Talk:Ultrahydrophobicity

Recommendations

The lotus effect describes the physical self-cleaning ability of lotus leaves, or any surfaces that may exhibit superhydrophobic characteristics. Superhydrophobicity, on the other hand, is a definition of a characteristic, not an effect. Thus, I recommend two things: 1. Change the title from superhydrophobe to superhydrophobicity. It's a surface characteristic, not an object. 2. I vote against the merge between this article with the lotus effect article. A link between the two, however, would be ideal.

2nd opinion: The lotus effect is a natural phenomenon in the topic of wetting, spreading. Superhydrophobicity is also part of these studies but contains two approaches: natural and artificial superhydrophobicity. Natural superhydrophobicity can be described shortly, the artificial surfaces are under investigation and being invented and improved at the moment. In my opinion due to this the Lotus effect should be a chapter in superhydrophobicity.

There is a discrepancy between the hydrophobe and the superhydrophobe articles, mainly the inequality that must be true for the Cassie-Baxter state to exist is different. In this article the inequality is cos θ < (φ–1)/(r–φ) and in the hydrophobe article the inequality is cos θ > (φ–1 )/(r–φ). Which is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

updating the page

hello,

I'm currently in the process of updating this page for a class project. I have a draft of some changes I made, currently on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Widhnwlas/superhydrophobe

changes: I added more onto the theory about a useful model to determine whether or not the droplet will maintain a cassie-baxter or wenzel state, along with a prediction of the new advancing/receding contact angles (reference 9)

in addition, I added more information:

added a few paragraphs about tunable wettability (2nd and 3rd paragraphs in recent research) references 19 and 20

Added more to the first paragraph of potential applications, references 25 and 26

let me know if there's things I need to change or possibly where more information is needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Widhnwlas (talk • contribs) 02:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to merge. --KarlB (talk) 02:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Oppose. I disagree with merge because Lotus effect is just one of the example of superdydrophobic surface that can be observed in nature. So it would be better to have two seperate articles for each of them.--Aliwiki (talk) 12:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak oppose, per above. In particular, superhydrophobe talks about the theoretical basis of the effect and non-biological structures that can reproduce it. Lotus effect mostly refers to examples found in nature. Making this distinction clearer in both articles (assuming it's supported by external references) would help. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ultrahydrophobicity. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930222543/http://home.wanadoo.nl/scslai/lotus.pdf to http://home.wanadoo.nl/scslai/lotus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)