Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time I
pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down. (Yes,
I know I could use a towel...)

DJM

I've seen them advertised, but I have my doubts. I brew in the cup.
Toci

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:42:51 GMT, Daniel J. Morlan wrote:

> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time I
> pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down. (Yes,
> I know I could use a towel...)
>
> DJM

A while back, someone posted the link for these:

http://www.culinaryteas.com/Tea_Accessories/1384.html

A dripless teapot "gadget" that goes in the spout to "fix" your
current pot. I haven't bought one yet, so I can't say whether they
work or not.

--
Derek

"The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature
cures the disease." -- Voltaire

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:42:51 GMT, Daniel J. Morlan wrote:

> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time I
> pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down. (Yes,
> I know I could use a towel...)
>
> DJM

A while back, someone posted the link for these:

http://www.culinaryteas.com/Tea_Accessories/1384.html

A dripless teapot "gadget" that goes in the spout to "fix" your
current pot. I haven't bought one yet, so I can't say whether they
work or not.

--
Derek

"The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature
cures the disease." -- Voltaire

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 07:08:48 -0600
Derek > wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:42:51 GMT, Daniel J. Morlan wrote:
>
> > Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY
> > time I pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs
> > down. (Yes, I know I could use a towel...)
> >
> > DJM
>
> A while back, someone posted the link for these:
>
> http://www.culinaryteas.com/Tea_Accessories/1384.html
>
> A dripless teapot "gadget" that goes in the spout to "fix" your
> current pot. I haven't bought one yet, so I can't say whether they
> work or not.


Looks like you could make your own with an inch and a half of plastic
coated wire tie.

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 07:08:48 -0600, Derek wrote:

> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 12:42:51 GMT, Daniel J. Morlan wrote:
>
>> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY
>> time I pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs
>> down. (Yes, I know I could use a towel...)
>>
>> DJM
>
> A while back, someone posted the link for these:
>
> http://www.culinaryteas.com/Tea_Accessories/1384.html
>
> A dripless teapot "gadget" that goes in the spout to "fix" your current
> pot. I haven't bought one yet, so I can't say whether they work or not.

Yes they work, 80%

In article > ,
Daniel J. Morlan > wrote:
>Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time I
>pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down. (Yes,
>I know I could use a towel...)

It has to do with the angle of the spout at the end and very little else.
I can recommend the Chatsworth pots.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

In article > ,
Daniel J. Morlan > wrote:
>Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time I
>pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down. (Yes,
>I know I could use a towel...)

It has to do with the angle of the spout at the end and very little else.
I can recommend the Chatsworth pots.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"Daniel J. Morlan" > wrote in message
m...
> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time
I
> pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down.
(Yes,
> I know I could use a towel...)

Yes, the Jenaer (which ceased production at the end of March) and Bodum
glass teapots have excellent reputations for being dripless. The IngenuiTea
from adagio.com is popular with those who make tea at work. My Bee House
teapot is dripless depending on how I pour. If I don't use quick
wrist-action, a drop of tea hangs from the lip (but doesn't drop) as it does
for the teapot of my Tea-for-One Brown Betty set and bone china Chatsford
teapots. These are made dripless with the gadget that Derek mentioned.

The thing about spouts is that the ones with elongated openings and longer
underlips pour much better compared to spout openings that are round with
short to no underlips. I've got two of the latter that are so poorly shaped
that not even the dripless gadget will help.

--
~~Bluesea~~
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.

"Daniel J. Morlan" > wrote in message
m...
> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time
I
> pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down.
(Yes,
> I know I could use a towel...)

Yes, the Jenaer (which ceased production at the end of March) and Bodum
glass teapots have excellent reputations for being dripless. The IngenuiTea
from adagio.com is popular with those who make tea at work. My Bee House
teapot is dripless depending on how I pour. If I don't use quick
wrist-action, a drop of tea hangs from the lip (but doesn't drop) as it does
for the teapot of my Tea-for-One Brown Betty set and bone china Chatsford
teapots. These are made dripless with the gadget that Derek mentioned.

The thing about spouts is that the ones with elongated openings and longer
underlips pour much better compared to spout openings that are round with
short to no underlips. I've got two of the latter that are so poorly shaped
that not even the dripless gadget will help.

--
~~Bluesea~~
Spam is great in musubi but not in email.
Please take out the trash before sending a direct reply.

I find that most glass pots with underlips (like the Jenaer) are
dripless, as long as you keep the rate of flow low enough that liquid
doesn't over-run the underlip. I also use a tetsubin with a round
spout, no underlip, and amazingly it never seems to drip (the most I've
seen it drip is one single drop). I think with these types of pots, it
really does have a lot to do with the diameter of the spout and the
angle, as one previous poster mentioned.

Daniel wrote:
> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time
I
> pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down.
(Yes,
> I know I could use a towel...)

One option is to make your current pot dripless.

Most pots I've tried this on respond well, or even perfectly. All it needs
is a thin film of anything unwettable (hydrophobic; low surface-energy with
no hydrogen bonding) where you want the stream to separate. An easy demo is
to wipe the thinnest possible film of flavorless cooking oil around the
spout, but that will wash off quickly. More serious nerds can use either
Rain-X (from any auto store) or a fluorosilicone sample from Du Pont. I've
tried Teflon mold-release spray, which works fine but makes a visible,
powdery coating.

Now all the chemophobe paranoiacs here can start griping.

-DM

Daniel wrote:
> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time
I
> pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down.
(Yes,
> I know I could use a towel...)

One option is to make your current pot dripless.

Most pots I've tried this on respond well, or even perfectly. All it needs
is a thin film of anything unwettable (hydrophobic; low surface-energy with
no hydrogen bonding) where you want the stream to separate. An easy demo is
to wipe the thinnest possible film of flavorless cooking oil around the
spout, but that will wash off quickly. More serious nerds can use either
Rain-X (from any auto store) or a fluorosilicone sample from Du Pont. I've
tried Teflon mold-release spray, which works fine but makes a visible,
powdery coating.

Now all the chemophobe paranoiacs here can start griping.

-DM

All the old teapots and kettles (before ACAD design that started in early
70-ies.) are that way - they do not drip or spill or whatever. Almsot all of
these things were designed by engineers.
But since ACAD things started to be designed by "designers" and these
people do not have adequate training in engineering and physics, so as long
as the teapot or coffeepot looks good on the screen, they are OK.
Now that things are designed by 3d engineering programs like Solidworks and
it became even easier to do so, another disaster is everywhere - things
breaking off because they are too thin (like plastic tabs on battery lids,
etc. SanDisk USB memory dongle has a tiny depression with a thingy to ancor
the lanyard. It is so thin that a weak tug from being caught in a jacket
crevasse and it gets silently broken with your precious data laying
somewhere on the floor. But I am sure that on the screen it looked very
solid.
But the best non-spilling teapot has the spout with down-looking opening
like some of the Chinese porcelin teapots. However it only works if the
internal parts of the spout is rough porcelin and has enough surface tension
to hold that last single drop that forms on the downlooking part of the
spout. Same design with glazed internal surface does not work as well. But
even in this case the worst that can happen is that one drop of tea will
spill. Some of the contemporar pots from the coffee-makers are spilling the
half of the liquid everywhere but not where it is meant to be poured.
Spilling pots and day-saving time are the two most stupid everyday things
that irritate me immensly.

Sasha.



"Daniel J. Morlan" > wrote in message
m...
> Is there such a thing? I hate using a kleenex to clean my desk EVERY time
> I pour tea. It's frustrating, and certainly isn't keeping costs down.
> (Yes, I know I could use a towel...)
>
> DJM
>

Alex .com4/12/05


> All the old teapots and kettles (before ACAD design that started in early
> 70-ies.) are that way - they do not drip or spill or whatever. Almsot all of
> these things were designed by engineers.
> But since ACAD things started to be designed by "designers" and these
> people do not have adequate training in engineering and physics, so as long
> as the teapot or coffeepot looks good on the screen, they are OK.
> Now that things are designed by 3d engineering programs like Solidworks and
> it became even easier to do so, another disaster is everywhere - things
> breaking off because they are too thin (like plastic tabs on battery lids,
> etc. SanDisk USB memory dongle has a tiny depression with a thingy to ancor
> the lanyard. It is so thin that a weak tug from being caught in a jacket
> crevasse and it gets silently broken with your precious data laying
> somewhere on the floor. But I am sure that on the screen it looked very
> solid.
> But the best non-spilling teapot has the spout with down-looking opening
> like some of the Chinese porcelin teapots. However it only works if the
> internal parts of the spout is rough porcelin and has enough surface tension
> to hold that last single drop that forms on the downlooking part of the
> spout. Same design with glazed internal surface does not work as well. But
> even in this case the worst that can happen is that one drop of tea will
> spill. Some of the contemporar pots from the coffee-makers are spilling the
> half of the liquid everywhere but not where it is meant to be poured.
> Spilling pots and day-saving time are the two most stupid everyday things
> that irritate me immensly.
>
> Sasha.

I have found that among the many YiXing GungFu teapot "styles," those well
made with a straight upward pointing spout work best in the drip department.
The last drop is "pulled back" into the pot, as it ought to. This has to do
with design much more than clay roughness and surface tension. Take it from
Michael, the used-to-be potter.

Michael

> I have found that among the many YiXing GungFu teapot "styles," those well
> made with a straight upward pointing spout work best in the drip
> department.
> The last drop is "pulled back" into the pot, as it ought to. This has to
> do
> with design much more than clay roughness and surface tension. Take it
> from
> Michael, the used-to-be potter.
>
> Michael


Its design plus material plus size and shape (that defines the dynamics and
geometry of how fast it is rotated around its horizontal axis during
pouring. Straight upward design works good for smaller pots and yixing clay
has very high surface tension (watch drips of water sitting on its surface
at different slope angles and compare that with the behavior of water drops
on glazed porcelain) Same design does not work for large kettles at all also
because that design implies lifting the pot quite high and rotating it at he
higher angle, which is difficult with heavy pot. That is why traditional
kettle has a bent spout that allows for smaller rotation angle and almost no
lift.
Yixing pots are meant to be emptied into chahai by placing them almost
upside down with their spout inside chaihai opening. That is not at all the
dynamics of the usage of large teapot or kettle. Thus the differences.

With al due respect to a potter from a scientist.

Sasha.

"Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:

> > I have found that among the many YiXing GungFu teapot "styles," those well
> > made with a straight upward pointing spout work best in the drip
> > department.
> > The last drop is "pulled back" into the pot, as it ought to. This
> > has to do with design much more than clay roughness and surface
> > tension. Take it from Michael, the used-to-be potter.
> >
> > Michael
>
>
> Its design plus material plus size and shape (that defines the
> dynamics and geometry of how fast it is rotated around its
> horizontal axis during pouring. Straight upward design works good
> for smaller pots and yixing clay has very high surface tension
> (watch drips of water sitting on its surface at different slope
> angles and compare that with the behavior of water drops on glazed
> porcelain) Same design does not work for large kettles at all also
> because that design implies lifting the pot quite high and rotating
> it at he higher angle, which is difficult with heavy pot. That is
> why traditional kettle has a bent spout that allows for smaller
> rotation angle and almost no lift.
> Yixing pots are meant to be emptied into chahai by placing them
> almost upside down with their spout inside chaihai opening. That is
> not at all the dynamics of the usage of large teapot or kettle. Thus
> the differences.
>
> With al due respect to a potter from a scientist.

Neither potter nor scientist, I hesitate to raise a question I should
have asked a bit earlier: Isn't surface tension a property of liquids,
e.g. tea liquor, not solids, e.g. teapots?

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

On 13 Apr 2005 14:39:27 -0400
Lewis Perin > wrote:

> "Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:
>
> > > I have found that among the many YiXing GungFu teapot "styles," those
> > > well made with a straight upward pointing spout work best in the drip
> > >
> > > department.
> > > The last drop is "pulled back" into the pot, as it ought to. This
> > > has to do with design much more than clay roughness and surface
> > > tension. Take it from Michael, the used-to-be potter.
> > >
> > > Michael
> >
> >
> > Its design plus material plus size and shape (that defines the
> > dynamics and geometry of how fast it is rotated around its
> > horizontal axis during pouring. Straight upward design works good
> > for smaller pots and yixing clay has very high surface tension
> > (watch drips of water sitting on its surface at different slope
> > angles and compare that with the behavior of water drops on glazed
> > porcelain) Same design does not work for large kettles at all also
> > because that design implies lifting the pot quite high and rotating
> > it at he higher angle, which is difficult with heavy pot. That is
> > why traditional kettle has a bent spout that allows for smaller
> > rotation angle and almost no lift.
> > Yixing pots are meant to be emptied into chahai by placing them
> > almost upside down with their spout inside chaihai opening. That is
> > not at all the dynamics of the usage of large teapot or kettle. Thus
> > the differences.
> >
> > With al due respect to a potter from a scientist.
>
> Neither potter nor scientist, I hesitate to raise a question I should
> have asked a bit earlier: Isn't surface tension a property of liquids,
> e.g. tea liquor, not solids, e.g. teapots?


Yeah, the property in question is often referred to as wetting. I have
no idea how much jargon surrounds that, suffice to say that a single
droplet of water (or oil, or acid, or etc) on a sterile plane of a given
material will take a different shape than on some other material. e.g. the
same amount of liquid will cover a given amount of surface area, and there
will also be differences in how it clings to it.

>
> Neither potter nor scientist, I hesitate to raise a question I should
> have asked a bit earlier: Isn't surface tension a property of liquids,
> e.g. tea liquor, not solids, e.g. teapots?
>
> /Lew
> ---
> Lew Perin /

ST is a property of the liquid, but depending on the contcact surface it can
manifest itself in different ways. Major factor would be the specific
gravity of the very thin film of the material in contact or other factors
that would define basically if the surface will be "phobic" of "phillic" to
a particular liquid and vice versa. In the case I was describing the glaze
layer on the porcelin is very light and the water is less likely to form a
film on it (which would prevent it from forming a drop and dropping down).
Unglazed porcelin is more dense and water wets it forming such a film.

A very good indicator of such properties is luster that can be observed by
naked eye. Luster in mineralogy is one of the major properties of the
material actually disclosing the very nature of the chemical bonds in it.
Diamond luster is an indication of strong covalent bonds, glassy - ion
bonds, melallic - free electron bonds and fatty - Van der Vaals (hydrogen)
bonds. Thus you can be quite sure that a material with fresh fatty luster
will be quite hydriphobic, as opposed to the material with diamond luster.
The highest diamond luster is certainly a property of diamonds that are so
likely to be wetted by anything even remotely liquidy that it actually can
be wetted by pig fat which was used in diamond mines as the way to catch
diamonds - the gravels were fed through rotating drums layered with fresh
pig fat and only the diamonds would stick to it, the rest of the gravel
would fall off. X-Ray flourescence is mostly used nowadays to great joy of
pigs and (I am guessing) kosher Jewish diamond dealers, if there is such a
thing

Sasha.

"Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:

> >
> > Neither potter nor scientist, I hesitate to raise a question I should
> > have asked a bit earlier: Isn't surface tension a property of liquids,
> > e.g. tea liquor, not solids, e.g. teapots?
> >
> > /Lew
> > ---
> > Lew Perin /
>
> ST is a property of the liquid, but depending on the contcact surface it can
> manifest itself in different ways. Major factor would be the specific
> gravity of the very thin film of the material in contact or other factors
> that would define basically if the surface will be "phobic" of "phillic" to
> a particular liquid and vice versa. In the case I was describing the glaze
> layer on the porcelin is very light and the water is less likely to form a
> film on it (which would prevent it from forming a drop and dropping down).
> Unglazed porcelin is more dense and water wets it forming such a film.

Interesting. So (and please correct me if I'm wrong)

- the pot drips if a drop can form where tea liquor and spout meet;

- the surface tension needed for drop formation is increased by a
relatively fluffy spout lining like a glaze, while a dense material
like unglazed ceramics attracts the liquid, preventing drop
formation.

In the naive and sloppy part of my mind where I've accounted for this
kind of thing until now, I assumed that vitreous surfaces repelled
water because they were dense. But really, at the level where this
stuff takes place, I suppose it's a long way between particles, so
there had to be something else in play, right?

/Lew
---
Lew Perin /
http://www.panix.com/~perin/babelcarp.html

"Lewis Perin" > wrote in message
news
> "Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:

>
> - the pot drips if a drop can form where tea liquor and spout meet;
>
> - the surface tension needed for drop formation is increased by a
> relatively fluffy spout lining like a glaze, while a dense material
> like unglazed ceramics attracts the liquid, preventing drop
> formation.

Approximately

>
> In the naive and sloppy part of my mind where I've accounted for this
> kind of thing until now, I assumed that vitreous surfaces repelled
> water because they were dense.

Let me put it this way - a drop of liquid has to "decide" if it rather be
attracted to contact material (and then it wets it) or to itself (and then
it forms some sort of spherical surface. The density of the immediate thin
film on the contact surface is critical for such decision.If the desnity of
such is higher than the liquid's it is likely to wet it and form the
negatively curved surface. If it is lower - it will likely to form
positively curved surface. A good example is ater and mercury in a glass
tube.
The more sperical is that positively curved surface, the taller is the drop,
the more distance between the surface and the center of the drop's gravity
and the more likely it will lose contact with the surface and actually drip.
the bettr it wets the surface the thinner is the liquid film and the less
likely it would lose contact with the surface and drip.

>But really, at the level where this
> stuff takes place, I suppose it's a long way between particles, so
> there had to be something else in play, right?
>
> /Lew
> ---

Not that I am aware of.
I have not looked at any math models recently, but if I remember right
gravitational pull plays major role in this. In some special cases like with
oils ionic forces are also at play.
One could have suspected also some additional molecular forces at play,
especially in water, bust since all liquids are subject to this type of
effect disregarding the chemistry its unlikely that such forces play any
significant role in common cases.

Sasha.

Lewis 4/13/05

> "Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:
>
>>> I have found that among the many YiXing GungFu teapot "styles," those well
>>> made with a straight upward pointing spout work best in the drip
>>> department.
>>> The last drop is "pulled back" into the pot, as it ought to. This
>>> has to do with design much more than clay roughness and surface
>>> tension. Take it from Michael, the used-to-be potter.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Its design plus material plus size and shape (that defines the
>> dynamics and geometry of how fast it is rotated around its
>> horizontal axis during pouring. Straight upward design works good
>> for smaller pots and yixing clay has very high surface tension
>> (watch drips of water sitting on its surface at different slope
>> angles and compare that with the behavior of water drops on glazed
>> porcelain) Same design does not work for large kettles at all also
>> because that design implies lifting the pot quite high and rotating
>> it at he higher angle, which is difficult with heavy pot. That is
>> why traditional kettle has a bent spout that allows for smaller
>> rotation angle and almost no lift.
>> Yixing pots are meant to be emptied into chahai by placing them
>> almost upside down with their spout inside chaihai opening. That is
>> not at all the dynamics of the usage of large teapot or kettle. Thus
>> the differences.
>>
>> With al due respect to a potter from a scientist.
>
> Neither potter nor scientist, I hesitate to raise a question I should
> have asked a bit earlier: Isn't surface tension a property of liquids,
> e.g. tea liquor, not solids, e.g. teapots?
>
> /Lew


Yes. But, I'm just a poor country boy. We used to test teapots of the
same size and made of the same clay and glaze formulae, and found that some
poured better than others; that is, some did that pull-the-last-drop-back
trick. The question for us was always, Why this one and not that one?
Anyway, it's nice when you get one that doesn't drip. Nonetheless, dripless
is *not* a sine qua non of a good pot in my book.

Michael

Lewis 4/13/05

> "Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:
>
>>> I have found that among the many YiXing GungFu teapot "styles," those well
>>> made with a straight upward pointing spout work best in the drip
>>> department.
>>> The last drop is "pulled back" into the pot, as it ought to. This
>>> has to do with design much more than clay roughness and surface
>>> tension. Take it from Michael, the used-to-be potter.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>
>>
>> Its design plus material plus size and shape (that defines the
>> dynamics and geometry of how fast it is rotated around its
>> horizontal axis during pouring. Straight upward design works good
>> for smaller pots and yixing clay has very high surface tension
>> (watch drips of water sitting on its surface at different slope
>> angles and compare that with the behavior of water drops on glazed
>> porcelain) Same design does not work for large kettles at all also
>> because that design implies lifting the pot quite high and rotating
>> it at he higher angle, which is difficult with heavy pot. That is
>> why traditional kettle has a bent spout that allows for smaller
>> rotation angle and almost no lift.
>> Yixing pots are meant to be emptied into chahai by placing them
>> almost upside down with their spout inside chaihai opening. That is
>> not at all the dynamics of the usage of large teapot or kettle. Thus
>> the differences.
>>
>> With al due respect to a potter from a scientist.
>
> Neither potter nor scientist, I hesitate to raise a question I should
> have asked a bit earlier: Isn't surface tension a property of liquids,
> e.g. tea liquor, not solids, e.g. teapots?
>
> /Lew


Yes. But, I'm just a poor country boy. We used to test teapots of the
same size and made of the same clay and glaze formulae, and found that some
poured better than others; that is, some did that pull-the-last-drop-back
trick. The question for us was always, Why this one and not that one?
Anyway, it's nice when you get one that doesn't drip. Nonetheless, dripless
is *not* a sine qua non of a good pot in my book.

Michael

Sasha,

After reading and rereading your latest posts a time or two there is nothing
left but to take a bunch of teapots, do the pour thing, and observe. Let's
just see. Of course, I'd never thought of the drip patterns quite the way
you describe them, but it sure does make a lot of sense.

Michael


Alex y.com4/13/05


>
> "Lewis Perin" > wrote in message
> news
>> "Alex Chaihorsky" > writes:
>
>>
>> - the pot drips if a drop can form where tea liquor and spout meet;
>>
>> - the surface tension needed for drop formation is increased by a
>> relatively fluffy spout lining like a glaze, while a dense material
>> like unglazed ceramics attracts the liquid, preventing drop
>> formation.
>
> Approximately
>
>>
>> In the naive and sloppy part of my mind where I've accounted for this
>> kind of thing until now, I assumed that vitreous surfaces repelled
>> water because they were dense.
>
> Let me put it this way - a drop of liquid has to "decide" if it rather be
> attracted to contact material (and then it wets it) or to itself (and then
> it forms some sort of spherical surface. The density of the immediate thin
> film on the contact surface is critical for such decision.If the desnity of
> such is higher than the liquid's it is likely to wet it and form the
> negatively curved surface. If it is lower - it will likely to form
> positively curved surface. A good example is ater and mercury in a glass
> tube.
> The more sperical is that positively curved surface, the taller is the drop,
> the more distance between the surface and the center of the drop's gravity
> and the more likely it will lose contact with the surface and actually drip.
> the bettr it wets the surface the thinner is the liquid film and the less
> likely it would lose contact with the surface and drip.
>
>> But really, at the level where this
>> stuff takes place, I suppose it's a long way between particles, so
>> there had to be something else in play, right?
>>
>> /Lew
>> ---
>
> Not that I am aware of.
> I have not looked at any math models recently, but if I remember right
> gravitational pull plays major role in this. In some special cases like with
> oils ionic forces are also at play.
> One could have suspected also some additional molecular forces at play,
> especially in water, bust since all liquids are subject to this type of
> effect disregarding the chemistry its unlikely that such forces play any
> significant role in common cases.
>
> Sasha.
>
>