result of sections of polymer chains from one surface interdigitating with those of an adjacent surface. The freedom of movement of the polymers has a strong effect on their ability to interdigitate, and hence, on diffusive bonding. For example, cross-linked polymers are less capable of diffusion and interdigitation because they are bonded together at many points of contact, and are not free to twist into the adjacent surface. Uncrosslinked polymers (thermoplastics), on the other hand are freer to wander into the adjacent phase by extending tails and loops across the interface. Another circumstance under which diffusive bonding occurs is “scission”. Chain scission is the cutting up of polymer chains, resulting in a higher concentration of distal tails. The heightened concentration of these chain ends gives rise to a heightened concentration of polymer tails extending across the interface. Scission is easily achieved by ultraviolet irradiation in the presence of oxygen gas, which suggests that adhesive devices employing diffusive bonding actually benefit from prolonged exposure to heat/light and air. The longer such a device is exposed to these conditions, the more tails are scissed and branch out across the interface. Once across the interface, the tails and loops form whatever bonds are favorable. In the case of polymer-on-polymer surfaces, this means more van der Waals forces. While these may be brittle, they are quite strong when a large network of these bonds is formed. The outermost layer of each surface plays a crucial role in the adhesive properties of such interfaces, as even a tiny amount of interdigitation – as little as one or two tails of 1.25 angstrom length – can increase the van der Waals bonds by an order of magnitude.[8] Strength The strength of the adhesion between two materials depends on which of the above mechanisms occur between the two materials, and the surface area over which the two materials contact. Materials that wet against each other tend to have a larger contact area than those that do not. Wetting depends on the surface energy of the materials. Low surface energy materials such as polyethylene, polypropylene, polytetrafluoroethylene and polyoxymethylene are difficult to bond without special surface preparation. Another factor determining the strength of an adhesive contact is its shape. Adhesive contacts of complex shape begin to detach at the "edges" of the contact area[9]. The process of destruction of adhesive contacts can be seen in the film[10]. Other effects In concert with the primary surface forces described above, there are several circumstantial effects in play. While the forces themselves each contribute to the magnitude of the adhesion between the surfaces, the following play a crucial role in the overall strength and reliability of an adhesive device. Stringing   Fingering process. The hatched area is the receiving substrate, the dotted strip is the tape, and the shaded area in between is the adhesive chemical layer. The arrow indicates the direction of propagation for the fracture. Stringing is perhaps the most crucial of these effects, and is often seen on adhesive tapes. Stringing occurs when a separation of two surfaces is beginning and molecules at the interface bridge out across the gap, rather than cracking like the interface itself. The most significant consequence of this effect is the restraint of the crack. By providing the otherwise brittle interfacial bonds with some flexibility, the molecules that are stringing across the gap can stop the crack from propagating.[3] Another way to understand this phenomenon is by comparing it to the stress concentration at the point of failure mentioned earlier. Since the stress is now spread out over some area, the stress at any given point has less of a chance of overwhelming the total adhesive force between the surfaces. If failure does occur at an interface containing a viscoelastic adhesive agent, and a crack does propagate, it happens by a gradual process called “fingering”, rather than a rapid, brittle fracture.[7] Stringing can apply to both the diffusive bonding regime and the chemical bonding regime. The strings of molecules bridging across the gap would either be the molecules that had earlier diffused across the interface or the viscoelastic adhesive, provided that there was a significant volume of it at the interface. Microstructures The interplay of molecular scale mechanisms and hierarchical surface structures is known to result in high levels of static friction and bonding between pairs of surfaces [11]. Technologically advanced adhesive devices sometimes make use of microstructures on surfaces, such as tightly packed periodic posts. These are biomimetic technologies inspired by the adhesive abilities of the feet of various arthropods and vertebrates (most notably, geckos). By intermixing periodic breaks into smooth, adhesive surfaces, the interface acquires valuable crack-arresting properties. Because crack initiation requires much greater stress than does crack propagation, surfaces like these are much harder to separate, as a new crack has to be restarted every time the next individual microstructure is reached.[12] Hysteresis Hysteresis, in this case, refers to the restructuring of the adhesive interface over some period of time, with the result being that the work needed to separate two surfaces is greater than the work that was gained by bringing them together (W > γ1 + γ2). For the most part, this is a phenomenon associated with diffusive bonding. The more time is given for a pair of surfaces exhibiting diffusive bonding to restructure, the more diffusion will occur, the stronger the adhesion will become. The aforementioned reaction of certain polymer-on-polymer surfaces to ultraviolet radiation and oxygen gas is an instance of hysteresis, but it will also happen over time without those factors. In addition to being able to observe hysteresis by determining if W > γ1 + γ2 is true, one can also find evidence of it by performing “stop-start” measurements. In these experiments, two surfaces slide against one another continuously and occasionally stopped for some measured amount of time. Results from experiments on polymer-on-polymer surfaces show that if the stopping time is short enough, resumption of smooth sliding is easy. If, however, the stopping time exceeds some limit, there is an initial increase of resistance to motion, indicating that the stopping time was sufficient for the surfaces to restructure.[8] Wettability and adsorption Some atmospheric effects on the functionality of adhesive devices can be characterized by following the theory of surface energy and interfacial tension. It is known that γ12 = (1/2)W121 = (1/2)W212. If γ12 is high, then each species finds it favorable to cohere while in contact with a foreign species, rather than dissociate and mix with the other. If this is true, then it follows that when the interfacial tension is high, the force of adhesion is weak, since each species does not find it favorable to bond to the other. The interfacial tension of a liquid and a solid is directly related to the liquid's wettability (relative to the solid), and thus one can extrapolate that cohesion increases in non-wetting liquids and decreases in wetting liquids. One example that verifies this is polydimethyl siloxane rubber, which has a work of self-adhesion of 43.6 mJ/m2 in air, 74 mJ/m2 in water (a nonwetting liquid) and 6 mJ/m2 in methanol (a wetting liquid). This argument can be extended to the idea that when a surface is in a medium with which binding is favorable, it will be less likely to adhere to another surface, since the medium is taking up the potential sites on the surface that would otherwise be available to adhere to another surface. Naturally this applies very strongly to wetting liquids, but also to gas molecules that could adsorb onto the surface in question, thereby occupying potential adhesion sites. This last point is actually fairly intuitive: Leaving an adhesive exposed to air too long gets it dirty, and its adhesive strength will decrease. This is observed in the experiment: when mica is cleaved in air, its cleavage energy, W121 or Wmica/air/mica, is smaller than the cleavage energy in vacuum, Wmica/vac/mica, by a factor of 13.[3] Lateral adhesion Lateral adhesion is the adhesion associated with sliding one object on a substrate such as sliding a drop on a surface. When the two objects are solids, either with or without a liquid between them, the lateral adhesion is described as friction. However, the behavior of lateral adhesion between a drop and a surface is tribologically very different from friction between solids, and the naturally adhesive contact between a flat surface and a liquid drop makes the lateral adhesion in this case, an individual field. Lateral adhesion can be measured using the centrifugal adhesion balance (CAB),[13][14] which uses a combination of centrifugal and gravitational forces to decouple the normal and lateral forces in the problem. See also Adhesive Adhesive bonding Bacterial adhesin Capillary action Cell adhesion Contact mechanics Fracture mechanics Galling Insect adhesion Meniscus Mucoadhesion Pressure-sensitive adhesive Rail adhesion Synthetic setae Cohesion number References   Vert, Michel; Doi, Yoshiharu; Hellwich, Karl-Heinz; Hess, Michael; Hodge, Philip; Kubisa, Przemyslaw; Rinaudo, Marguerite; Schué, François (2012). "Terminology for biorelated polymers and applications (IUPAC Recommendations 2012)" (PDF). Pure and Applied Chemistry. 84 (2): 377–410. doi:10.1351/PAC-REC-10-12-04.   J. N. Israelachvili, Intermolecular and Surface Forces (Academic Press, New York, 1985). chap. 15.   K. Kendall (1994). "Adhesion: Molecules and Mechanics". Science. 263 (5154): 1720–5. doi:10.1126/science.263.5154.1720. PMID 17795378.   Laurén, Susanna. "What is required for good adhesion?". blog.biolinscientific.com. Retrieved 2019-12-31.   F. London, "The General Theory of Molecular Forces" (1936).   Y. Y. Huang; Zhou, Weixing; Hsia, K. J.; Menard, Etienne; Park, Jang-Ung; Rogers, John A.; Alleyne, Andrew G. (2005). "Stamp Collapse in Soft Lithography" (PDF). Langmuir. 21 (17): 8058–68. doi:10.1021/la0502185. PMID 16089420.   Bi-min Zhang Newby, Manoj K. Chaudhury and Hugh R. Brown (1995). "Macroscopic Evidence of the Effect of Interfacial Slippage on Adhesion" (PDF). Science. 269 (5229): 1407–9. doi:10.1126/science.269.5229.1407. PMID 17731150.   N. Maeda; Chen, N; Tirrell, M; Israelachvili, JN (2002). "Adhesion and Friction Mechanisms of Polymer-on-Polymer Surfaces". Science. 297 (5580): 379–82. doi:10.1126/science.1072378. PMID 12130780.   Popov, Valentin L.; Pohrt, Roman; Li, Qiang (2017-09-01). "Strength of adhesive contacts: Influence of contact geometry and material gradients". Friction. 5 (3): 308–325. doi:10.1007/s40544-017-0177-3. ISSN 2223-7690.   Friction Physics (2017-12-06), Science friction: Adhesion of complex shapes, retrieved 2017-12-30   Static Friction at Fractal Interfaces Tribology International 2016, Volume 93   A. Majmuder; Ghatak, A.; Sharma, A. (2007). "Microfluidic Adhesion Induced by Subsurface Microstructures". Science. 318 (5848): 258–61. doi:10.1126/science.1145839. PMID 17932295.   Tadmor, Rafael (2009). "Measurement of Lateral Adhesion Forces at the Interface between a Liquid Drop and a Substrate". Physical Review Letters. 103 (26): 266101. doi:10.1103/physrevlett.103.266101. PMID 20366322.   Tadmor, Rafael; Das, Ratul; Gulec, Semih; Liu, Jie; E. N’guessan, Hartmann; Shah, Meet; S. Wasnik, Priyanka; Yadav, Sakshi B. (2017-04-18). "Solid–Liquid Work of Adhesion". Langmuir. 33 (15): 3594–3600. doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b04437. ISSN 0743-7463. PMID 28121158. Further reading
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.