Institute of Metals Division - Measurement of Relative Interface Energies in Twin Related Crystals - Discussion

J. P. Nielsen—The data that Dr. Dunn and his associates have been obtaining are welcome checks on the theoretical aspects of grain boundary energies. With reference to the comments on the validity of the inter-facial tension concept, I should like to say that I have been having considerable difficulty myself in untangling the confusion between "interfacial tension" and "interfacial energy." The confusion however resolved itself for me when I learned that "interfacial tension" for solids, or at least crystals, is used with two distinct meanings. One meaning12. ' "hat is implied for "interfacial tension" is the work necessary to produce or increase the surface of the solid in question by a unit area, temperature and pressure held constant. This comes from the somewhat surprising but simple fact that surface tension and surface energy in the case of liquids are identical quantities. This synonymity has carried over to crystals, where it should be kept in mind that the tension connotation has meaning only by analogy with liquids and that no real stresses are being referred to. The only reason that there is apparently a set of stresses acting at a grain boundary junction is the optical illusion that liquid interfaces are being observed for the grain boundaries. The other meaning3,14,15 for the term has to do with actual states of stress in the surface of a material as would be measured by a system of forces applied to the surface to equate the surface stress state with that in the body of the crystal. J. B. Hess—Since the authors have proposed that the surface tension concept should be discarded in order to deal with the general case of interface energies in solids, their attention should be called to a recent paper by Gurney." The latter has shown, from a thermodynamic argument, that surface tension is a valid concept in solids. In fact, Gurney has rejected the idea that surface tensions are merely mathematical fiction and, instead, has given an interpretation of their physical reality. Finally, he has concluded that, as long as appreciable atomic migration takes place, specific surface energies and surface tensions must be equivalent in solids as well as in liquids. Accordingly, the authors' eqs 2 and 3 can be written with equal accuracy in terms of interface tensions, simply by replacing each E,! with its numerically and dimension-ally equivalent Interfacial tension ?,,. If the interfacial tensions (or specific energies) are independent of interfacial orientation, as is true in liquids, then the general equations that define the geometry at equilibrium of the common junction of three interfaces reduce to eq 1. However, neglect of the effect of boundary orientation is never completely justified theoretically' in dealing with crystalline solids; hence, use of eq 1 in such cases must always be considered as an approximation, though clearly a reasonable one for many purposes.1,2 At the same time, one should not be surprised that the assumption that interface tensions in solids are free from orientation