Talk:Taylor cone

Merge with electrospray

I disagree with a merge with electrospray because the Taylor cone is important in areas outside mass spectrometry, notably in colloid thrusters and other hydrodyanmic spraying processes. This way we have the same physics covered once for both subjects and frees electrospray to be very mass spec centric. Also going into the Taylor cone theory in the electrospray article would be somewhat distracting.--Nick Y. 16:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Point taken. Electrospray redrects to electrospray ionization (I didn't notice that earlier). Maybe this article (Taylor cone) should be renamed electrospray and add links to Colloid thruster, etc. It definitely needs a diagram. --Kkmurray 18:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure the distinction between electrospray and electrospray ionization are really that clear. Electrospray always involves ionization. It is true that electrospray ionization is more mass spec oriented in its usage. I guess my preference is still having an electrospray article and a separate Taylor cone article. I would also note that the Taylor cone in a traditional sense (as described by Taylor) is actually the cone that forms in the limit of approaching the electrospray cone-jet mode and not really present during ESI (of course it's commonly used more broadly). I'm open minded and could see an article that includes all these subjects in one big article with a Taylor cone section and a mass spec section and a colloid thruster section and a small other hydrodynamic spraying section with redirects for all.--Nick Y. 18:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

All of the new MS images and organization are really great but I wanted to address a specific on this one. Although this particular representation is very common, I believe it to be a common misnomer. It is not completely accurate or internally consistent to refer to the cone in cone-jet mode as the Taylor cone. The angle of the "cone" is not the Taylor angle and it is not even a cone. Note that the whole angle of the "cone" appears to be approximately 49.3° not 98.6°. In other words the meaning of the Taylor angle has been misinterpreted as being the whole angle rather than the complementary angle in spherical coordinates. This misinterpretation has been propagated for many years. In cone-jet mode it is true that the whole angle of the "cone" is significantly less than 98.6 since the generatrix described by Taylor as the limit of a boundary value problem has been passed through but it not as small as depicted. I.e. the behavior is that before the Taylor cone the whole angle of what is approaching a cone shape but with convex sides is greater than 98.6°. As the threshold voltage is reached the forming cone tends to pass rapidly through the Taylor cone with the Taylor angle rapidly forming a concave sided cone-like shape and a jet. I am aware of that it is convenient and common to use the phrase "Taylor cone" for this; however I think that we should state it as such. "It is common to refer to the conical portion of the cone-jet mode as the Taylor cone despite not being a cone of the Taylor angle." --Nick Y. 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aiming for something in between this photo: nano & micro-fluid dynamics and this cartoon: ESI cartoon or this similar one lectrospray Thin Film Deposition of Macro-Molecular Materials in Vacuum (or this one Chemical Principles of Electrospray Ionization Mass Spectroscopy or this one ESI: Electrospray Ionisation). All of the ESI cartoons I can find on-line have the "pointy" angle. Is this small angle achieved with pneumatic assisted electrospray or just a misinterpretation? At any rate, I'll increase the cone angle in the cartoon when I get the chance. --Kkmurray 14:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought [1] was a very good image and would make a good basis for a cartoon. If I remember correctly Taylor's original paper had some very nice images too that are similar to this one. It included an almost perfect cone with a slightly rounded top without the jet of pretty much exactly 98.6° wide and a cone-jet image with a slightly narrower angle and slightly concave sides. If you keep applying voltage you may increase how concave the sides get and the meaning of angle becomes lost of course with the jet being essentially 0°. I tend to think that some of the cartoons exaggerate how far this can be taken at least in any sort of stable manner (before it goes into some sort of multi-jet mode). I think the people at new objective have done some good work showing this. Anyways that's my input and your plan sounds good.--Nick Y. 17:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 10:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)