1: % v0  draft 2003/10/30

2: % v1  revision 2005/2/28

3: %

4: %

5: %\documentclass[twocolumn,showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

6: %\documentclass[preprint,eqsecnum,aps,floatfix,amsmath,amssymb,showpacs]{revtex4}

7: \documentclass[preprint,showkeys,eqsecnum,aps,floatfix,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}

8: %\documentclass[preprint]{tMPH2e}

9: \usepackage{graphicx}% figure files

10: \usepackage{dcolumn}% align table columns on decimal point

11: \usepackage{bm}% bold math

12: \textheight 9.0 in

13: \textwidth 6.5 in

14: \topmargin -0.5 in

15: \evensidemargin 0.0 in

16: \oddsidemargin 0.0 in

17: 

18: \begin{document}

19: \newcommand\lsim{\alt}

20: \newcommand\stress[1]{{\it#1\/}}

21: \newcommand\whatis[1]{(\ref{#1})}

22: \newcommand\ie{{\it i.e.\/}}

23: \newcommand\etal{{\it et al.\/}}

24: \def\PD#1#2{\frac{\partial#1}{\partial#2}}

25: 

26: \newcommand\Abar{\bar{A}}

27: \newcommand\Kbar{\bar{K}}

28: \newcommand\Sbr{\Sigma_{\beta|\gamma}}

29: \newcommand\Sab{\Sigma_{\alpha|\beta}}

30: \newcommand\Sabr{\Sigma_{\alpha|\beta\gamma}}

31: \newcommand\Sar{\Sigma_{\alpha|\gamma}}

32: \newcommand\mt{\widetilde m}

33: \newcommand\htilde{\tilde h}

34: \newcommand\Sm{S^\pm_M(\mt)}

35: 

36: \newcommand\celc{\hbox{\thinspace$^\circ\hbox{\rm C}$}}

37: \newcommand\stu{\hbox{\hbox{erg}/\hbox{cm}$^2$}}

38: \newcommand\kelvin{\hbox{K}}

39: \newcommand\gcm{\hbox{g}/\hbox{cm}^3}

40: \newcommand\Ao{\thinspace{\buildrel \kern0.15em\scriptstyle\circ \over A}}

41: \newcommand\gl{\buildrel > \over {_<}}

42: %\newcommand\lsim{\buildrel < \over \sim}

43: %\newcommand\gsim{\buildrel > \over \sim}

44: %\newcommand\alt{\lesssim}

45: %\newcommand\agt{\gtrsim}

46: \newcommand\rrho{\check \rho}

47: \newcommand\rh{\check h}

48: \newcommand\rK{\check K}

49: 

50: \newcommand\Pexpt{P_{\rm expt}}

51: \newcommand\Qexpt{Q_{\rm expt}}

52: 

53: \newcommand\emspace{\hbox to 1 em {}}

54: 

55: %\preprint{APS/123-QED}

56: \title{Interfacial tensions near critical endpoints:\\

57: experimental checks of EdGF theory}

58: 

59: \author{SHUN-YONG ZINN and MICHAEL E. FISHER*}

60: \affiliation{%

61: Institute for Physical Science and Technology,\\

62: University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA}%

63: \date{22 March 2005}

64: 

65: \begin{abstract}

66: Predictions of the extended de Gennes-Fisher local-functional

67: theory for the universal scaling functions of interfacial tensions near

68: critical endpoints are compared with

69: experimental data.  Various observations of the

70: binary mixture isobutyric acid $+$ water are correlated to facilitate

71: an analysis of the experiments of Nagarajan,

72: Webb and Widom who observed the vapor-liquid interfacial tension

73: as a function of \stress{both} temperature and density.

74: Antonow's rule is confirmed and, with the aid of previously studied

75: {\it universal amplitude ratios\/}, the

76: crucial analytic ``background'' contribution to the surface tension

77: near the endpoint is estimated.

78: The residual singular behavior thus uncovered

79: is consistent with the theoretical scaling predictions and confirms the

80: expected lack of symmetry in $(T-T_c)$.  A searching test of theory,

81: however, demands more precise and extensive

82: experiments; furthermore, the analysis highlights, a previously noted but

83: surprising, three-fold discrepancy in the magnitude of the surface

84: tension of isobutyric acid $+$ water relative to other systems.

85: \end{abstract}

86: 

87: \keywords{interfacial tensions; critical endpoints; local-functional theories; near-critical binary fluids; universal critical amplitude ratios}

88: 

89: \maketitle

90: 

91: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

92: %

93: % SEC

94: %

95: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

96: \section{Introduction}

97: \noindent

98: On passing through a critical endpoint, a binary liquid

99: mixture of, say, species B and C, in

100: the presence of the vapor~$\alpha$, exhibits phase separation

101: below~$T_c$ into

102: two phases~$\beta$ and~$\gamma$ while above $T_c$ there is only

103: one homogeneous liquid

104: phase~$\beta\gamma$~\cite{Rowlinson, Widom77, Widom80, NWW}.

105: The~$\gamma$ phase, rich in C, may be supposed to have the

106: higher density so that in a gravitational field it lies below the~$\beta$

107: phase.  In fact

108: there are binary mixtures which display lower consolute points so that

109: phase separation occurs

110: above~$T_c$ and mixing below~$T_c$; but since there are found to be

111: no basic differences in

112: criticality, only upper consolute points will be considered explicitly.

113: 

114: Renormalization group theory has recently shown that the

115: critical behavior realized

116: at a critical endpoint lies in the same universality class

117: as on the critical

118: locus that results when the pressure is increased so that

119: the vapor phase $\alpha$ is fully suppressed~\cite{Diehl2000, Diehl2001}.

120: Nevertheless, near a critical

121: endpoint, new \stress{bulk} and \stress{interfacial} singularities arise

122: \cite{Fisher90a, Fisher90b}.  These are of particular interest in the

123: interfacial tensions~$\Sbr$,

124: $\Sab$, $\Sar$, and $\Sabr$ corresponding to the various interfaces

125: indicated by the subscripts \cite{Widom77, Widom80, NWW, Fisher90a,

126: Fisher90b}.  Indeed, except for the first, namely $\Sbr(T)$, all these tensions

127: are functions \stress{both} of the temperature, $T$, \stress{and} of the

128: overall density, $\rho$ (or, equally, of the overall composition).

129: 

130: In terms of the standard notation, with

131: $t \equiv (T-T_c)/T_c$, the behavior of the \stress{critical}

132: \stress{surface}

133: \stress{tension} $\Sbr(T)$ that

134: \stress{vanishes} at the critical endpoint can be described by

135: \begin{equation}

136: \Sbr(T) \approx K |t|^\mu, \quad t \to 0-, \quad (h=0),

137: \label{eq5.1:sbr}

138: \end{equation}

139: where $K$ is a \textit{non}universal critical amplitude while

140: in $d \enspace (\le 4)$ spatial dimensions

141: the exponent satisfies the scaling relations

142: \begin{eqnarray}

143: \mu &=& 2 \beta + \gamma - \nu = 2 - \alpha - \nu, \nonumber\\

144:     &=& \beta (\delta + 1) - \nu = (d - 1) \nu,

145: \label{eq5.1:exprel}

146: \end{eqnarray}

147: first derived, specifically for the surface tension, by Widom

148: \cite{Widom65, Widom72}.  The symbol $h$ in parentheses in

149: \whatis{eq5.1:sbr} denotes the \stress{ordering} \stress{field}

150: [conjugate to the order parameter $\sim\negthinspace(\rho - \rho_c)$] that is 

151: introduced in the scaling description \cite{Widom77, Widom80, Fisher90a,

152: Fisher90b, Zinn99, Zinn03}.  It is an analytic combination of the

153: temperature $T$ and the chemical potentials, $\mu_B$ and $\mu_C$, or,

154: e.g., the chemical potential difference, $\Delta \mu = \mu_C - \mu_B$,

155: and the pressure, $p$, (all these being thermodynamic fields in the

156: standard sense); furthermore, $h$ is defined so that it vanishes \stress{at} the

157: \stress{critical} \stress{endpoint}, specified, say, by $(T_c, \rho_c,

158: p_c)$, and is identically zero on the whole $(\beta, \gamma)$

159: coexistence surface (or phase boundary) in the $(T, \mu_B, \mu_C)$

160: thermodynamic space: see, e.g., Fig.~1 of {\bf I} \cite{Zinn03}.

161: 

162: The other surface tensions between the

163: noncritical vapor or \stress{spectator} \stress{phase} $\alpha$

164: and the liquid phases $\beta$, $\gamma$, and $\beta\gamma$ share a common

165: ``background'' contribution, $\Sigma_0(T, h)$, which 

166: varies analytically and does \stress{not} vanish at

167: criticality.  Thus we can write \cite{Fisher90a, Fisher90b}

168: \begin{eqnarray}

169: \Sabr(T) &\approx& K^+ |t|^\mu + \Sigma_0(T, 0), \quad t \to 0+,

170:     \quad (h = 0),

171:     \nonumber\\

172: \Sab(T) &\approx& K^- |t|^\mu + \Sigma_0(T, 0), \quad t \to 0-,

173:     \quad (h = 0-),

174:     \label{eq5.1:sabr}\label{eq5.1:sab}

175: \end{eqnarray}

176: where $K^+$ and $K^-$ are again nonuniversal amplitudes.  When,

177: as generally expected \cite{Rowlinson}, the wetting temperature, $T_W$,

178: lies below $T_c$, the intermediate $\beta$ phase

179: spreads over the $\alpha | \gamma$ interface;

180: then Antonow's rule~\cite{Rowlinson, Zinn03} holds, that is,

181: \begin{equation}

182: \Sar(T) = \Sab(T) + \Sbr(T), \quad (h=0) \label{eq5.1:antonow}

183: \end{equation}

184: which by (\ref{eq5.1:sbr}) and (\ref{eq5.1:sab}) implies

185: \begin{equation}

186: \Sar(T) \approx (K + K^-) |t|^\mu + \Sigma_0(T, 0), \quad t\to0-, \quad h =

187: {0+}.

188: \label{eq5.1:sar}

189: \end{equation}

190: 

191: More generally, on the whole thermodynamic surface bounding the $\alpha$ phase,

192: we have

193: \begin{equation}

194: \Sigma(T, h) = \Delta\Sigma(T, h) + \Sigma_0(T, h),

195: \label{eq5.1:sigma}

196: \end{equation}

197: where $\Delta\Sigma(T,h)$ and $\Sigma_0(T, h)$ are the singular

198: and regular (or analytic) parts of the surface tension, respectively.

199: Above $T_c$ one has $\Sigma = \Sabr$, while below $T_c$ one has

200: $\Sigma = \Sar$ when, by convention, $h > 0$

201: but $\Sigma = \Sab$ when $h < 0$.

202: 

203: According to general scaling principles

204: the singular part can be written asymptotically as

205: \begin{equation}

206: \Delta\Sigma(T,h) \approx K|t|^\mu S_M^\pm[\mt(T, h)],

207: \quad\quad\quad\quad \mt\equiv M(T,h)/B|t|^\beta,

208: \label{eq5.1:Spm}

209: \end{equation}

210: where the superscripts $+$ and $-$ stand for $t \gl 0$, respectively:

211: see {\bf I}.

212: Because in experiments the density

213: is more readily accessible than the chemical potentials the argument

214: $\mt$ of the

215: scaling functions, $S_M^\pm(\bullet)$, has been chosen

216: proportional to the order

217: parameter which, in leading order, may be taken as $M \equiv (\rho -

218: \rho_c)$. The

219: coefficient $B$ represents the coexistence curve amplitude according

220: to $M_0 \approx B|t|^\beta$.  The nonuniversal amplitudes~$B$ and~$K$ are

221: introduced in \whatis{eq5.1:Spm} to make the scaling functions

222: $S_M^\pm(\bullet)$ and their arguments

223: dimensionless.  Then the $S_M^\pm(\bullet)$ are expected to be

224: \stress{universal} with,

225: by virtue of Antonow's rule~\whatis{eq5.1:antonow},

226: \begin{equation}

227: S_M^-(1) - S_M^-(-1) = 1. \label{eq5.1:SMpmnorm}

228: \end{equation}

229: 

230: Owing to the technical and conceptual difficulties arising from the fluctuations

231: of capillary waves, the renormalization group approach has not so far

232: been successful

233: in calculating the $\Sm$.  Instead, advances have been made with the aid

234: of phenomenological theories

235: based on local-functional concepts.  The pioneering studies, both

236: theoretical and experimental, have been made by

237: Widom and his co-workers~\cite{Widom77,

238: Widom80, NWW}.  However, as noted in \cite{Fisher90a,

239: Fisher90b}, their theory predicts a ``correction term'' varying as

240: $|t|^\gamma$ which becomes

241: more singular than the leading $|t|^\mu$ term when $d > 3 - \eta$

242: as is relevant in real three-dimensional systems.  This

243: defect was remedied in the EdGF or ``extended de Gennes-Fisher''

244: theory proposed in~\cite{Fisher90a, Fisher90b} and implemented recently

245: in {\bf I} \cite{Zinn03} which forms the basis for the present report.

246: By using an accurate representation of the

247: equation of state near criticality~\cite{Zinn99},

248: the EdGF scaling functions~$\Sm$ have been calculated explicitly

249: and presented in {\bf I}.

250: On evaluating the scaling functions

251: in zero field, one obtains estimates for the Fisher-Upton

252: ratios \cite{Fisher90a, Fisher90b}, namely,

253: \begin{equation}

254: P \equiv (K^+ + K^-)/K = 0.137_5\pm0.002,

255: \quad Q \equiv K^+/K^- = -0.834\pm0.002. \label{eq5.1:PQ}

256: \end{equation}

257: 

258: These ratios have been studied experimentally by 

259: Woermann and coworkers~\cite{aKreuser, Mainzer} for the binary fluid

260: 2,6-dimethyl pyridine $+$ water: their

261: results are discussed in Sec.~II below.

262: 

263: To go further and test the basic theoretical predictions for

264: the interfacial scaling functions $S_M^\pm(\mt)$ \stress{away}

265: from the $h = 0$ axis, the notable experimental data of

266: Nagarajan, Webb, and Widom ({\bf NWW})~\cite{NWW} for mixtures of

267: isobutyric acid and water offer, to our knowledge, the only

268: available opportunity.

269: For the same mixture, Howland,

270: Wong, and Knobler ({\bf HWK})~\cite{Knobler} measured the critical

271: surface tension

272: $\Sbr(T)$ while Greer~\cite{Greer} measured the densities on the coexistence curve.

273: These two experiments provide what prove to be valuable

274: consistency checks and calibrations for the {\bf NWW}

275: data as will be seen below.

276: 

277: It may be noted that there 

278: are interesting surface-tension experiments on other

279: quasi-binary and binary mixtures, such as $n$-octadecane and $n$-nonadecane

280: in ethane~\cite{Pegg85},

281: 2,5-lutidine in water~\cite{Privat}, and 2-butoxyethanol in

282: water~\cite{Woerman95}.  However, our attention will focus on the

283: isobutyric acid $+$ water system since only in this case are there

284: sufficient measurements of the surface tensions

285: near the critical endpoint to warrant an attempt to extract the

286: interfacial scaling functions.

287: 

288: Since the surface tension vanishes at the critical point

289: as $|t|^\mu$ with $\mu \simeq 1.26$, and hence faster than linearly,

290: the background contribution to the surface tensions

291: proves highly

292: significant as anticipated in {\bf I}.  Thus, in analyzing the

293: experimental data, it is essential to determine the background

294: $\Sigma_0(T,h)$ carefully.  By virtue of the analyticity of

295: the background, we may suppose it can be well represented

296: near the critical endpoint,

297: $(t,h)=(0,0)$, by an expansion of the form 

298: \begin{equation}

299: \Sigma_0(T, h) = \Sigma_c + \Sigma_t t + \Sigma_h h +

300: 	\Sigma_{tt} t^2 + \Sigma_{th} t h + \Sigma_{hh} h^2 + \cdots.

301: \label{eq5.1:S0}

302: \end{equation}

303: Examination of the {\bf NWW} experimental data (see their Fig.~8)

304: reveals a

305: definite upward curvature in the plots of $\Sigma$ vs.\ $T$ at

306: fixed composition; but the theoretical results for the singular part

307: $\Delta \Sigma (T,0)$

308: \stress{alone} shows the opposite, downward curvature above $T_c$: see

309: {\bf I} Fig.~5(a) and the negative value of $Q$ in \whatis{eq5.1:PQ}.

310: To capture this dominant behavior, the

311: expansion~\whatis{eq5.1:S0} must contain at least quadratic terms in $t$.

312: 

313: In the analysis reported by {\bf NWW} of their own data,

314: the background was assumed to be representable by the form

315: \begin{equation}

316: \Sigma_b(T, M) \simeq \Sigma_c + \Sigma_t t + \Sigma_{tM}\thinspace t M.

317: \label{eq5.1:NWWS0}

318: \end{equation}

319: However, this expression is \stress{not} smooth in $t$ and $h$, as expected

320: on general grounds,

321: since on the critical

322: isotherm it implies $(\partial \Sigma_b / \partial t) \simeq \Sigma_t + 

323: \Sigma_{tM} M$ while $M$ varies as $\hbox{sgn}(h) |h|^{1/\delta}$

324: with $1/\delta \simeq 0.21$ which is highly singular.  Furthermore, the

325: {\bf NWW} background assumption

326: seems to have led to the conclusion that $S_M^+(\mt)$ \stress{above} $T_c$

327: was indistinguishable from $S_M^-(\mt)$ \stress{below} $T_c$: see {\bf

328: NWW} Fig.~10.

329: However, when a suitable background of the form \whatis{eq5.1:S0} is used

330: in the analysis, one sees

331: that the data support a difference between $S_M^+(\mt)$ and $S_M^-(\mt)$

332: as, indeed, predicted theoretically in {\bf I} and expected quite

333: generally: see Sec.~V below.

334: 

335: \begin{center}

336: {\bf Units and Exponents}

337: \end{center}

338: 

339: \noindent

340: For convenience of reference we have set out in Table~I the exponent

341: values adopted in the analyses reported below.  They correspond, of

342: course, to those for the three-dimensional Ising universality

343: class~\cite{Zinn98, Butera2000, Pelissetto2002, Guida1998,

344: Campostrini2002}.

345: 

346: Since extensive experimental data will be discussed it is useful to

347: specify here the units employed.  Thus: (i) mass densities will be

348: measured in $\gcm$ and denoted \stress{in} \stress{these} \stress{units}

349: as $\rrho \equiv \rho / (\gcm)$; (ii) for surface tensions,

350: $\Sigma$, and the corresponding amplitudes, $K$, etc., units of $\stu$

351: will be employed and indicated by $\rK$, etc.; (iii) since the reduced

352: free energy density will be taken in $\hbox{cm}^{-3}$ units, appropriate

353: units for the field $h$, conjugate to the order parameter $M = (\rho -

354: \rho_c)$, are $\hbox{g}^{-1}$ indicated correspondingly by $\rh$.  The

355: units for various critical amplitudes, $B$, $C^\pm$, and the

356: coefficients $\Sigma_{th}$ in \whatis{eq5.1:S0}, etc. follow similarly.

357: 

358: \begin{center}

359: {\bf Outline}

360: \end{center}

361: 

362: \noindent

363: The balance of this article is set out as follows.  In Sec.~II,

364: the theoretical predictions

365: \whatis{eq5.1:PQ} for the universal ratios $P$ and $Q$ are

366: discussed in the light of the experiments of

367: Woermann and

368: coworkers~\cite{aKreuser, Mainzer}.

369: The density data of Greer~\cite{Greer} along the coexistence curve

370: of isobutyric acid $+$ water

371: and the corresponding critical surface tension data of {\bf HWK}~\cite{Knobler}

372: are analyzed in Sec.~III to determine the critical amplitudes $B$ and

373: $K$.  These results are used

374: to calibrate the {\bf NWW} data which are much more extensive but not as precise and,

375: thus, harder to analyze with confidence on their own.

376: However, the {\bf NWW} observations are found to be fully consistent

377: with the earlier measurements and, furthermore, confirm the validity of

378: Antonow's law in the temperature range studied: see Fig.~2 below.

379: 

380: On this basis the analysis can be carried forward to determine the

381: crucial background term, $\Sigma_0(t,h)$.  The results along the

382: coexistence curve and on the critical isochore above $T_c$ (\ie, for

383: zero field, $h \negthinspace = \negthinspace 0$) are reported in

384: Sec.~IV.A and displayed in Fig.~3.  To estimate $\Sigma_0(t,h)$ on the

385: critical isotherm, $T = T_c$ $(t=0)$ for nonzero $h$, it is necessary to

386: re-express the {\bf NWW} observations at constant density in terms of

387: the field.  For this purpose one needs information regarding the bulk

388: equation of state that goes beyond the value of $B$.  In the absence of

389: direct bulk measurement on the critical isotherm, one can progress by

390: appealing to bulk {\it universal amplitude ratios\/} (known numerically

391: with appreciable reliability~\cite{Zinn98, Butera2000, Pelissetto2002}),

392: combined with the further universal critical ratio $S^+$ that relates

393: the surface tension amplitude $K$ to the correlation length

394: \cite{Zinn98}: see (A.1) in the Appendix where the relevant theory is

395: reviewed and its application explained.

396: 

397: By this route one can estimate the amplitude $C^+$ for the ordering

398: susceptibility and thence, as explained in Secs.~IV.B, IV.C, and the

399: Appendix, the necessary conversions can be implemented.  Thereby the

400: field-dependence of the background may be gauged.  The singular part,

401: $\Delta \Sigma(t,h)$, then follows by subtraction although,

402: unfortunately, with rather limited precision that precludes, for

403: example, any direct determination of the surface tension amplitudes,

404: $K^c_>$ and $K^c_<$, \stress{on} the critical isotherms.  Nevertheless,

405: in Sec.~V, the theoretically predicted universal scaling functions

406: are compared in suitable plots with the

407: experimental surface tension data of {\bf NWW}.

408: To the extent that consistency is well established,

409: the results are encouraging: however, significantly

410: more precise and extensive data close to criticality will be required to

411: enable sharper tests of the theory.

412: 

413: The analysis, furthermore, encounters anew a puzzling dilemma concerning

414: the degree to which the dimensionless surface-tension ratio, $S^+$, for

415: the isobutyric acid $+$ water system actually conforms to the expected

416: value in light of independent observations of the critical scattering

417: and the values found for other systems.  The issue is brought up in

418: Sec.~IV.B and pursued in some detail in the Appendix although without

419: resolution.  The considerations presented highlight the need for further

420: experiments and, perhaps, for further theoretical developments.

421: 

422: The article is summarized briefly in Sec.~VI.

423: 

424: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

425: %

426: % SEC

427: %

428: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

429: \section{Lutidine and Water: Universal Ratios $\boldsymbol P$ and

430: $\boldsymbol Q$}

431: \noindent

432: Predictions for the surface tension ratios $P$ and $Q$

433: defined in \whatis{eq5.1:PQ} have

434: been tested experimentally by Mainzer-Althof and Woermann

435: ({\bf MW})~\cite{Mainzer}.

436: A binary liquid mixture of 2,6-dimethyl pyridine

437: [2,6-(CH$_3$)$_2$(C$_5$H$_3$N)], which is also known as 2,6-lutidine, and water

438: was

439: prepared at the critical composition and used in the experiment.

440: The surface tensions $\Sab(T)$, $\Sar(T)$, and $\Sabr(T)$

441: were measured, for the reduced temperature range $-0.028 \lsim t \lsim 0.019$, by

442: the inverted pendant drop (or rising bubble) method: analysis of

443: the contour line of the bubbles gives the surface tension.  Also, the mass

444: densities of the

445: liquid phases $\rho_\beta(T)$, $\rho_\gamma(T)$, and $\rho_{\beta\gamma}(T)$

446: were measured.  For the critical surface tension, {\bf MW} re-analyzed the

447: experimental data of Kreuser and Woermann~\cite{aKreuser} using the new

448: {\bf MW} density data.

449: 

450: In the {\bf MW} analysis of the surface tension data, the background

451: \whatis{eq5.1:S0} was employed truncated at the linear term, $\Sigma_t

452: \thinspace t$.  At first {\bf MW} fitted the data to \whatis{eq5.1:sabr} and

453: \whatis{eq5.1:sar} by

454: allowing separate background terms for $\Sab$, $\Sar$, and $\Sabr$ (\ie, different

455: sets of $\Sigma_c$ and $\Sigma_t$) and varying

456: $\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_t$, $K^\pm$, and $(K+K^-)$.

457: For the exponent $\mu$ they assumed the value $1.26$.

458: The results did not agree

459: with the original Fisher-Upton ({\bf FU}) values

460: $P \simeq 0.1_2$ and $Q \simeq -0.83$ \cite{Fisher90a, Fisher90b}.

461: Furthermore, it appeared that Antonow's rule was \stress{not}

462: obeyed.  However, when the analysis was performed with, as demanded

463: theoretically,

464: a \stress{common} background, $\Sigma_0(T)$,

465: Antonow's rule was found to be satisfied (as expected): this procedure yielded

466: \begin{equation}

467: \Pexpt \simeq 0.00 \pm 0.08, \quad

468: \Qexpt \simeq -1.0 \pm 0.2.

469: \label{eq5.2:fit1}

470: \end{equation}

471: The $P$ ratio is evidently not quite consistent with the {\bf FU} value

472: but, significantly, the $Q$ value is consistent, both in sign \stress{and}

473: magnitude.

474: 

475: Other fitting procedures were also explored by {\bf MW} by imposing the

476: theoretical value of \stress{either} $K^+/K \enspace [= PQ/(1+Q)]$ \stress{or}

477: $K^-/K \enspace [= P/(1+Q)]$ and using a common background.  Averaging the

478: central values of two different {\bf MW} fits and extending error estimates

479: to fully cover the fits yield

480: \begin{equation}

481: \Pexpt \simeq 0.11^{+0.05}_{-0.08}, \quad

482: \Qexpt \simeq {-0.835}^{+0.06}_{-0.12}.

483: \label{eq5.2:fit2}

484: \end{equation}

485: These values are consistent both with \whatis{eq5.2:fit1} and, now, with the

486: original {\bf FU} estimates.  Furthermore, the more recent improved EdGF estimates

487: for $P$ and $Q$ from {\bf I}, quoted above in 

488: \whatis{eq5.1:PQ}, agree remarkably well with these albeit biased fits to the

489: experimental data.

490: 

491: It is appropriate to mention some earlier work.

492: Pegg, Goh, Scott, and Knobler~\cite{Pegg85} studied quasi-binary mixtures of

493: $n$-octadecane and $n$-nonadecane in ethane and measured the surface tensions

494: through and near both the \stress{upper} and the \stress{lower}

495: critical endpoints that occur in

496: the vicinity of the \stress{hidden} \stress{tricritical}

497: \stress{point} that arises in this system.

498: Their data, although limited, certainly support Antonow's rule and, more

499: importantly for us, suggest strongly that the ratio $K^+/K$ is negative and of

500: order unity in accordance with the EdGF predictions.  However, the

501: upper and lower endpoints are less than $0.2 \thinspace \celc$ apart and,

502: mainly, for that reason, the 8 data points for the surface tensions $\Sbr$

503: (and the 3 for $\Sar$) are not sufficient to warrant quantitative study.

504: 

505: The surface tension of the water and 2,5-lutidine system has been measured by

506: Privat and co-workers~\cite{Privat} at the critical composition of the lower

507: critical consolute point as well as off that critical composition.  The authors

508: claim to verify Antonow's rule.  However, their quoted fits for the amplitudes

509: $K$, $K^+$, and $K^-$ seem problematical relative to the graphical

510: presentation of their data.  Thus, and especially in the light of the

511: {\bf MW}

512: experiments on the closely related 2,6-lutidine system, this work cannot be

513: regarded as yielding useful experimental estimates for the amplitude

514: ratios~$P$ and~$Q$.

515: 

516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

517: %

518: % SEC

519: %

520: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

521: \section{Isobutyric Acid and Water: Nonuniversal Amplitudes}

522: %\vskip-\bigskipamount

523: \subsection{Coexistence Curve Amplitude}

524: \noindent

525: The coexistence curve of isobutyric acid $+$ water has been studied

526: carefully by Greer~\cite{Greer}, who measured the coexisting mass

527: densities, $\rho_\beta(T)$ and $\rho_\gamma(T)$, with a precision

528: of 20 ppm from 3.5 K below the critical temperature at intervals

529: as small as 5 mK (with a precision of $\pm 1$ mK) for a sample

530: prepared at close to the critical composition.  Two runs were made

531: and the data are recorded in Appendix A of Ref.~\onlinecite{Greer}.

532: Greer's analysis demonstrated that an optimal choice of order parameter

533: (as judged in relation to the number density of a pure fluid in a

534: lattice-gas representation) was the volume fraction of one component,

535: say $\phi_B$.  The surface tension experiments of {\bf NWW}, which are

536: of principal concern to us, however, also used the mass density in the

537: vicinity of the critical endpoint as the primary controlled observable.

538: Accordingly, we have reanalyzed Greer's data using the mass difference,

539: $\rho - \rho_c$, as the order parameter.  This choice, of course,

540: affects the real (and apparent) magnitudes of the various correction

541: terms; but these will play no more than an auxiliary role in our

542: analysis.  Further discussion of fits for the volume fraction

543: difference, $\Delta \phi$, are given in \cite{Zinn1997}: one learns that

544: a range of reasonable fits to the data serve to determine the critical

545: point to within $\pm 10$ to $15$ mK while the leading critical amplitude

546: $B$ can be found with a precision of no better than $\pm 1$ \%.

547: 

548: More specifically, we have fitted the data to

549: \begin{equation}

550: \hbox{$1\over2$} \Delta \rho

551: \equiv \hbox{$1\over2$} \left [ \rho_\gamma(T) - \rho_\beta(T) \right ]

552: = B |t|^\beta \thinspace

553: [ 1 + b_\theta |t|^\theta + b_1 t], \label{eq5.3:form}

554: \end{equation}

555: with $t = (T-T_c)/T_c$ as usual, but, as a useful crosscheck, also

556: in terms of the asymptotically equivalent variable,

557: \begin{equation}

558: t' = 1 - T_c/T = t / (1+t), \label{eq5.3:tp}

559: \end{equation}

560: as in a previous study \cite{Zinn}.  Using primes to denote the

561: amplitudes fitted with $t'$ we find, from the first run \cite{Zinn1997},

562: \begin{eqnarray}

563: &&T_c \simeq 25.996_7\celc, \quad \check B \simeq \check B' \simeq

564: 0.03104, \nonumber\\

565: &&b_\theta \simeq b'_\theta \simeq -1.73, \quad

566:  b_1 \simeq -9.783, \quad b'_1 \simeq -9.455.\label{eq5.3:Brho}

567: \end{eqnarray}

568: The difference $b'_1 - b_1 \simeq 0.328$ is close to $\beta$ as it

569: should be for consistency in light of \whatis{eq5.3:tp}.

570: 

571: The exponent $\theta \simeq 0.5$ (See Table~I) in \whatis{eq5.3:form}

572: specifies the leading correction to scaling.  General scaling

573: considerations \cite{Fisher2000, Kim1998} indicate that a further

574: correction term, $|t|^{2\beta}$, should also be present which, since

575: $2 \beta \simeq 0.65 < 1$, should in fact dominate the linear term.  The

576: corresponding amplitude $b_{2\beta}$ may well be rather small:

577: nevertheless, the data cannot resolve two such terms so that the fitted

578: values of the coefficients $b_\theta$ and $b'_\theta$ must be regarded

579: as no more than \textit{effective} \textit{amplitudes}.

580: 

581: On setting $b_\theta = b_1 = 0$ in \whatis{eq5.3:form} Greer found

582: $\check B = 0.0265 \pm 0.0005$; however, on allowing for $b_\theta \ne

583: 0$ the value $0.0315 \pm 0.0025$ resulted; this is fully consistent with

584: \whatis{eq5.3:Brho}.

585: Repeating the same procedure for the second experimental run yields

586: \begin{eqnarray}

587: &&T_c \simeq 25.969_6 \celc, \quad \check B \simeq \check B' \simeq

588: 0.03175, \nonumber\\

589: &&b_\theta \simeq b'_\theta \simeq -2.635, \quad

590:   b_1 \simeq -14.563, \quad b'_1 \simeq -14.234.\label{eq5.3:Brho2}

591: \end{eqnarray}

592: The difference $b'_1 - b_1 \simeq 0.329$ is again close to $\beta$.

593: Clearly, the deviations of the fitted values here from those in

594: \whatis{eq5.3:Brho} provide a measure of the accuracy available in

595: estimating $T_c$ and $B$.

596: 

597: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

598: %

599: % SUBSEC

600: %

601: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

602: \subsection{Comparison with NWW Coexistence Curve Data}

603: \noindent

604: We may now use the fits to \whatis{eq5.3:form} to calibrate the

605: experiments

606: on the same system by {\bf NWW} who prepared mixtures of

607: isobutyric acid $+$ water at various compositions and determined

608: the surface tensions

609: by optically measuring the wavelength of surface waves generated

610: by a transducer.  In Table~1 of {\bf NWW}, about 140 $(T, \rho, \Sigma)$

611: data

612: points are presented: these are what we study here.  We have

613: extrapolated some of the observations to the coexistence curve;

614: but, as indicated briefly in Sec.~IV.A, only very small

615: changes in the values of $\rho$ and $\Sigma$ are entailed.

616: 

617: To proceed, we first consider the diameter of the coexistence curve in the

618: density variable, namely,

619: \begin{equation}

620: {\overline \rho}(T) = \hbox{$1\over2$} (\rho_\beta + \rho_\gamma),

621: \label{eq5.3:diameter}

622: \end{equation}

623: since, as mentioned, the density was directly observed by {\bf NWW}.

624: Owing to the mixing of thermodynamic fields near criticality in fluids,

625: one expects a dominant singular term $|t|^{1-\alpha}$ to appear in the

626: diameter~\cite{Fisher2000, Kim1998, Widom70, Rehr71, Fisher75}.

627: However, the {\bf NWW} data do not reveal a signature of any such singular term.

628: Rather, the coexistence curve appears almost symmetric in the

629: $(\rho, T)$ plane \cite{GreerDiameter}.  Thus the diameter

630: may be well represented by a constant as

631: \begin{equation}

632: {\check {\overline \rho}}(T) \simeq \check \rho_c \simeq 0.9936.

633: \label{eq5.3:rhoc}

634: \end{equation}

635: 

636: As discussed by Greer \cite{Greer}, the critical temperature of the

637: isobutyric acid $+$ water system is particularly sensitive to ionic

638: impurities \cite{Kim2001} and, indeed, 

639: experience shows that the observed critical temperatures of

640: nominally the same binary

641: fluid mixtures typically vary from experiment to

642: experiment by amounts exceeding the stated errors.  For

643: fitting the {\bf NWW} data, therefore, we have adopted

644: their value of $T_c = 26.310 \pm 0.001 \celc$,

645: even though it 

646: lies outside the uncertainty limits implied by \whatis{eq5.3:Brho}

647: and \whatis{eq5.3:Brho2}.

648: As seen in Fig.~\ref{fig5:coex}, by using \whatis{eq5.3:form} and

649: \whatis{eq5.3:rhoc} with the amplitude estimate

650: \begin{equation}

651: \check B = 0.0314 \pm 0.0004,\label{eq5.3:amplB}

652: \end{equation}

653: the {\bf NWW} data can be represented

654: rather satisfactorily.  This demonstrates the consistency of their

655: observations with other careful studies and establishes a reliable

656: estimate for the amplitude $B$ which will be employed below.

657: 

658: It may be remarked that {\bf NWW} advocated the use in theoretical analysis

659: of a

660: (conventionally defined) volume fraction, $\phi$, in place of

661: the density, $\rho$ \cite{Phi}.  Study of their data reveals, however, that the

662: dependence of $\phi$ on $\rho$ is both surprisingly nonlinear and

663: significantly temperature

664: dependent.  Furthermore, contrary to the expectations of {\bf NWW}

665: (see p.~5781) and Greer, the coexistence curve appears

666: to be more symmetric and

667: regularly behaved in terms of $\rho$ than of $\phi$.  Accordingly, we have

668: accepted the directly observed variable $\rho$ 

669: as the order parameter in all the following analysis.

670: 

671: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

672: %

673: % SUBSEC

674: %

675: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

676: \subsection{Critical Surface-Tension Amplitude $\boldsymbol K$}

677: \noindent

678: In order to obtain the critical amplitude $K$ as defined for the surface

679: tension in \whatis{eq5.1:sbr},

680: the capillary-rise data obtained by {\bf HWK} \cite{Knobler}

681: for isobutyric acid $+$ water will be employed.

682: In their Fig.~8, one can clearly

683: see one point that deviates significantly from the general trends, namely,

684: that corresponding in {\bf HWK} Table~VII to $T_c - T = 1.088$ K or

685: $t \simeq -0.0036$, and $\check \Sigma_{\beta|\gamma} = 0.0191$.

686: This point has thus been omitted in the present analysis.

687: 

688: Since only eight data points are available, the correction-to-scaling terms

689: are not expected to play a detectable role.  First, therefore,

690: the data have been fitted to the form

691: \begin{equation}

692: \Sigma_{\beta|\gamma} = \Sigma_c + K |t|^\mu,

693: \label{5.3:sbr}

694: \end{equation}

695: where, of course, $\Sigma_c \equiv 0$ is anticipated.

696: The reported value of

697: $T_c$ is $299\thinspace\kelvin$ \cite{Knobler}; but we have not found

698: in the account of {\bf HWK} a satisfying description as to how this

699: value was determined.  We therefore adopted

700: \begin{equation}

701: T_c = 299.00 \thinspace \kelvin = 25.85 \thinspace \celc, 

702: \label{eq5.3:KnoblerTc}

703: \end{equation}

704: provisionally but have also examined how estimates for $K$ are affected by

705: changes in the assigned value of $T_c$.

706: 

707: A weighted least-squares fit then yields

708: \begin{equation}

709: \check \Sigma_c = -0.002 \pm 0.008, \quad \check K = 34.6 \pm 5.7,

710: \label{eq5.3:roughK}

711: \end{equation}

712: where the uncertainties quoted here and below are twice the standard deviation.

713: By imposing $\Sigma_c = 0$, which is clearly consistent with the data, one finds

714: \begin{equation}

715: \check K = 32.8 \pm 1.7, \label{eq5.3:sc0}

716: \end{equation}

717: where the central estimate has shifted by 5\% while the uncertainty is reduced

718: by 30\% in comparison with \whatis{eq5.3:roughK}.  Repeating the analysis

719: with $\Sigma_c = 0$ but using $t' = t/(1+t)$ as a variable \cite{Zinn}, we find

720: $\check K = 32.6 \pm 1.7$ in good agreement.

721: 

722: As a further check one can calculate $\Sigma_{\beta|\gamma} /

723: |t|^\mu$ from each data point.  This ratio approaches $K$ when $t\to 0$,

724: and an average yields $\check K \simeq 32.7$, suggesting that the corrections

725: to the pure power law are relatively small.

726: 

727: To gauge the sensitivity to the imposed value of $T_c$, we changed the value

728: by $\pm 0.1$ K.  Considering that the temperature was controlled to within

729: $0.01$ K \cite{Knobler}, this variation is fairly large.  The results

730: (obtained by fixing $\Sigma_c = 0$) are $\check K = 30.6 \pm 1.7$ for

731: $T_c = 25.95 \thinspace \celc$ and $\check K = 35.3 \pm 1.8$ for

732: $T_c = 25.75 \thinspace \celc$.

733: Despite the changes of $\pm 7$ \%, the overlap of the 

734: error bars allows consistency with the previous

735: estimates for $K$.

736: 

737: Finally, the data were fitted to $\Sigma = K \thinspace |(T/T_c) - 1|^\mu$

738: treating both $T_c$ and $K$ as parameters.  Minimizing $\chi^2$ yielded

739: $\check K \simeq 33.8_5$ and $T_c \simeq 25.78 \thinspace \celc$.

740: This value for $T_c$ is $0.07$ K lower than the asserted value

741: \whatis{eq5.3:KnoblerTc} but 

742: the amplitude estimate again lies in the indicated range.

743: Repeating the procedure with $\Sigma = K' \thinspace |1 - (T_c/T)|^\mu$,

744: yields the same value for $T_c$ but $\check K' \simeq 33.5$,

745: about 1\% smaller.  Overall we believe that

746: \begin{equation}

747: \check K = 33.7 \pm 2.5, \label{eq5.3:Kexp}

748: \end{equation}

749: summarizes the evidence conservatively \cite{Kprob}, although a more precise

750: knowledge of $T_c$ in the {\bf HWK} experiments could be valuable.

751: 

752: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

753: %

754: % SUBSEC

755: %

756: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

757: \subsection{Comparison with NWW Critical Surface-Tension Data}

758: \noindent

759: It is informative to compare the experiments performed by {\bf HWK}

760: with those of {\bf NWW} to check, in particular, for

761: mutual consistency: see Fig.~\ref{fig5:chk}.  For convenience

762: {\bf NWW} data points on

763: the coexistence curve have been numbered consecutively from~1 to~15.

764: Except for point~8, other points joined by parallelograms were measured at the

765:  same temperature.  Points~1--7 lie on the high density side of the

766: coexistence curve and hence represent $\Sar(T,

767: h\negthinspace=\negthinspace0+)$, while points~9--15 correspondingly lie on

768: the low density side and represent $\Sab(T, h\negthinspace=\negthinspace0-)$.

769: 

770: To explain the significance of the fixed-$T$ parallelograms,

771: consider, as an example,

772: points~2 and~14.  By Antonow's rule we have $\Sar = \Sab + \Sbr$

773: and so by using

774: $\Sbr(T) \approx K|t|^\mu$ with the estimate \whatis{eq5.3:Kexp}

775: and by varying $\Sab$ within the uncertainty limits, one can find

776: a range of $\Sar$ values that are consistent with Antonow's rule.

777: Evidently, 

778: the central value of the data point~14 corresponds to the lower limit of the

779: data point~2, while the upper limit corresponds to the central value of data

780: point~2.  These mutually consistent limiting pairs of

781: the data points~2 and~14 have been joined by parallel lines.

782: In other words, the vertical sides of the

783: parallelogram connecting data points~2 and~14 represent error limits on

784: the {\bf NWW} data that are consistent with

785: the {\bf HWK} experiment and with Antonow's rule.  Thus we notice that

786: data point~3 represents a high estimate of $\Sab$ while 

787: data point~13 is relatively low.  Despite this (3,13) worst case,

788: it can be concluded that the two experiments are mutually consistent and that

789: the estimate~$K$ in~\whatis{eq5.3:Kexp} is reliable \cite{Kprob} .

790: Note that it would have

791: been very difficult to obtain a reliable value of $K$ from the {\bf NWW} data alone,

792: owing to the necessity of extrapolating and differencing their (not highly

793: precise) data to obtain $\Sbr$ via Antonow's rule.

794: 

795: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

796: %

797: % SUBSEC

798: %

799: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

800: \subsection{Other Surface Tension Amplitudes}

801: \noindent

802: Having determined the two amplitudes $K$ and $B$, which serve as

803: metrical factors in the scaling formulation of the critical-endpoint

804: behavior of the surface tension [see \whatis{eq5.1:Spm}], we are

805: prepared to take the next step towards analyzing the {\bf NWW} data.

806: The first issue must be to establish the background contribution,

807: $\Sigma_0(T,h)$, by estimating the coefficients $\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_t$,

808: etc., in \whatis{eq5.1:S0}.  To that end it proves helpful to have

809: at hand values for the surface tension amplitudes $K^+$ and $K^-$ as

810: defined in \whatis{eq5.1:sabr}.  Ideally, of course, these should be

811: unambiguously determined by the data themselves: but, as already seen in

812: Sec.~II, it is unrealistic at this stage in the development of

813: experimental techniques to expect to do more than

814: verify---optimistically at a fully convincing

815: level---\stress{consistency} of the theory with the observational data.

816: Accordingly, we report here the values 

817: \begin{equation}

818: \check K^+ = -23.3 \pm 1.8, \quad \check K^- = 27.9 \pm 2.1,

819: \label{eq5.3:Kpm}

820: \end{equation}

821: that follow from \whatis{eq5.3:Kexp} on accepting the EdGF calculations for

822: the universal ratios $P$ and $Q$ given in \whatis{eq5.1:PQ}.

823: 

824: To determine the field-dependent coefficients $\Sigma_h$ and

825: $\Sigma_{hh}$ in the background expansion \whatis{eq5.1:S0} we will need

826: to examine the data for $\Sigma(t,h)$ on the critical isotherm.  The

827: expected behavior is

828: \begin{equation}

829: \Sigma_c(h) \approx K^c_{\gl} |h|^{\mu/\Delta} + \Sigma_c + \Sigma_h h +

830: 	\Sigma_{hh} h^2, \qquad (T = T_c)

831: \label{eq5.3:TcS0}

832: \end{equation}

833: where, again, values for the amplitudes $\check K^c_>$ and $\check

834: K^c_<$, for $h \gl 0$, respectively, will prove of importance.  To

835: estimate these one may appeal to the EdGF theoretical values reported in

836: {\bf I} (6.9) for the universal ratios

837: \begin{equation}

838: S^c_{\gl} \equiv {K^c_{\gl} \over K} \left ( {B \over C^+} \right )

839: ^{\mu / \Delta}.

840: \label{eq5.3:Scgl}

841: \end{equation}

842: In the second factor in this expression, which enters because $K^c_{\gl}$

843: and $K$ have different dimensions, the nonuniversal amplitude $C^+$

844: specifies the magnitude above $T_c$ of the divergence of the basic

845: ordering susceptibility as $1/t^\gamma$.  Note that the notation for

846: amplitudes used here and below accords with that set out in the Appendix

847: of \cite{Zinn98}.

848: 

849: The appropriate value of $C^+$, and of other nonuniversal amplitudes for

850: isobutyric acid $+$ water, is taken up in Sec.~IV.B when the

851: field-dependence is considered explicitly.  At that stage, we will make

852: contact with Moldover's extensive analysis \cite{Moldover85, Moldover86}

853: of surface tension, light scattering, and bulk thermodynamic experiments

854: for a range of single-component and binary fluid systems designed to

855: test the hyperscaling (or ``two-scale factor universality'') hypothesis

856: for criticality.  Various details and some questions they raise are

857: presented in the Appendix.

858: 

859: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

860: %

861: % SEC

862: %

863: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

864: \section{Determination of the Surface Tension Background}

865: \noindent

866: As discussed in Sec.~I, to analyze the {\bf NWW} surface

867: tension measurements appropriately,

868: the background~$\Sigma_0(T,h)$ must at least contain quadratic terms in $t$;

869: it then seems reasonable to include quadratic terms in $h$ 

870: also as in \whatis{eq5.1:S0}.

871: In order to determine the background

872: coefficients $\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_t$, etc., 

873: we adopt the following strategy.  First, the data on the

874: $h\negthinspace=\negthinspace0$

875: axis, \ie, for the mixture at the critical composition,

876: will be fitted to obtain

877: $\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_t$, and $\Sigma_{tt}$.

878: From the data on the critical isotherm, $t=0$,

879: the coefficients $\Sigma_h$ and $\Sigma_{hh}$ can then be examined.

880: Finally, to obtain the cross-term

881: coefficient $\Sigma_{th}$, the derivative

882: $(\partial \Sigma / \partial t)_h$ may be studied

883: on the critical isotherm.

884: 

885: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

886: %

887: % SUBSEC

888: %

889: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

890: \subsection{Along the Coexistence Curve}

891: \noindent

892: In zero-field, the surface tension above $T_c$ is,

893: following the Introduction, expected to behave as

894: \begin{equation}

895: \Sabr(T) \approx K^+ |t|^\mu + \Sigma_c + \Sigma_t t + \Sigma_{tt} t^2,

896: \qquad (T \ge T_c).

897: \label{eq5.4:sabr}

898: \end{equation}

899: Below $T_c$, there are two distinct vapor-liquid interfaces

900: and two surface tensions, $\Sab$ and $\Sar$, corresponding to the

901: coexisting phases $\beta$ and $\gamma$.

902: By Antonow's rule (which as shown is

903: satisfied by the {\bf NWW} data) the difference $(\Sar - \Sab)$

904: is the critical surface tension $\Sbr$ and thus it suffices to study

905: only $\Sab(T)$ below $T_c$.

906: The identical expression \whatis{eq5.4:sabr} then applies except that

907: $K^+$ is to be replaced by $K^-$.

908: 

909: To proceed, one may first fit $\Sabr(T)$ using

910: the data above $T_c$ at the very close-to-critical composition

911: tabulated by {\bf NWW}, by regarding

912: $K^+$, $\Sigma_c$, $\Sigma_t$, and $\Sigma_{tt}$ as free parameters.

913: These fits suggest $K^+ > 0$ which, in accord with the generally observed

914: upwards curvature (compare with {\bf I} Fig.~5),

915: has the \textit{opposite} sign to the prediction for $K^+$ in

916: \whatis{eq5.3:Kpm}.

917: We conclude that the {\bf NWW} data above $T_c$ are not, on their own,

918: of adequate

919: precision to reliably distinguish the amplitudes of three terms varying as $t$,

920: $t^\mu$, and $t^2$; hence, we cannot independently estimate $K^+$.

921: 

922: However,

923: as indicated in the {\bf MW} analysis \cite{Mainzer} discussed in

924: Sec.~II, the situation may

925: be improved by imposing the theoretical value of the ratio $K^+/K$;

926: but this is then

927: equivalent to imposing $K^+$ because, as seen in Sec.~III,

928: the critical amplitude $K$ has been already estimated reliably

929: by comparison with

930: the {\bf HWK} data.  Since $\Sabr(T)$ and $\Sab(T)$ share the

931: common background $\Sigma_0(T,0)$, we likewise impose $K^-$ as given

932: in \whatis{eq5.3:Kpm}.

933: Of course, by adopting this procedure we will be primarily checking the

934: \stress{consistency} of our theory with the {\bf NWW} data which,

935: unfortunately, are not

936: adequate for estimating $K^+$ and $K^-$ directly as might originally

937: have been hoped.

938: 

939: Accordingly,

940: by subtracting the singular term in \whatis{eq5.4:sabr} and likewise

941: below $T_c$,

942: we can generate experimental data for the zero-field background

943: alone: see Fig.~\ref{fig5:sigma0}.

944: Again we use the {\bf NWW} data taken at the (close-to) critical composition above

945: $T_c$ and the (close-to) low-density side of the coexistence curve.

946: A least-squares fit then yields

947: \begin{equation}

948: \check \Sigma_c \simeq 26.284, \quad

949: \check \Sigma_t \simeq -14.6, \quad

950: \check \Sigma_{tt} \simeq 381.

951: \label{eq5.4:h0fit}

952: \end{equation}

953: The corresponding plot is represented by the dashed curve

954: in Fig.~\ref{fig5:sigma0} and

955: seen to be very good.  This demonstrates

956: that these coefficient estimates are most reasonable although, as will be

957: discussed, they prove to be less than fully satisfactory in the near

958: critical region below~$T_c$.

959: 

960: To examine the fit further

961: consider the plots shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5:chk}.

962: The dashed curve represents the surface tensions $\Sab(T)$ and $\Sar(T)$

963: on the coexistence

964: curve as reproduced from the amplitudes $K$ and $K^-$ and the background

965: coefficients \whatis{eq5.4:h0fit}: to translate $t \propto T_c - T$ into

966: the density on the coexistence curve, the inner fit described in the

967: caption of Fig.~\ref{fig5:coex} is used.  The agreement with the central

968: values of the {\bf NWW} data on the low-density side

969: is encouraging;

970: however, the fit reveals significant, systematic discrepancies on the

971: high density side where the plot lies outside the observational range for all

972: the points 1--7.

973: 

974: To complement the overall or ``full-range''

975: approach just described and to understand the

976: discrepancies uncovered on the high-density side of the coexistence curve,

977: let us

978: return to Fig.~\ref{fig5:chk} and focus on the {\it data closest to

979: criticality\/}.

980: In particular, as explained in the construction of the parallelograms in this

981: figure, consistency with the {\bf HWK}

982: data for $\Sbr(T)$, together with Antonow's

983: rule~\cite{Fenzl} requires that the allowed observational uncertainties

984: quoted for the {\bf NWW}

985: data should be reduced to correspond to the vertical sides

986: of each parallelogram.  Accordingly, for $T \lsim T_c$

987: consider the truncated forms

988: \begin{eqnarray}

989: \Sab(T) &\simeq& K^-|t|^\mu + \Sigma_c + \Sigma_t t, \label{eq5.4:linSab}\\

990: \Sar(T) &\simeq& (K^-+K) |t|^\mu + \Sigma_c + \Sigma_t t,\label{eq5.4:linS0}

991: \end{eqnarray}

992: in which the background has been restricted to a linear term.

993: By trial and error, one can discover those values of $\Sigma_c$ and

994: $\Sigma_t$ that give acceptable fits to those data points lying closest

995: to the critical point, specifically, for the pairs

996: (7,9), (6,10), (5,11), (4,12), and

997: (3,13).  Slight shifts in the nominal value of $\rho_c$ from

998: \whatis{eq5.3:rhoc} may also be examined but are

999: found to be detrimental for changes

1000: exceeding $\Delta \check \rho_c = 10^{-4}$.

1001: 

1002: The predominant conclusion is that $\Sigma_c$, the common value

1003: of the surface tensions $\Sab$, $\Sar$, and $\Sabr$ \stress{at} criticality,

1004: cannot actually be as low as suggested by the full-range

1005: fit \whatis{eq5.4:h0fit}.

1006: The acceptable ``critical fits'' yield, instead, the range

1007: \begin{equation}

1008: \check \Sigma_c = 26.294 \pm 0.004.

1009: \label{eq5.4:Sc}

1010: \end{equation}

1011: Indeed, {\bf NWW} actually quote the estimate

1012: $\check \Sigma_c \simeq 26.30$, which is

1013: much closer to this ``critical value'' than to \whatis{eq5.4:h0fit}.  The

1014: corresponding

1015: preferred value for the background slope, is found to be

1016: $\check \Sigma_t = -17.5$; but reasonable fits could be obtained in the range

1017: $-16.5 > \check \Sigma_t > -18.5$.  In all these fits,

1018: however, the fitting curve in Fig.~\ref{fig5:chk} became too broad at the larger values of $| \rho -

1019: \rho_c |$, failing to fit the data-point pairs (1,15) and (2,14).  This last

1020: defect, however, was overcome by including in 

1021: \whatis{eq5.4:linSab} and \whatis{eq5.4:linS0} the

1022: quadratic term $\Sigma_{tt} t^2$.  As the assigned value $\Sigma_{tt}$ is

1023: increased, keeping $\Sigma_c$ fixed as proves essential, the optimal value for

1024: $\Sigma_t$ correspondingly falls.  Thus $\check \Sigma_t = -16.0$ and

1025: $\check \Sigma_{tt} = 250$ give very good fits in

1026: Fig.~\ref{fig5:chk}.  However, these particular

1027: values do not describe well the

1028: highest data points \textit{above} $T_c$ in Fig.~\ref{fig5:sigma0} (for $t >

1029: 0.015$).  One could well disregard this range since the data extend

1030: below $T_c$ only down to $|t| \simeq 0.011$.  However, one can find

1031: values that prove rather satisfactory in fitting \stress{all\/} the $h=0$

1032: data, \ie, on the coexistence curve and at the critical composition

1033: above $T_c$, namely,

1034: \begin{equation}

1035: \check \Sigma_c \simeq 26.294, \quad

1036: \check \Sigma_t \simeq -15.0, \quad

1037: \check \Sigma_{tt} \simeq 400.

1038: \label{eq5.4:h0fitb}

1039: \end{equation}

1040: These coefficients yield the solid curve shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5:sigma0}:

1041: evidently the fit displays a systematic displacement

1042: above the central values of the

1043: data points but by rather small amounts that remain \stress{within}

1044: all the uncertainty ranges.

1045: Furthermore, the agreement with the coexistence data

1046: is now much improved as seen by the solid curve in Fig.~\ref{fig5:chk}.

1047: Only very minor departures from the acceptable uncertainty ranges

1048: now arise.  Accordingly we will

1049: retain the assignment \whatis{eq5.4:h0fitb} in all the following analysis.

1050: 

1051: At this stage we may conclude that the {\bf NWW}

1052: data are, first, fully consistent

1053: with the best previous observations of the coexistence curve

1054: and the critical surface tension and, second,  

1055: are quite consistent with the EdGF based estimates

1056: of the ratios $K^+/K$ and $K^-/K$ even though,

1057: unfortunately, the data cannot critically test these ratios.

1058: 

1059: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1060: %

1061: % SUBSEC

1062: %

1063: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1064: \subsection{On the Critical Isotherm}

1065: \noindent

1066: It transpires, in retrospect, that {\bf NWW}

1067: did not make observations of the surface tensions

1068: very close to the critical

1069: isotherm $T=T_c = 26.310 \thinspace \celc$.  We may, however, presume

1070: that the isotherms just

1071: above and below $T_c$, namely, at $T = 26.49 \thinspace \celc$ and

1072: $T = 26.05 \thinspace \celc$ constitute rough lower and upper bounds,

1073: respectively, on $\Sigma_c(h)$.

1074: On the critical isotherm, the surface tension

1075: should behave as in \whatis{eq5.3:TcS0} with $\mu / \Delta \simeq 0.806$.

1076: The optimal assignment of the critical point value $\Sigma_c$ has already

1077: been determined in the previous subsection.  One might wish to determine

1078: the amplitudes $K^c_>$ and $K^c_<$ directly from the data; but,

1079: regrettably there is, once again, no hope of that!  Rather, with the

1080: limited aim of testing only consistency with the theory, we will adopt

1081: theoretical estimates for these two amplitudes.  At this point one

1082: encounters a rather sharp and surprising \stress{dilemma}: as explained

1083: further in the Appendix, two significantly different sets of EdGF-based

1084: predictions arise from \whatis{eq5.3:Scgl} and {\bf I} (6.9).  The first

1085: set, derives \stress{entirely} from the two metrical factors $K$ and

1086: $B$, that we have determined for isobutyric acid $+$ water, combined

1087: with well-confirmed values for various {\it universal critical amplitude

1088: ratios\/} \cite{Zinn98}: as explained in the Appendix this yields

1089: \begin{equation}

1090: \rlap{\hskip -.1\displaywidth\hbox{{\bf A}:}}% \qquad\qquad

1091: \check K^c_> = (5.0 \pm 0.6) \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-18},

1092: \quad\quad\quad

1093: \check K^c_< = -(1.5_5 \pm 0.1_7) \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-18}.

1094: \label{eq5.4:KcglA}

1095: \end{equation}

1096: 

1097: The second set also utilizes the estimate \whatis{eq5.3:Kexp} for $K$

1098: in \whatis{eq5.3:Scgl} together with \whatis{eq5.3:amplB} for $B$; but

1099: instead of using the purely theoretically derived value, namely,

1100: \begin{equation}

1101: \rlap{\hskip -.286\displaywidth\hbox{{\bf A}:}}% \qquad\qquad

1102: \check C^+ = (3.04 \pm 0.30) \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-26},

1103: \label{eq5.4:CpA}

1104: \end{equation}

1105: for the amplitude $C^+$ in \whatis{eq5.3:Scgl}, it employs the much larger

1106: estimate

1107: \begin{equation}

1108: \rlap{\hskip -.291\displaywidth\hbox{{\bf B}:}}% \qquad\qquad

1109: \check C^+ = (14.2 \pm 0.6) \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-26},

1110: \label{eq5.4:CpB}

1111: \end{equation}

1112: that follows, as explained in the Appendix, from {\it independent\/}

1113: light scattering and thermodynamic experimental data for isobutyric acid

1114: $+$ water \cite{Moldover85, Moldover86}.  This then leads to the

1115: alternative estimates

1116: \begin{equation}

1117: \rlap{\hskip -.103\displaywidth\hbox{{\bf B}:}}% \qquad\qquad

1118: \check K^c_> = (17.5 \pm 1.5) \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-18},

1119: \quad\quad\quad

1120: \check K^c_< = -(5.4 \pm 0.5) \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-18},

1121: \label{eq5.4:KcglB}

1122: \end{equation}

1123: that, likewise, are much larger than in \whatis{eq5.4:KcglA}.

1124: 

1125: Granted the values of $K^c_{\gl}$ in the critical point background

1126: \whatis{eq5.3:TcS0}, one is left with only

1127: the coefficients $\Sigma_h$ and $\Sigma_{hh}$ to be determined

1128: by fitting.  However,

1129: since the {\bf NWW} measurements were made in terms of the density,

1130: it is necessary

1131: to convert the $(t, M \negthinspace =  \negthinspace\rho \negthinspace -

1132: \negthinspace\rho_c)$ data to $(t, h)$ using an equation

1133: of state.  To this end, it is natural to employ the 

1134: scaled equation of state derived in \cite{Zinn99} on the basis of

1135: the extended sine model.  The metric factor $B$ given in

1136: \whatis{eq5.3:amplB} and the appropriate values of $C^+$ [in

1137: \whatis{eq5.4:CpA} or \whatis{eq5.4:CpB}] may be used.

1138: The data spread over the range

1139: $-4.8 \times 10^{21} \lsim \check h \lsim 2.4 \times 10^{20}$

1140: [using \whatis{eq5.4:CpA}] and, hence, reach more widely

1141: on the negative $h$ (or low density)

1142: side; but for fitting we will focus on the available symmetric range.

1143: 

1144: On the basis of the {\bf A} values above we thus

1145: find that the assignment

1146: \begin{equation}

1147: \check \Sigma_h \simeq 3.72 \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-23}

1148: \quad \quad \quad \hbox{and} \quad \quad \quad

1149: \check \Sigma_{hh} \simeq 6.65 \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-43},

1150: \label{eq5.4:Tcfits}

1151: \end{equation}

1152: provides a fit that lies well between the upper and lower limits

1153: for $|h|$ not too large: see Fig.~\ref{fig5:attc}.

1154: Comparable fits can be found using the {\bf B} values

1155: but with, of course, substantially different values of $\Sigma_h$ and

1156: $\Sigma_{hh}$ and a different accessible range of $h$.  For the balance of

1157: this article, however, we will stay with the `purely theoretical' {\bf A}

1158: estimates \whatis{eq5.4:KcglA} and \whatis{eq5.4:CpA}.

1159: 

1160: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1161: %

1162: % SUBSEC

1163: %

1164: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1165: \subsection{Cross Term}

1166: \noindent

1167: In order to estimate the cross coefficient $\Sigma_{th}$ in the

1168: background \whatis{eq5.1:S0}, one should examine

1169: the derivative $(\partial \Sigma / \partial

1170: t)_h$ at $T=T_c$.  Since the measurements were made

1171: at constant $M$ (or density), it is

1172: appropriate to invoke the relation

1173: \begin{equation}

1174: \left( \PD{\Sigma}{t} \right)_{\negthinspace\negthinspace h} =

1175: 	\left(\PD{\Sigma}{t}\right)_{\negthinspace\negthinspace M}

1176: 	+ \left( \PD{\Sigma}{M} \right)_{\negthinspace\negthinspace t}

1177: 	  \left( \PD{M}{h} \right)_{\negthinspace\negthinspace t}.

1178: \label{eq5.4:xrel}

1179: \end{equation}

1180: However, owing to the measurement uncertainties, the estimates of

1181: $(\partial \Sigma / \partial t)_M$ obtainable from the

1182: {\bf NWW} data are extremely noisy.

1183: Hence, one cannot seriously attempt to estimate $\Sigma_{th}$.

1184: One may reasonably guess, nevertheless, that the geometric mean

1185: of $\Sigma_{tt}$ and $\Sigma_{hh}$, namely,

1186: using \whatis{eq5.4:h0fitb} and \whatis{eq5.4:Tcfits},

1187: \begin{equation}

1188: \left ( \check \Sigma_{tt} \check \Sigma_{hh} \right)^{1/2}

1189: = 1.6 \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{-20},

1190: \label{eq5.4:S2x}

1191: \end{equation}

1192: will 

1193: provide some indication of the possible order of magnitude of the

1194: cross-coefficient.  However, 

1195: we comment below on the sensitivity of the final

1196: comparisons with experiment to the value of

1197: $\Sigma_{th}$.

1198: 

1199: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1200: %

1201: % SEC

1202: %

1203: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1204: \section{Scaling Functions for the Surface Tension}

1205: \noindent

1206: Having found, to the somewhat limited degree feasible,

1207: a reasonable description of the important surface-tension

1208: background, we may examine the experimental data for consistency with the

1209: predicted universal scaling functions $S_M^\pm(\mt)$

1210: introduced in \whatis{eq5.1:Spm}.

1211: 

1212: In order to subtract the background $\Sigma_0(t,h)$, from the full surface

1213: tension data, it is necessary, as before,

1214: to convert the variables $(t, M \negthinspace = \negthinspace \rho

1215: \negthinspace -  \negthinspace \rho_c)$ to $(t, h)$

1216: because the experiments employed the density as a primary variable.

1217: Adopting the {\bf NWW} critical

1218: temperature $T_c = 26.310 \thinspace \celc$ and using $B$ from

1219: \whatis{eq5.3:amplB}, the first step is to compute

1220: $\mt = \penalty-100000 (\rho - \rho_c)/B|t|^\beta$.

1221: The universal, scaled equation of state $\mt = Q_\pm(\tilde h)$ [for

1222: $t \gl 0$] may be used in the form of the extended sine model of

1223: \cite{Zinn99} to implement the conversion to $\tilde h$.

1224: The corresponding $h$ follows via

1225: $h = B \tilde h |t|^\Delta / C^+$ where, for the present discussion we

1226: use \whatis{eq5.4:CpA} for $C^+$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig5:attc}.

1227: Then, using the background with the coefficients given

1228: in \whatis{eq5.4:h0fitb} and \whatis{eq5.4:Tcfits}, an estimate

1229: for the singular part of the surface tension, $\Delta \Sigma (T, h)$,

1230: can be extracted from the {\bf NWW} data.

1231: 

1232: Note that in the first instance,

1233: the cross term, $\Sigma_{th} t h$, may

1234: simply be dropped.  The resulting scaling contribution, $\Delta \Sigma

1235: / K |t|^\mu$, is plotted versus $\mt$, the scaled density deviation,

1236: in Fig.~\ref{fig5:SMpm}.

1237: 

1238: Since the field-dependence of the background $\Sigma_0(t,h)$ has been

1239: estimated only from data that lie on the two isotherms closest to

1240: criticality and fall within the restricted range

1241: $|\check h| \lsim 2.4 \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{20}$,

1242: we have distinguished, by solid dots \stress{versus} crosses and plusses,

1243: between these observations, corresponding to the restricted range of $h$,

1244: and (selected) further data falling outside this range.

1245: 

1246: Because the background contribution constitutes such a large part of the

1247: total surface tension, it is not surprising that the subtraction needed

1248: to isolate the singular piece, $\Delta \Sigma (t, h)$, is subject to

1249: relatively large uncertainties.  This appears to be the main reason why

1250: many of the crosses and plusses, derived from the low-density data

1251: (beyond the fitted range of $h$), fall significantly below the scaling

1252: loci.

1253: For the data inside the range (the solid dots in Fig.~4),

1254: the agreement between the

1255: theoretical and experimental results is moderately encouraging considering the

1256: uncertainties of the original data

1257: and the inherent difficulties of the analysis.  Certainly, the data of 

1258: {\bf NWW}

1259: support the expected difference between $S_M^+(\mt)$

1260: and $S_M^-(\mt)$.

1261: 

1262: It may be noted, nevertheless, that

1263: just as pointed out by {\bf NWW},

1264: the logarithmic singularity associated with the complete-wetting

1265: transition cannot be detected in these or other surface-tension plots.

1266: However, this is due not only

1267: to the limited precision of the experimental data but also

1268: to the fact that in the usual

1269: representations of the data the singularity is not really visible

1270: even in theoretical plots where it is known analytically to be present:

1271: compare with Figs.~5 and 6 of {\bf I}.

1272: 

1273: If one also includes a \stress{positive} cross-coefficient

1274: $\Sigma_{th}$ in the background

1275: with the magnitude given in \whatis{eq5.4:S2x},

1276: one finds slight changes of less than 1\% in

1277: the data points plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig5:SMpm}.   However, when the

1278: cross-term is inserted with a \stress{negative} sign, the majority

1279: of the data points display changes of $\sim\negthinspace5$\% and a few

1280: points prove still more sensitive.

1281: This situation is hardly satisfying but, in light of the experimental

1282: challenges and the resulting precision of the {\bf NWW} data,

1283: it is clear that our analysis can proceed little further.

1284: 

1285: Finally, as pointed out theoretically by Ramos-G\'omez and Widom

1286: \cite{Widom80} and mentioned briefly in {\bf I},

1287: the surface tension isotherms when examined vs density

1288: ($\propto M$) above $T_c$ should, in general, exhibit

1289: \stress{crossings}.

1290: Although hints of such crossings have appeared in some binary fluid

1291: systems \cite{Campbell68, McLure79, LastNote}, they were not seen in the

1292: {\bf NWW} experiments.  The primary reason seems to be that for the

1293: range of densities $\rho > \rho_c$ explored, the isotherms chosen

1294: for observation above

1295: $T_c$ were somewhat too widely spaced.  Indeed, as illustrated in

1296: Fig.~\ref{fig6:isox}, the anticipated crossings for isobutyric acid $+$

1297: water can be exhibited on the basis of our fits to the {\bf NWW} data.

1298: All that is needed is to choose temperatures above $T_c$ spaced apart by

1299: intervals of no more than $1 \thinspace \celc$ and to extend the

1300: observations to densities slightly further above $\rho_c$.  The crossings,

1301: while sensitive to the presence of the background term, should be

1302: visible even in the singular part of the surface tension, $\Delta

1303: \Sigma(T, \rho)$.  Note, however, that since our fits were based only on

1304: the restricted (symmetric) range of $h$, the plots lying above the short

1305: horizontal lines in Fig.~\ref{fig6:isox} may be less reliable than at

1306: lower densities.

1307: 

1308: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1309: %

1310: % SUMMARY

1311: %

1312: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1313: \section{Summary}

1314: \noindent

1315: In pioneering experiments to study critical endpoint behavior,

1316: Nagarajan, Webb, and Widom \cite{NWW} made extensive measurements

1317: of the vapor-liquid interfacial

1318: tension of isobutyric acid and water mixtures as a function of

1319: temperature at various compositions.  Since

1320: the precision of the surface tension data was somewhat 

1321: limited, we used the observations of the critical surface tension

1322: made by Howland \etal~\cite{Knobler} and the coexistence curve

1323: measurements of Greer~\cite{Greer} to cross-calibrate the {\bf NWW}

1324: data.

1325: We found full consistency between the various observations and verified

1326: agreement with Antonow's rule near the critical endpoint.  In this

1327: way reliable estimates of the coexistence curve amplitude $B$ and the

1328: surface tension amplitude $K$ were obtained: see \whatis{eq5.3:amplB} 

1329: and \whatis{eq5.3:Kexp}.

1330: Using known universal amplitude ratios \cite{Zinn98}

1331: and these two amplitudes, which can serve as the only required metric factors

1332: in a hyperscaling formulation,

1333: we estimated the nonuniversal susceptibility amplitude $C^+$.

1334: Thereby the experimental data as a function of density could be

1335: transformed in order to uncover the field-dependence of the crucial

1336: surface-tension background contribution in the form (1.10).

1337: Owing to the considerable uncertainties, however,

1338: we could not resolve the cross-coefficient

1339: $\Sigma_{th}$.  Nevertheless, even without this term, the scaling

1340: plots for the singular part of the interfacial tension as derived from

1341: the experimental data proved consistent with the theoretical

1342: predictions based on the EdGF theory of {\bf I} \cite{Zinn03}:

1343: see Fig.~\ref{fig5:SMpm}.

1344: 

1345: On the other hand, as discussed in the Appendix, significant

1346: discrepancies come to light when the Howland \etal~data are compared,

1347: via hyperscaling expectations, with evidence from other critical

1348: systems.  Owing to conflicting experimental reports \cite{Kprob,

1349: Moldover85}, however, it seems impossible to resolve this issue and

1350: assess its significance without further experiments and, perhaps, new

1351: theoretical insights.

1352: 

1353: More rewarding from a theoretical perspective and less open to questions

1354: of precision, the critical surface tension

1355: measurements of Mainzer-Althof and Woermann~\cite{Mainzer} on 2,6-dimethyl

1356: pyridine $+$ water at the critical composition, show rather satisfactory

1357: agreement

1358: between the experimentally determined universal ratios $P$ and $Q$

1359: [see (1.9)] and the EdGF predictions.  However, as regards the full

1360: scaling aspects of the theory, more detailed, more precise and more

1361: reliable data are sorely needed to execute more searching tests!

1362: 

1363: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1364: %

1365: % ACK

1366: %

1367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1368: \begin{acknowledgments}

1369: \noindent

1370: We appreciate the keen interest of B.~Widom and comments from J.~Indekeu

1371: and M.~R.~Moldover.

1372: We are indebted to C.~M.~Knobler and I.~L.~Pegg for informative

1373: discussions regarding their surface tension measurements.

1374: The support of the National Science Foundation

1375: through grants CHE 99-81772 and CHE 03-01101 is gratefully acknowledged.

1376: 

1377: Especially on this occasion, it is a pleasure for M.E.F. to acknowledge

1378: the inspiration provided over more than four decades by the limpidly

1379: insightful researches of Benjamin Widom.

1380: \end{acknowledgments}

1381: 

1382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1383: %

1384: % APPENDIX

1385: %

1386: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1387: \appendix*

1388: \section{Nonuniversal Critical Amplitudes}

1389: \noindent

1390: In Sec.~III the coexistence curve amplitude $B$ for isobutyric acid $+$

1391: water (IBA:W) was determined from the data of Greer \cite{Greer} and

1392: checked against the {\bf NWW} data yielding \whatis{eq5.3:amplB}.  Likewise,

1393: analysis of the {\bf HWK} capillary-rise surface tension data yielded

1394: the critical amplitude $K$ reported in \whatis{eq5.3:Kexp} that also

1395: accords well with the {\bf NWW} data using forced capillary waves:

1396: indeed, no larger deviation in \whatis{eq5.3:Kexp}, than, say, $\pm 6.0$ (or

1397: $\pm 18$\%) could be reconciled with the {\bf NWW} observations

1398: \cite{ThankCK}.  We stress this point because Moldover

1399: \cite{Moldover85}, in comparing these IBA:W data with results for many

1400: other fluid systems, uncovered an inconsistency in the value of the

1401: expected-to-be universal amplitude ratio

1402: \begin{equation}

1403: S^+ \equiv \Kbar (\xi^+_1)^2 = 0.377 \pm 0.011

1404: \quad\quad\quad \hbox{with} \quad\quad\quad

1405: \Kbar \equiv K/k_B T_c. \label{eqA:Kxi2}

1406: \end{equation}

1407: Here, in the notation of the Appendix and Table~I of \cite{Zinn98},

1408: the amplitude $\xi^+_1$ specifies the 

1409: magnitude of the divergence of the second-moment

1410: correlation length above $T_c$ via $\xi_1(T) \approx \xi^+_1 /t^\nu$,

1411: while the value quoted for $S^+$ is that reported in \cite{Zinn98}.

1412: 

1413: If we now accept this theoretical result

1414: we may proceed to predict the value of $\xi_1^+$

1415: for IBA:W.  Thence, using the universal ratio \cite{Zinn98}

1416: \begin{equation}

1417: S_0 \equiv C^+ \Kbar / B^2 \xi^+_1 = 1.17 \pm 0.06,

1418: \label{eqA:S0}

1419: \end{equation}

1420: together with the estimates for $K$ and $B$, we can compute the

1421: susceptibility amplitude $C^+$ that is needed in Sec.~V to establish the

1422: $h$ scale in Fig.~4.  This route, indeed, yields the {\bf A} value for

1423: $C^+$ reported in \whatis{eq5.4:CpA} and, with the further aid of

1424: \whatis{eq5.3:Scgl} and {\bf I} (6.9), the values for $K^c_>$ and $K^c_<$

1425: given in \whatis{eq5.4:KcglA}.  These results, in turn, are incorporated in

1426: the plots in Fig.~5 that serve to test the scaling hypothesis.

1427: 

1428: The correlation length amplitude predicted in this fashion is $\xi_{\rm

1429: 1, pre}^+ =

1430: 2.10 \pm 0.08 \thinspace \Ao$ [where the {\bf HWK} value

1431: \whatis{eq5.3:KnoblerTc}

1432: has been adopted for $T_c$ in \whatis{eqA:Kxi2}].  However, as reported by

1433: Moldover \cite{Moldover85},

1434: in light scattering experiments by Chu and co-workers~\cite{Chu73, Chu68},

1435: the second-moment

1436: correlation length above $T_c$ was evaluated for IBA:W.

1437: The fits presented led them to conclude

1438: $\nu \simeq 0.613$ and $\xi_1^+ = 3.57 \pm 0.07 \thinspace \Ao$.

1439: This correlation amplitude

1440: exceeds the predicted value, $\xi^+_{1, {\rm pre}}$, by 60\% or more!

1441: On re-analyzing their

1442: data with the higher value $\nu = 0.632$ imposed, we obtain

1443: $\xi_1^+ = 3.09 \pm 0.05 \Ao$.  This is somewhat closer to

1444: $\xi_{1, \rm pre}^+$

1445: although the uncertainty limits fail to overlap by 36\%.

1446: From turbidity

1447: measurements, Beysens \etal~\cite{Beysens} concluded $\xi_1^+ = 3.62_5 \pm

1448: 0.06_5 \Ao$

1449: and $\nu \simeq 0.630$; this value of $\xi_1^+$ agrees with Chu

1450: \etal~and is some 17\% higher than that from

1451: our reanalysis.

1452: 

1453: At a basic theoretical level the discrepancies uncovered here are of

1454: serious concern.  If, for concreteness, one accepts

1455: $\xi^+_{\rm 1, expt} \simeq 3.6_0 \pm 0.07 \thinspace \Ao$

1456: as the observed value, in accord with these experiments,

1457: the universal ratio $S^+$ in \whatis{eqA:Kxi2}

1458: would yield a prediction for $\check K$ of only 12.0,

1459: about 36\% of that observed!  Conversely, one might be tempted to assert

1460: that the

1461: experimentally determined value of the (supposedly universal) ratio

1462: for IBA:W is $S^+_{\rm expt} = 1.06 \pm 0.03$, in place of

1463: \whatis{eqA:Kxi2},

1464: the uncertainty indicated here taking into account various sources of

1465: experimental and theoretical imprecision.

1466: 

1467: Similarly, the {\bf B} values for $C^+$ and $K^c_{\gl}$ reported in

1468: \whatis{eq5.4:CpB} and \whatis{eq5.4:KcglB} follow from the observed value of

1469: $B$ and the experimental value, $\xi_{1, \rm expt}^+$, by using

1470: \cite{Zinn98}

1471: \begin{equation}

1472: Q_c \equiv (\xi_1^+)^3B^2/C^+ = 0.323_6 \pm 0.006.

1473: \end{equation}

1474: 

1475: In facing this discrepant situation let us focus first on the

1476: theoretical value \whatis{eqA:Kxi2} for $S^+$ (which, indeed, was

1477: incorporated into the numerical scaling calculations reported in {\bf I}

1478: and tested here).  One might initially notice that 0.377 is

1479: significantly higher than the various theoretical, RG and Monte Carlo

1480: estimates, namely, $\simeq \negthinspace 0.21$, $0.24$, and $0.28$,

1481: available to Moldover in 1985 \cite{Moldover85}.

1482: In fact \whatis{eqA:Kxi2} rests on the analysis \cite{Zinn} of difficult but

1483: carefully performed Monte Carlo simulations for the nearest-neighbor

1484: $(d=3)$-dimensional Ising model by Hasenbush and Pinn \cite{Pinn94}

1485: (combined with the well established universal ratio $\xi_1^+ / \xi_1^- =

1486: 1.96 \pm 0.01$ \cite{Zinn, Liu}).  

1487: The simulations \cite{Pinn94} could

1488: approach criticality no closer than $|t| > 0.015$.  By contrast, the

1489: experimental data for IBA:W

1490: lie in the region $|t| = 0.0008$ to $0.010$.  Although

1491: it seems unlikely, it is conceivable that

1492: exceptionally strong correction-to-scaling terms in the surface tension

1493: of the simple cubic Ising model could dominate very close to $T_c$

1494: so that \whatis{eqA:Kxi2} represents a significant under-estimate of $S^+$.

1495: Alternatively, finite-size effects in the simulations may be playing a

1496: far larger role than appreciated although no evidence to suggest this

1497: was observed and the issue was by no means neglected \cite{Gelfand90,

1498: Pinn94}.

1499: 

1500: On the other hand, it might be that for reasons associated with the

1501: lattice structure and capillary-wave fluctuations, the standard simple

1502: cubic lattice gas/Ising model is inadequate for certain real fluid

1503: mixtures.  Most certainly, the conventional near-neighbor

1504: lattice gases neglect the long-range power-law van der Waals

1505: interactions that lead to interphase potentials decaying, normal to

1506: an interface, only as $1/z^3$.  And while these van

1507: der Waals forces play only a \textit{subdominant} role in \textit{bulk} critical

1508: behavior, they are known to be especially significant in surface and

1509: wetting phenomena \cite{Dietrich}.  It is, thus, possible that

1510: they seriously distort the near critical interfacial tension or even

1511: destroy the expected universal character of the ratio $S^+$.

1512: 

1513: At present, however, effective theoretical tools for addressing this

1514: interesting issue are not apparent.  Furthermore, it is not unfair to

1515: remark that these various rather deep theoretical issues do not directly

1516: affect our

1517: basic \textit{scaling} \textit{analysis} of the {\bf NWW} observations

1518: of surface tensions near a critical endpoint.  Indeed, in the first

1519: instance only the experimentally determined critical amplitudes $K$ and

1520: $B$ enter: universal or nonuniversal relations between these and other

1521: critical amplitude do not play a definitive role in the primary scaling

1522: issues.

1523: 

1524: Finally, we must return to the experimental evidence.  It is, indeed,

1525: striking that the value for $S^+$ in \whatis{eqA:Kxi2} accords remarkably

1526: well with the experimental values assembled by Moldover

1527: \cite{Moldover85} for Ar, Xe, ${\rm N}_2$, ${\rm O}_2$, ${\rm CO}_2$,

1528: ${\rm CH}_4$ and ${\rm SF}_6$ and for the

1529: binary fluids triethylamine $+$ water, nitroethane $+$ 3-methylpentane,

1530: cyclohexane $+$ aniline,

1531: methanol $+$ cyclohexane, and even for various polystyrene $+$ ${\rm

1532: C}_7{\rm H}_{14}$ solutions: see Fig.~1, Table I and also the {\it Note

1533: added\/} regarding Ref.~86 in \cite{Moldover85} and Table I of

1534: \cite{Moldover86}.  Indeed, by and large, Moldover's analysis confirms

1535: rather generally the hyperscaling hypothesis, \stress{both} for the

1536: interfacial \stress{and} for the bulk thermodynamic properties. (See also

1537: in \cite{Zinn1997}.)

1538: 

1539: These observations tend to reinforce confidence in the estimate

1540: \whatis{eqA:Kxi2} for the universal surface tension amplitude---at least as

1541: regards `simple' pure fluids and binary mixtures.  But does the weak

1542: acid IBA:W

1543: constitute such a `simple' system?  On the one hand, as an electrolyte,

1544: a population of positive and negative ions will be present in all the

1545: liquid phases.  Furthermore, it is known that the critical point of

1546: IBA:W is

1547: extremely sensitive to small impurities and, especially, to

1548: ionic impurities \cite{Greer, Knobler05}.  Ionic impurities, in

1549: particular, may be expected to have significant effects on the various

1550: liquid-liquid, liquid-vapor and liquid-solid interfaces; but even in the

1551: absence of impurities, an interphase Galvani potential difference will

1552: appear across the critical liquid-liquid interface together with an

1553: associated electrically charged double layer \cite{REF51, REF52, REF53,

1554: REF54}.

1555: 

1556: On the other hand, Moldover \cite{Moldover85} in addressing

1557: the discrepancy issue

1558: notes, as a private communication from I. L. Pegg and C. M. Knobler,

1559: that further surface-tension measurements on IBA:W using a different

1560: technique (actually light scattering from thermally excited capillary

1561: waves \cite{Knobler05}) yielded the preliminary result $\check K = 11.6

1562: \pm 1.0$.  This value is almost three times smaller than found in the

1563: {\bf HWK} experiments with which, as indicated above, it cannot be

1564: reconciled.  Nevertheless, if this value for $\check K$ is

1565: used with the experimentally determined values,

1566: $\xi_{1, \rm expt}^+$, discussed above it yields a value for $S^+

1567: \propto \check K (\xi_1^+)^2$ close to that found experimentally for the

1568: other systems and, hence, in \textit{accord} with the expected universal

1569: value stated in (A.1) \cite{Moldover85, Moldover86}!  On this basis one

1570: might (despite \cite{ThankCK}) be tempted to disregard the {\bf HWK} data

1571: and argue that our analysis of the {\bf NWW} observations should be

1572: seriously reconsidered.

1573: 

1574: Unfortunately, the preliminary study of IBA:W by Pegg and Knobler has

1575: never been published \cite{Knobler05}; nor, to our knowledge, have any

1576: subsequent measurements been made by others on this system.

1577: Thus, while one can and,

1578: perhaps, should attribute the nearly

1579: three-fold difference in the critical

1580: surface tension to unidentified impurities or other agencies

1581: distinguishing the {\bf HWK}

1582: and {\bf NWW} samples of isobutyric acid from the later sample

1583: investigated by Pegg and Knobler (in 1984), the true causes

1584: of the discrepancies and their

1585: significance remain obscure.  We must, instead, hope that more sensitive

1586: techniques will be developed and employed on the IBA:W and 

1587: other binary systems in

1588: order to more stringently test the scaling theories for critical

1589: endpoints that have been developed.

1590: 

1591: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1592: %

1593: % REF

1594: %

1595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1596: \bibliography{ms}%

1597: \centerline{\vbox{\hrule width 3 in height 2 pt}}

1598: 

1599: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1600: %

1601: % TABLE

1602: %

1603: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1604: % TABLE I

1605: \newpage

1606: \begin{table}

1607: \caption{Adopted values of fluid critical exponents.  For convenience

1608: and consistency with the universal amplitude ratios assembled in

1609: \cite{Zinn98} we have employed the corresponding exponent values

1610: (satisfying the scaling relations).  More recent studies

1611: \cite{Butera2000, Pelissetto2002, Guida1998, Campostrini2002}

1612: lead to our currently

1613: preferred exponent estimates shown here in parentheses.  However, for

1614: the present analysis the differences are of negligible consequence.

1615: We may supplement the relations \whatis{eq5.1:exprel} with $\Delta =

1616: \beta \delta = \beta + \gamma$ and $\gamma = (2 - \eta) \nu$.}

1617: \label{tbl:exp}

1618: \begin{ruledtabular}

1619: \begin{tabular}{c c c c c}

1620: \emspace\emspace\emspace $\beta$ & $\gamma$ & $\nu$ & $\mu$ &

1621: 	$\theta$ \emspace\emspace\emspace\\

1622: \hline

1623: \emspace\emspace\emspace 0.3266 & 1.2392 & 0.6308 & 1.2616 &

1624: 	0.54 \emspace\emspace\emspace\\

1625: \emspace\emspace\emspace (0.3260) & (1.2390) & (0.6303) & (1.2606) &

1626: 	(0.52) \emspace\emspace\emspace\\

1627: \end{tabular}

1628: \end{ruledtabular}

1629: \end{table}

1630: 

1631: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1632: %

1633: % FIGURE CAPTIONS

1634: %

1635: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1636: \hbox to 1 in { }

1637: \newpage

1638: \noindent

1639: {\bf FIGURE CAPTIONS}

1640: 

1641: \noindent

1642: FIG.~1.  

1643: The coexistence curve of the isobutyric acid and water

1644: mixture.  The dots represent the experimental data of {\bf NWW}.

1645: The inner curve is the fit \whatis{eq5.3:form} using the

1646: amplitude $\check B = 0.0310$ with $a_\theta$ and $a_1$

1647: from \whatis{eq5.3:Brho} while the outer curve employs $\check B = 0.0318$

1648: in accord with \whatis{eq5.3:Brho2}; the critical temperature has been taken

1649: as $T_c = 26.310 \celc$ in accord with the estimate of {\bf NWW}.

1650: \bigskip

1651: 

1652: \noindent

1653: FIG.~2.  

1654: Comparison of surface-tension measurements along the coexistence

1655: curve: the open circles with error bars represent the {\bf NWW}

1656: data. As explained in the text, the parallelograms have been drawn

1657: using $\Sbr = K|t|^\mu$ with the amplitude

1658: \whatis{eq5.3:Kexp} obtained from the {\bf HWK} data.

1659: The vertical sides of the parallelograms indicate the ranges in which

1660: consistency between the two experiments can be achieved

1661: in accord with Antonow's rule.  The dashed curve,

1662: is based on the fit \whatis{eq5.4:h0fit} obtained below for the background

1663: $\Sigma_0(T,0)$,

1664: while the solid curve embodies the values \whatis{eq5.4:h0fitb}.

1665: See text in Sec.~IV.A for details.

1666: \bigskip

1667: 

1668: \noindent

1669: FIG.~3.  

1670: The fit to the surface tension background in zero-field.  See text

1671: for details of the generation of the data points (black dots).  The dashed

1672: curve is drawn using the estimates \whatis{eq5.4:h0fit}.   The solid curve

1673: represents the fit \whatis{eq5.4:h0fitb}.

1674: \bigskip

1675: 

1676: \noindent

1677: FIG.~4.  

1678: A fit for the surface tension on the critical isotherm

1679: as a function of the ordering field.  The dots

1680: joined by the dashed lines represent the {\bf NWW}

1681: isotherms nearest the critical

1682: temperature that serve as approximate

1683: upper and lower bounds.  See text for details.

1684: \bigskip

1685: 

1686: \noindent

1687: FIG.~5.  

1688: Comparison of scaling plots

1689: for the vapor-liquid surface tension near the critical endpoint of

1690: isobutyric acid $+$ water.  The solid curves represent the theoretically

1691: predicted scaling functions $S_M^\pm(\mt)$ using the ameliorated EdGF theory.

1692: The dots are derived from the {\bf NWW}

1693: data for $T>T_c$ and $T<T_c$ that fall within the symmetric

1694: range $|\check h| \lsim 2.4 \negthinspace \times \negthinspace 10^{20}$

1695: used in fitting the surface tension background.

1696: The other symbols ($\times$ for $T>T_c$ and $+$ for $T<T_c$)

1697: are some of the {\bf NWW} data

1698: falling outside the symmetric range of $h$ (and hence not covered by the

1699: background fit).

1700: Note that an offset of $\Delta S = 100$

1701: has been used for clarity in the vertical scales

1702: for $T \gl T_c$.  See the text for further details.

1703: \bigskip

1704: 

1705: \noindent

1706: FIG.~6.  

1707: Illustration of predicted crossings of surface-tension isotherms of

1708: isobutyric acid $+$ water above $T_c$.

1709: The isotherms have been computed using the EdGF scaling functions

1710: $S^\pm_M(\mt)$ from {\bf I} with a background of the form~\whatis{eq5.1:S0}

1711: suitably matched to the experimental data.

1712: The dotted, solid, dashed, and dot-dashed curves represent isotherms

1713: $\Delta T \equiv T - T_c = 0$,

1714: $1.0$, $2.0$, and $3.0 \celc$, respectively.

1715: The narrow horizontal and vertical lines mark

1716: the critical values of $\Sigma$ and $\rho$.

1717: The short horizontal lines mark the ordering field values up to which

1718: the fitting was performed.

1719: See the text for further details.

1720: 

1721: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1722: %

1723: % FIGURES

1724: %

1725: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

1726: %FIG

1727: \begin{figure}

1728: \includegraphics{fig1_coex}

1729: \caption{\label{fig5:coex}

1730: }

1731: \end{figure}

1732: 

1733: %FIG

1734: \begin{figure}

1735: \includegraphics[scale=0.95]{fig2_chk}

1736: \caption{\label{fig5:chk}

1737: }

1738: \end{figure}

1739: 

1740: %FIG

1741: \begin{figure}

1742: \includegraphics{fig3_sigma0}

1743: \caption{\label{fig5:sigma0}

1744: }

1745: \end{figure}

1746: 

1747: %FIG

1748: \begin{figure}

1749: \includegraphics{fig4_attc}

1750: \caption{\label{fig5:attc}

1751: }

1752: \end{figure}

1753: 

1754: %FIG

1755: \begin{figure}

1756: \includegraphics[scale=0.85]{fig5_smpm}

1757: \caption{\label{fig5:SMpm}

1758: }

1759: \end{figure}

1760: 

1761: %FIG

1762: \begin{figure}

1763: \includegraphics[scale=1.0]{fig6_isox}

1764: \caption{\label{fig6:isox}

1765: }

1766: \end{figure}

1767: 

1768: \end{document}

1769: