The evolution of conned ferro

uids
Timothy Green, Queens' college

November 28, 2008

Abstract
Ferro uid droplets are examined in conditions such that they are conned to move in a plane with a magnetic
eld perpendicular. It is found that the dynamics of the droplets are roughly in agreement with the dynamics
as proposed by Langer et. al [3]. It is suggested that a correction could be made to the force equations to
account for 'sticking' or static friction of the uid, which seems to be the dominant eect causing disagreement
between experiment and theory. It is also found that, in most circumstances, the trend to equilibrium of the
droplet perimeter could be described by a rst order rate equation.

1 Introduction 2.2 Method

Ferro uids are uids made up of small magnetic par- The method used to create the ferro uid samples was
ticles suspended by brownian motion in a surcant. to take the two clean glass slides, put a small amount
They become strongly magnetized when in a mag- of water on the lower slide in the holder, inject a small
netic eld, undergoing complex dipole interactions as amount of ferro uid with a hypodermic needle into
well as the surface tension forces normally present in the water and then place the other glass slide over
a uid. the top.

For the purposes of this experiment, we are only con- The holder and sample were then placed between the
cerned with ferro uids conned between two glass electromagets, the video recording started, and then
plates with a magnetic eld perpendicular to the the magnetic eld turned on to the level required.
plates. Langer [3] demonstrated that the dynamics of The video was then stopped when there were no more
a viscous ferro uid conned between two plates with a observable changes in the ferro uid.
perpendicular magnetic eld could be modelled purely This was repeated for varying eld strengths (see ta-
by the state of the uid droplet boundary. ble 1) and varying holder sizes (see table 2 for plate
The aim of this paper is to test the validity of these separations used).
equations of motion, as described in the theory sec-
tion, by comparing them to actual behaviour of fer-
ro uids. 2.3 Calibration

The current passing through the electromagnet was

measured by an ammeter accurate to 10mA. The
eld generated for a particular current was measured
2 Experiment by a hall probe and is illustrated in gure 2 and the
eld strengths for the currents used shown in table 1.
2.1 Apparatus and materials The plate separation h was measured with a microme-
ter accurate to 0:05mm, and is shown for particular
holder sizes in table 2.
The apparatus was set up as shown in gure 1. The
electromagnets were also cooled by water to stabi-
lize their temperature. Along with only keeping them
turned on for short periods, this should maintain the 3 Theory
temperature of the uid roughly constant and so pre-
vent changes in uid tension (as described in FerroTec
APG 513A data sheet [2]). The ferro uid has a mag- According to Langer et al (using CGS units), the sys-
netic susceptability H = 1:9 [1]. tem energy for a particular boundary arrangement is:

1
 2

Video camera, connected to

computer and screen

A Electromagnet

Glass
plates
Gap for fluid
Height h

Electromagnet

Figure 1: Apparatus setup

Tim Green 2 November 28, 2008

 3

Holder size / cm Plate gap / cm

0.2196 0.0136
0.2226 0.0166
Electromagnet current to field calibration
40
0.2498 0.0438
Magnetic field strength / mT

35
30 0.2560 0.0500
25 0.3454 0.1394
20
15 Table 2: Holder size to plate separation h
10
5
0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 Potential function Phi
Current / mA 2.5

Figure 2: Field calibration 1.5

phi(xi)
Current / mA Field / Gauss 1
400 10 77.9 6:5
500 10 96.2 6:5 0.5

600 10 114.6 6:5 0

700 10 132.9 6:5 0 2 4 6 8 10

800 10 151.2 6:5

xi

Table 1: Electromagnet current to eld strength in Figure 3: Boundary segment to segment potential
Gauss, as determined by gure 2 function, equation 3

"0 = L + "f (1)  is a uniform pressure force along the boundary that
ensures the constancy of the droplet area.
Where L is the length of the perimeter and "f is the
magnetic dipole contribution for that arrangement.
4 Results
I I
= hE
2
1 ds0 t^
t^0 (R=h)g
8 fA 2 (2)
0
"f ds
The videos of the evolving droplets for every plate sep-
aration and eld strength used were processed frame
p by frame to isolate the edges of the main droplet and
( ) = sinh 1 (1= ) +  1 + 2 (3) then recover a loop of vertices around the edge of the
droplet, as shown in gure 4. As can be seen, the al-
Where h is the plate separation, E0 = 4M0 = 4H , gorithm was largely successful, though did sometimes
A is the area within the boundary, and R is the dis- miss very thin arms such as in the bottom right frame.
tance between the two line segments. ( ) is the seg- Open loops were merged with each other to give a sin-
ment to segment potential function and is plotted in gle main loop, which was then written to le.
gure 3.
Using these and converting the force into a velocity
by assuming dominant dissapation by viscosity (ab- 5 Discussion
sorbed into the equations by a change in time coordi-
nate, such that the time evolution isn't directly com-
parable to experiment but should be self consistant), The loops as processed from the video frames were
the normal velocity U of a position s (with curvature then analysed to get the normal velocities of the ver-
) on the boundary is: tices along the boundary. Projecting each vertex
along its normal onto the loop of the next frame will
recover this, with small errors due to vertices not co-
inciding between frames exactly.
U (s) = U0 (s) +  (4)
I
U0 (s) =
E2 ^  t^[p(1 + (h=R)2 )
 + 02 ds0 R
8 1] In
(5) addition to this, a simulation was written using the
equations 4 to 6. Taking the loop from 2.5s into the
 = 1I dsU0 (s)
video as the starting conditions, the simulation was
(6) advanced for 5000 frames at constant delta.
L

Tim Green 3 November 28, 2008

 4

1.2 300 1.2 300

1 1
250 250

0.8 0.8
200 200

0.6 0.6

150 150

0.4 0.4

100 100
0.2 0.2

50 50
0 0

-0.2 0 -0.2 0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

1.2 300 1.2 300

1 1
250 250

0.8 0.8
200 200

0.6 0.6

150 150

0.4 0.4

100 100
0.2 0.2

50 50
0 0

-0.2 0 -0.2 0
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Figure 4: A demonstration of the outline nding algorithm, showing the video frames (inverted intensity) and
discovered outlines. Scale units are in cm.

Tim Green 4 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 5

5.2 Perimeter growth

Example mean U for h = 0.166mm, current = 600mA

The perimeter growth of the experimental data is

much clearer here than the rms normal velocity, indi-
0.0004

0.0002 cating that the strong noise in the rms normal velocity
is a local eect and doesn't change the overall dynam-
Mean U

ics. From the graphs it can be seen that the simulation

0

-0.0002 gets the results broadly right but often reaches equi-
librium at a dierent time to the experimental results,
and underestimates the nal perimeter in most cases.
-0.0004

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700

t
Figure 5: Example plot of the mean normal veloc-
ity versus time of an experimental video. The mean
normal velocity varies at a level well below the root
mean squared velocity, and can largely considered to
average around zero in all the experiments
We can now compare the data for normal velocities
from the experimental data and the simulation. The
In gure 10 the time of the fastest rate of decline in
the rate of increase of the perimiter (the 'knee'), which
could be considered a time characteristic of when the
system arrives at equilibrium, is plotted for simulation
versus experimental. As can be seen, the points are
roughly linearly correlated (assuming that simulation
time is indeed proportional to experimental time), in-
dicating that the simulation is getting much of the
dynamics to equilibrium correct - even if the overall
shape isn't the same.
rst check is that the mean normal velocity in the ex- In gures 11 and 12 you can see the time to equi-
perimental loops is zero - a requirement of area con- librium versus the current
owing in the electromag-
servation as shown in gure 5. The second comparison net (/ H ) for simulation and experiment with se-
is the root mean squared velocity as shown in gures ries according to the plate separation h. As you can
6 and 7, which should be similar between the two if see, the two give very similar results, with the order-
the equations of motion are correct. ing and slopes showing that the time to equilibrium
roughly decreases linearly with increasing magnetic
Following this we can look at the growth of the eld and with increasing plate separation. This can
perimeter over time for the experiment and simula- be explained as the forces on the droplet boundary
tion, as shown in gures 8 and 9. increasing with increasing H , and increasing with in-
creasing h due to the prefactor to the loop integral in
equation 2 and the potential function favouring big h
(due to R=h).
5.1 Root mean squared normal veloc-
ities
The root mean squared normal velocities of the sim-
ulations show a clear peak and fall behaviour, indi-
cating that there is initially a fast movement towards
the equilibrium after initial destabilization and then
a slow trend to converge on the actual equilibrium.
The simulation also shows 'pulsing' in the form of
a sawtooth-like function imposed over the top of the
This trend can be seen again in gures 13 and 14,
showing experimental and simulation respectively.
The two series roughly agree, except the experimen-
tal data consistently shows the equilibrium time being
slightly lower for h = 0:136mm than h = 0:166mm.
This could be due to frictional forces dominating more
than expected and preventing the droplet from fully
evolving to the expected equilibrium point. The trend
found isn't linear, but does show decreasing equilib-
rium time with increasing plate separation h and in-
trend - possibly showing how the trend to equilibrium
consists of a series of progressions to quasi-equilibrium
followed by re-destabilization, although they could be
numerical artifacts.
The r.m.s. normal velocities of the experimental data,
creasing magnetic eld.
The trends can be explained qualitatively as being
a result of the forces being larger, and so the force
towards equilibrium being greater - but there is no
appropriate dynamical theory of equilibrium to con-
however, are much noisier and don't show a very good sider. However, one simple model could be the rst
trend, though some initial peaks are visible with sig- order equilibrium equation:
nicant smoothing. This may be due to inherent
frame to frame noise in the loop-nding method that L(t) = a be ct (7)
dwarfs any actual movement, or could be an indica-
tion that the actual experimental movement to equi-
librium is at a much more constant speed - perhaps Behaviour like this is observed especially in thermally
indicating greater damping than expected. coupled systems tending towards equilibrium. Exam-

Tim Green 5 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 6

Simulated rms U for h = 0.136mm Experimental rms U for h = 0.136mm

5e-06
400mA 0.0014 400mA
500mA 500mA
4e-06 600mA 0.0012 600mA
700mA 700mA
800mA 0.001 800mA
3e-06
0.0008
2e-06 0.0006
0.0004
1e-06
0.0002
0 0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Simulated rms U for h = 0.166mm Experimental rms U for h = 0.166mm

5e-06
400mA 0.0014 400mA
500mA 500mA
4e-06 600mA 0.0012 600mA
700mA 700mA
0.001 800mA
3e-06
0.0008
2e-06 0.0006
0.0004
1e-06
0.0002
0 0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

Simulated rms U for h = 0.438mm Experimental rms U for h = 0.438mm

5e-06
400mA 0.0014 400mA
500mA 500mA
4e-06 600mA 0.0012 600mA
700mA 700mA
800mA 0.001 800mA
3e-06
0.0008
2e-06 0.0006
0.0004
1e-06
0.0002
0 0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Figure 6: Comparison of simulated rms normal velocity against experimentally determined normal velocity

Tim Green 6 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 7

Simulated rms U for h = 0.500mm Experimental rms U for h = 0.500mm

5e-06
400mA 0.0014 400mA
500mA 500mA
4e-06 600mA 0.0012 600mA
700mA 700mA
800mA 0.001 800mA
3e-06
0.0008
2e-06 0.0006
0.0004
1e-06
0.0002
0 0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Simulated rms U for h = 1.394mm Experimental rms U for h = 1.394mm

1.2e-05
400mA 0.0014 400mA
500mA 500mA
1e-05 600mA 0.0012 600mA
700mA 700mA
8e-06 0.001 800mA

6e-06 0.0008
0.0006
4e-06
0.0004
2e-06 0.0002
0 0
0 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004 0.0005 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Figure 7: Comparison of simulated rms normal velocity against experimentally determined normal velocity

Tim Green 7 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 8

Simulated perimeter vs. time for h = 0.136mm Experimental perimeter vs. time for h = 0.136mm
4.5 4.5
400mA 400mA
4 500mA 4 500mA
3.5 600mA 3.5 600mA
700mA 700mA
3 800mA 3 800mA
2.5 2.5
2 2
1.5 1.5
1 1
0.5 0.5
0 0
0.0e+00
5.0e-05
1.0e-04
1.5e-04
2.0e-04
2.5e-04
3.0e-04
3.5e-04
4.0e-04
4.5e-04
5.0e-04 0.0e+00 5.0e+01 1.0e+02 1.5e+02 2.0e+02

Simulated perimeter vs. time for h = 0.166mm Experimental perimeter vs. time for h = 0.166mm
3 3
400mA 400mA
500mA 500mA
2.5 600mA 2.5 600mA
700mA 700mA
2 2 800mA

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 5e-050.0001
0.00015
0.0002
0.00025
0.0003
0.00035
0.0004
0.00045
0.0005 0 50 100 150 200

Simulated perimeter vs. time for h = 0.438mm Experimental perimeter vs. time for h = 0.438mm
3 3
400mA 400mA
500mA 500mA
2.5 600mA 2.5 600mA
700mA 700mA
2 800mA 2 800mA

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0.0e+00
5.0e-05
1.0e-04
1.5e-04
2.0e-04
2.5e-04
3.0e-04
3.5e-04
4.0e-04
4.5e-04
5.0e-04 0.0e+00
2.0e+01
4.0e+01
6.0e+01
8.0e+01
1.0e+02
1.2e+02
1.4e+02
1.6e+02
1.8e+02

Figure 8: Comparison of simulated perimeter growth against experimentally determined perimeter growth

Tim Green 8 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 9

Simulated perimeter vs. time for h = 0.500mm Experimental perimeter vs. time for h = 0.500mm
3 3
400mA 400mA
500mA 500mA
2.5 600mA 2.5 600mA
700mA 700mA
2 800mA 2 800mA

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0.0e+00
5.0e-05
1.0e-04
1.5e-04
2.0e-04
2.5e-04
3.0e-04
3.5e-04
4.0e-04
4.5e-04
5.0e-04 0.0e+002.0e+014.0e+016.0e+018.0e+011.0e+021.2e+021.4e+02

Simulated perimeter vs. time for h = 1.394mm Experimental perimeter vs. time for h = 1.394mm
1.8 1.8
400mA 400mA
1.6 500mA 1.6 500mA
1.4 600mA 600mA
700mA 1.4 700mA
1.2 800mA
1.2
1
1
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4 0.6
0.2 0.4
0 0.2
0.0e+00
5.0e-05
1.0e-04
1.5e-04
2.0e-04
2.5e-04
3.0e-04
3.5e-04
4.0e-04
4.5e-04
5.0e-04 0.0e+00 2.0e+01 4.0e+01 6.0e+01 8.0e+01 1.0e+02

Figure 9: Comparison of simulated perimeter growth against experimentally determined perimeter growth

Tim Green 9 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 10

250
0.136mm
0.166mm
0.438mm
0.500mm
200 1.394mm
Experimental equilibrium time / s

150

100

50

0
0.0e+00 5.0e-05 1.0e-04 1.5e-04 2.0e-04 2.5e-04 3.0e-04 3.5e-04 4.0e-04 4.5e-04
Simulated equilibrium time / arbitrary time

Figure 10: Comparison of time to equilibrium in the experiment and simulation. There is a rough linear trend
apparent, as expected if the simulation is to replicate the dynamics to equilibrium

250
0.136mm
0.166mm
0.438mm
200 0.500m
1.394mm
0.136mm fit
0.166mm fit
150 0.438mm fit
Equilibrium time

0.500mm fit
1.394 fit

100

50

-50
4.0e+02 4.5e+02 5.0e+02 5.5e+02 6.0e+02 6.5e+02 7.0e+02 7.5e+02 8.0e+02
Current / mA

Figure 11: Time to equilibrium in the experiment versus the current in the electromagnet, with trendlines for
each plate separation h

Tim Green 10 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 11

0.00045
0.136mm
0.166mm
0.0004 0.438mm
0.500mm
0.00035 1.394mm
0.136mm fit
0.0003 0.166mm fit
0.438mm fit
Equilibrium time

0.500mm fit
0.00025 1.394 fit

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

5e-05

-5e-05
4.0e+02 4.5e+02 5.0e+02 5.5e+02 6.0e+02 6.5e+02 7.0e+02 7.5e+02 8.0e+02
Current / mA

Figure 12: Time to equilibrium in the simulation versus the current in the electromagnet, with trendlines for
each plate separation h

250
400mA
500mA
600mA
700mA
200 800mA
Equilibrium time

150

100

50

0
0.0e+00 2.0e-01 4.0e-01 6.0e-01 8.0e-01 1.0e+00 1.2e+00 1.4e+00
Plate separation / mm

Figure 13: Time to equilibrium in the experiment versus the plate separation h

Tim Green 11 November 28, 2008

5.2 Perimeter growth 12

0.00045
400mA
500mA
0.0004 600mA
700mA
0.00035 800mA

0.0003
Equilibrium time

0.00025

0.0002

0.00015

0.0001

5e-05

0
0.0e+00 2.0e-01 4.0e-01 6.0e-01 8.0e-01 1.0e+00 1.2e+00 1.4e+00
Plate separation / mm

Figure 14: Time to equilibrium in the simulation versus the plate separation h

Simulated h = 0.166mm, I = 600mA Simulated h = 0.500mm, I = 700mA

2.2 1.3

2 1.2
1.8 1.1
1.6
1
1.4
Perimeter / cm

Perimeter / cm

0.9
1.2
0.8
1
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4 0.5

0.2 0.4

0 0.3
0 5e-05 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004 0.00045 0.0005 0 5e-05 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004 0.00045 0.0005
t t

Simulated h = 1.394mm, I = 500mA Experimental h = 0.438mm, I = 700mA

0.38 2.5

0.37
2
0.36
Perimeter / cm

Perimeter / cm

1.5
0.35

0.34
1

0.33
0.5
0.32

0.31 0
0 5e-05 0.0001 0.00015 0.0002 0.00025 0.0003 0.00035 0.0004 0.00045 0.0005 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
t t

Figure 15: Demonstration of ts of equation 7 to perimeter growth in three simulations and one experiment

Tim Green 12 November 28, 2008

 13

ples of tting this behaviour to the perimeter vs. time gests that the resulting rough structure of the droplet
is shown in gure 15. As you can see, it ts well for in terms of arms is relatively stable for given starting
the top two examples, but poorly for the third trend. conditions, as suggested in Langer 1992's examination
This could be due to a more complex interaction that of the growth rates of modes by varying bond num-
only becomes apparent for larger h, das h = 1:394mm ber (a expression of the ratio between magnetization,
does t the trend L(t) = a be (tc) to a higher ac- 2 2
plate separation and surface tension Nbo = 2M
0 h ).
curacy.
The t parameter c, which may be considered the rate
of convergence, is shown in gure 16 plotted against 6 Conclusion
current and plate separation. This might be expected
to give similar results to gures 12 and 14 - though
there is signicant variation. This may be due to dif- The experiment and theoretical simulation largely
culties in tting properly, especially as the model agree for equilibrium dynamics and the overall struc-
doesn't account for the start of the destabilization, ture of the droplets formed, but fail to precisely repli-
only the trend to equilibrium. cate the results found. We might not expect precise
agreement due to the unstable nature of the dynam-
ics, but a number of issues such as the 'sticking' of
5.3 Comparison of actual shapes ver- the boundaries and the failure for the simulation to
sus simulated theory
develop the small, fast arms seen in experiments in-
dicate that experiment does deviate from theory.
As a nal part we can look at the theoretical predic- One possible modication would be a non-linear law
tions of the shapes evolved versus the experimental on the boundary force (velocity) that reduced the ef-
shapes in order to determine where the two might di- fectiveness for lower forces in moving the boundary,
verge. Figures 17 to 21 in Appendix A show the video for example U = F 1:5 . This might be tuned by look-
captures initial state, nal state, and the simulated - ing at a distribution of the normal velocities found
nal state when started from the same initial state with from the experimental videos, and determining if a
the experimentally measured conditions (H , h, etc.). population of a particular normal velocity has been
shifted to a lower range compared to the simulation.
It's apparent that the simulated nal states share
many features with the experimental nal states, such It's also been shown that the trend to equilibrium
as the number and positions of arms and the widths
of arms. This can be explained as the initial desta-
bilizations progressing in the same way for both ex-
periment and theory, and the resulting force balance
being similar. However, it is also apparent that the
simulation gives much smoother and bulbous ended
droplets compared to experiment. The experimental
data tends to show the main boundaries not moving
much, and smaller arms punching out and travelling
a long distance, while the simulated data shows the
could be described by a rst order rate equation,
though further investigation into this would likely
need a theoretical model for the trend to equilibrium.
In addition, the image recognition could be improved
to ensure that all of the droplets are recognized (an
increase in camera resolution would help here, espe-
cially with the boundaries of small droplets only a few
pixels across) and the force code improved to consider
loop to loop interactions - which may be a small fac-
main boundaries smoothly deforming inwards as the tor, though likely not signicant for the results found
arms grow outwards. This could be due to a static here as the major deviations are still visible in frames
frictional adhesion of the
uid to the slides, prevent- only containing as single droplet, it will be important
ing movement below a certain force limit, or the is- for situations such as more complex labyrinths.
sues involved in moving the
uid bulk around the
droplet. This is particually apparent in gure 17 for
h = 0:136mm, showing the simulated droplets col-
uid into the water, changing the sur-
lapsing inwards into complex patterns while the ex-
perimental droplets staying stubbornly very similar -
Another possible eect would be the dissolving of
some of the ferro
face tension and so the energy balance, though that
would likely exhibit itself in higher boundary forces
especially at low elds, perhaps due to the smaller and the droplets moving quicker than expected. One
plate separation causing greatest adhesion. nal eect that might be considered is a cuto in the
assumption of 2D movement for droplets which are
A number of the simulations failed to run, particually very small compared to the plate separation. This
for the highest eld (800mA), mainly due to numeri- has largely been avoided in this investigation by us-
cal instability for larger forces. Despite this, a trend ing droplets on a similar order of size to the plate
can be seen that the simulation is more successful for separation.
higher eld strengths, suggesting that it is an issue
of overcoming the adhesion forces, though still fails We have shown that even the dynamics of a complex
to replicate the long arms often created. It also sug- non-linear system such as the conned ferro
uid can

Tim Green 13 November 28, 2008

 14

35000 35000

30000 30000

25000 25000

20000 20000
c

c
15000 15000

10000 10000

5000 5000

0 0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4
Current / mA h / mm

Figure 16: Plots of t parameter c, the rate of convergence, to the simulation perimeter growth

be reasonably modelled numerically, and the methods 10 Appendix B

used may be applicable to other such systems - such as
the dielectric uids as mentioned in Rosensweig 1983
[4]. Code for calculation of boundary forces attached.

7 Acknowledgements

I'd like to thank the project supervisor Ullrich Steiner

and fellow experimenters Adeeb Ahmed Hossain,
Richard Martin and Ruth McKinnon.

8 References

References

[1] Instability and pattern formation in ferro uids,

Michaelmas 2008.
[2] FerroTec. Ferro uid data sheet apg 500 series.
Data sheet, Nov 2007.
[3] Stephen A. Langer, Raymond E. Goldstein, and
David P. Jackson. Dynamics of labyrinthine pat-
tern. Phys. Rev. A, 46, 1992.
[4] R. E. Rosensweig. Labyrinthine instabulity in
magnetic and dielectric uids. Journal of Mag-
netism and Magnetic Materials, 39:127{132, 1983.

9 Appendix A

Demonstation of simulation results.

Tim Green 14 November 28, 2008

 15

0.5
’dyn_test/0.013600-400.000000’
’loops/0.013600-400.000000-5’
0.48 ’loops/0.013600-400.000000-268’
0.65
’dyn_test/0.013600-500.000000’
’loops/0.013600-500.000000-5’
’loops/0.013600-500.000000-165’
0.6

0.46
0.55
0.44

0.5
0.42

0.4 0.45

0.38
0.4

0.36
0.35
0.34

0.3
0.32

0.3 0.25
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05

0.75 1
’dyn_test/0.013600-600.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.013600-700.000000’
’loops/0.013600-600.000000-5’ ’loops/0.013600-700.000000-5’
’loops/0.013600-600.000000-330’ ’loops/0.013600-700.000000-226’
0.7 0.9

0.65 0.8

0.6 0.7

0.55 0.6

0.5 0.5

0.45 0.4

0.4 0.3
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

0.9
’dyn_test/0.013600-800.000000’
’loops/0.013600-800.000000-5’
’loops/0.013600-800.000000-171’
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2
0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8

Figure 17: Comparison of initial and nal video frames and nal simulation state (as started from the initial
video frame) for h = 0:136mm. Simulated nal state is shown with a solid line.

Tim Green 15 November 28, 2008

 16

0.52 0.5
’dyn_test/0.016600-400.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.016600-500.000000’
’loops/0.016600-400.000000-5’ ’loops/0.016600-500.000000-5’
’loops/0.016600-400.000000-479’ ’loops/0.016600-500.000000-371’
0.5
0.45

0.48

0.4
0.46

0.44 0.35

0.42
0.3

0.4

0.25
0.38

0.36 0.2
0.84 0.86 0.88 0.9 0.92 0.94 0.96 0.98 1 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8

0.7 0.55
’dyn_test/0.016600-600.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.016600-700.000000’
’loops/0.016600-600.000000-5’ ’loops/0.016600-700.000000-5’
0.65 ’loops/0.016600-600.000000-640’ ’loops/0.016600-700.000000-223’
0.5

0.6
0.45
0.55

0.4
0.5

0.45 0.35

0.4
0.3

0.35
0.25
0.3

0.2
0.25

0.2 0.15
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6

0.7
’loops/0.016600-800.000000-5’
’loops/0.016600-800.000000-141’

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65

Figure 18: Comparison of initial and nal video frames and nal simulation state (as started from the initial
video frame) for h = 0:166mm. Simulated nal state is shown with a solid line.

Tim Green 16 November 28, 2008

 17

0.75 0.35
’dyn_test/0.043800-400.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.043800-500.000000’
’loops/0.043800-400.000000-5’ ’loops/0.043800-500.000000-5’
’loops/0.043800-400.000000-172’ ’loops/0.043800-500.000000-178’
0.7
0.3

0.65
0.25

0.6
0.2

0.55

0.15
0.5

0.1
0.45

0.05
0.4

0.35 0
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9

0.6 0.75
’dyn_test/0.043800-600.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.043800-700.000000’
’loops/0.043800-600.000000-5’ ’loops/0.043800-700.000000-5’
’loops/0.043800-600.000000-129’ ’loops/0.043800-700.000000-159’
0.55 0.7

0.5 0.65

0.45 0.6

0.4 0.55

0.35 0.5

0.3 0.45

0.25 0.4

0.2 0.35
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8

0.85
’dyn_test/0.043800-800.000000’
’loops/0.043800-800.000000-5’
’loops/0.043800-800.000000-160’
0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45
0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1

Figure 19: Comparison of initial and nal video frames and nal simulation state (as started from the initial
video frame) for h = 0:438mm. Simulated nal state is shown with a solid line.

Tim Green 17 November 28, 2008

 18

0.65 0.65
’dyn_test/0.050000-400.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.050000-500.000000’
’loops/0.050000-400.000000-5’ ’loops/0.050000-500.000000-5’
’loops/0.050000-400.000000-276’ ’loops/0.050000-500.000000-239’
0.6 0.6

0.55
0.55

0.5
0.5

0.45
0.45
0.4

0.4
0.35

0.35
0.3

0.3 0.25

0.25 0.2
0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7

1 0.6
’dyn_test/0.050000-600.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.050000-700.000000’
’loops/0.050000-600.000000-5’ ’loops/0.050000-700.000000-5’
’loops/0.050000-600.000000-153’ ’loops/0.050000-700.000000-218’
0.55
0.9

0.5
0.8

0.45

0.7

0.4

0.6
0.35

0.5
0.3

0.4 0.25
0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1 1.05 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75

0.58
’dyn_test/0.050000-800.000000’
’loops/0.050000-800.000000-5’
’loops/0.050000-800.000000-176’
0.56

0.54

0.52

0.5

0.48

0.46

0.44

0.42
0.7 0.72 0.74 0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86

Figure 20: Comparison of initial and nal video frames and nal simulation state (as started from the initial
video frame) for h = 0:500mm. Simulated nal state is shown with a solid line.

Tim Green 18 November 28, 2008

 19

0.55 0.85
’dyn_test/0.139400-400.000000’ ’dyn_test/0.139400-500.000000’
’loops/0.139400-400.000000-5’ ’loops/0.139400-500.000000-5’
’loops/0.139400-400.000000-234’ ’loops/0.139400-500.000000-272’
0.5 0.8

0.45 0.75

0.4 0.7

0.35 0.65

0.3 0.6

0.25 0.55

0.2 0.5

0.15 0.45
0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 0.940.960.98 1 1.021.041.061.081.1

0.55
’dyn_test/0.139400-700.000000’
’loops/0.139400-700.000000-5’
’loops/0.139400-700.000000-114’

0.5

0.5 0.45
’dyn_test/0.139400-600.000000’
0.45 ’loops/0.139400-600.000000-5’
’loops/0.139400-600.000000-108’
0.4
0.4
0.35

0.3

0.25 0.35
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2

0.3

0.25
0.76 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.86 0.88

0.75
’loops/0.139400-800.000000-5’
’loops/0.139400-800.000000-109’
0.7

0.65

0.6

0.55

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

0.3
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9

Figure 21: Comparison of initial and nal video frames and nal simulation state (as started from the initial
video frame) for h = 1:394mm. Simulated nal state is shown with a solid line.

Tim Green 19 November 28, 2008

 20

\\jag84a.quns.cam.ac.uk\offloader\e1\code\loops.h 1
#pragma once
#include <vector>
#include "util.h"

struct experiment_config
{
double dx; // Pixel -> cm
double dy;

double temp;
double current;

double h; // Plate separation in mm

double H; // Field strength in Gauss
double st; // Interfacial tension of fluids dyn/cm
double chi; // Magnetization

int bpp;
};

struct vertex
{
point p;
point t;
double kappa;
double s;
double U0_m;
double U0_st;
double U;
};

void calc_surface_tension(std::vector<point> points_in, double *kappa, double *s)

{
double *xp = new double[points_in.size()];
double *xpp = new double[points_in.size()];

double *yp = new double[points_in.size()];

double *ypp = new double[points_in.size()];

std::vector<point> points;

// Smooth points
for(int i=0; i < points_in.size(); ++i)
{
// points.push_back(point((points_in[wrap(i-1, points_in.size())].x + points_in[i].x
+ points_in[wrap(i+1, points_in.size())].x) / 3.0,
// (points_in[wrap(i-1, points_in.size())].y + points_in[i].y + points_in[wrap(i+
1, points_in.size())].y) / 3.0));

points.push_back(points_in[i]);
}

//double *s = new double[points.size()];

// distance from i to i+1

for(int i=0; i < points.size(); ++i)
{
s[i] = sqrt(pow(points[i].x-points[wrap(i+1, points.size())].x, 2.0) + pow(points
[i].y-points[wrap(i+1, points.size())].y, 2.0));

// printf("%f %f\n", s[i], s[wrap(i-1, num)] + s[i]);

}

// Parameter of curve is s, such that spacing shouldn't matter

// First order
for(int i=0; i < points.size(); ++i)
{
xp[i] = (points[wrap(i+1, points.size())].x - points[wrap(i-1, points.size())].x)
/ (s[wrap(i-1, points.size())] + s[i]);
yp[i] = (points[wrap(i+1, points.size())].y - points[wrap(i-1, points.size())].y)
/ (s[wrap(i-1, points.size())] + s[i]);
}

Tim Green 20 November 28, 2008

 21

\\jag84a.quns.cam.ac.uk\offloader\e1\code\loops.h 2
// Second order
for(int i=0; i < points.size(); ++i)
{
xpp[i] = (xp[wrap(i+1, points.size())] - xp[wrap(i-1, points.size())]) / (s[wrap(i
-1, points.size())] + s[i]);
ypp[i] = (yp[wrap(i+1, points.size())] - yp[wrap(i-1, points.size())]) / (s[wrap(i
-1, points.size())] + s[i]);
}

// Line curvature
for(int i=0; i < points.size(); ++i)
{
kappa[i] = (xp[i] * ypp[i] - yp[i] * xpp[i]) / pow(xp[i]*xp[i] + yp[i]*yp[i], 1.5)
;

// Radius of curvature less than 0.01cm

//if(kappa[i] > 100.0)
// kappa[i] = 100.0;
//else if(kappa[i] < -100.0)
// kappa[i] = -100.0;
}

delete[] xp;
delete[] xpp;

delete[] yp;
delete[] ypp;
}

// Point to point on the curve

double potential_function(double xi)
{
return asinh(1.0/xi) + xi - sqrt(1.0 + xi*xi);
}

// Loop coordinates and h assumed to be in units of mm

double calc_magnetic_energy(std::vector<point> loop, double *s, double E0, double h, point
*t, double *U0_m)
{
// Work out the normalized tangent vectors first

double dx, dy, mag;

for(int i=0; i<loop.size(); ++i)

{
dx = (loop[wrap(i+1, loop.size())].x - loop[wrap(i-1, loop.size())].x) / (s[wrap(i
-1, loop.size())] + s[i]);
dy = (loop[wrap(i+1, loop.size())].y - loop[wrap(i-1, loop.size())].y) / (s[wrap(i
-1, loop.size())] + s[i]);

mag = sqrt(dx*dx + dy*dy);

t[i].x = dx / mag;
t[i].y = dy / mag;
}

// Also calculate force on each point,just for the hell of it.

// Integrate point to point on the loop

double loop_energy = 0.0;
for(int i=0; i<loop.size(); ++i)
{
double ds_i = (s[i] + s[wrap(i-1, loop.size())]) / 2.0;

//f[i].x = 0.0;
//f[i].y = 0.0;
U0_m[i] = 0.0;

for(int j=0; j<loop.size(); ++j)

{
//printf("NS %i\n", j);
if(i != j)
{
double R = sqrt(pow(loop[i].x - loop[j].x, 2.0) + pow(loop[i].y - loop[j].

Tim Green 21 November 28, 2008

 22

\\jag84a.quns.cam.ac.uk\offloader\e1\code\loops.h 3
y, 2.0));

//printf("Trying R=%e...",R);

if(R == 0.0)
continue;

// Energy
double ds_ids_j = ds_i * (s[j] + s[wrap(j-1, loop.size())]) / 2.0;

loop_energy += (t[i].x * t[j].x + t[i].y * t[j].y) * potential_function(R/

h) * ds_ids_j;

// Force
point Rv = point((loop[j].x - loop[i].x)/R, (loop[j].y - loop[i].y)/R);

double fac = E0*E0 / (8.0*PI*PI) * (sqrt(1 + pow(h/R,2.0)) - 1) * (s[j] +

s[wrap(j-1, loop.size())]) / 2.0;
double cross = (Rv.x * t[j].y - Rv.y * t[j].x);

U0_m[i] += fac * cross;

}
}
}

//printf("Blah");

return - loop_energy / 2.0 / PI;

}

void calc_forces(std::vector<point> loop, double *U, double* U0, double* U0_st, double*
U0_m, point *tan, experiment_config &config, double fudge, double fudge2, double &
length, double *s)
{
double *k = new double[loop.size()]; // curvature of element

double Pi = 0.0; // pressure correction to conserve energy, U = U0_st + U0_m + Pi

length = 0.0;

double E0 = 4.0 * PI * config.chi * config.H;

calc_surface_tension(loop, k, s); // calculates k, s

calc_magnetic_energy(loop, s, E0, config.h, tan, U0_m); // calculates t, f

for(int i=0; i<loop.size(); ++i)

{
length += s[i];
U0_st[i] = -config.st * k[i];

U0[i] = (U0_m[i]*fudge + U0_st[i]*fudge2);

// if(U0[i] < 1000.0) U0[i] = 0.0;

// U0[i] = 0.001 * U0[i] * fabs(U0[i]); nonlinear response

// if(fabs(U0[i]) < 10.0) U0[i] = 10.0 * fabs(U0[i]) / U0[i];
}

for(int i=0; i<loop.size(); ++i)

{
Pi -= U0[i] * (s[i] + s[wrap(i-1, loop.size())]) / 2.0;
}

Pi /= length;

for(int i=0; i<loop.size(); ++i)

{
U[i] = (U0[i] + Pi);
}

delete[] k;
}

Tim Green 22 November 28, 2008