Talk:Surface stress/Archive 1

Possible Copyright Violation
It seems that this article is closely related to an academic article on the subject, as it references figures which do not exist, and seems to have a very similar structure to that of the article referenced, the Progress in Materials Science article by Robert C Cammarata. As such, I have flagged this article for a possible copyright violation. Those interested in following up should contact me on my talk page. Mgibby5 (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right, actually there were figures originally, now deleted (commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Images_of_Nhonvo2), which were apparently ripped out of that paper and others. The current article seems to be a at least a Close paraphrasing of the journal articles, which is definitely not acceptable. The original user who made this article, User:Nhonvo2 (User_talk:Nhonvo2), seems to be long gone. --Nanite (talk) 03:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Definition correct? Hard to understand
The definition in the head section is hard to understand even to someone who has a technical background. Futhermore, it seems rather strange. From the name and the dimension (force over unit length) it would seem that surface stress is a two-dimensional analog of the standard stress. I was expecting a definition like this:


 *  Surface stress is the traction force that two adjacent patches of a surface exert on each other, divided by the length of the line that separates them. It is therefore a two-dimesional analog of the stress defined for three-dimensional bodies.


 * The concept of surface stress is relevant when describing stresses in objects that are very thin in one dimension compared to the other two, such as cloth or metal plate. It is also relevant for the analysis of a liquid-gas or liquid-liquid interface, which generally behaves like thin elastic membrane.

To the extent that I could understand, the definition given seems to be roughly equivalent: since work = force x distance, the energy needed to stretch an existing surface by an area dA should be stress x dA. Is this correct? But then the warning about confusion with "surface free energy" seems pointless because they are obviousy as different as pressure and energy; and the warning against confusion with "surface tension" seems unwaranted --- why aren't they the same thing? --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 05:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Is the information in Sections 3 and 4 copied from somewhere else? It's both grammatically incorrect and refers to numbered figures/tables that either don't exist or weren't inserted with the copied text. I can't fix this because I'm not familiar with this subject. I just wish the original contributor had added their source. Neurotrope (talk) 05:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This article should be obsolete
The article confuses reconstruction of a surface upon cleavage, elastic deformation by stretching, and plastic deformation (as in a liquid). The thermodynamic derivation presented here for the surface stress has been shown to be incorrect in many connections. Since, according to these references, surface stress does not exist in the meaning considered in its derivation here, this article might be deleted entirely. Altenatively, parts of the article could be included in an article discussing the resonstruction of a solid surface when created by cleaving.

RATLAM (talk) 11:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is unclear that these articles have been totally accepted by the scientific community at large; the large number of comments on the paper suggest so, along with the low numbers of citations of the followup article by Makkonen, Scripta Materialia 2012. Until the scientific community accepts these ideas, the historically-accepted ideas should remain in the article, although the copyright issues remain. I should also emphasize that citing a sciencedaily.com article when you cite the original article it discusses is redundant, and possibly deceptive as it may lead the reader to think there are more peer-reviewed articles supporting the point than actually exist. It might be a good idea to avoid such citations in the future : )Mgibby5 (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For completeness, both the definitions with area and without are "right", and so long as sufficient care is taken it does not matter which is used. Of course many have not been careful... Ldm1954 (talk) 03:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)