Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T23:33:36.854Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dielectric Relaxation in a Deeply Supercooled Liquid Crystals Confined in Random Porous Media

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 February 2011

G. P. Sinha  and
F. M. Aliev
G. P. Sinha
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Materials Research Center, PO BOX 23343, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR 00931-3343, USA
F. M. Aliev
Affiliation:
Department of Physics and Materials Research Center, PO BOX 23343, University of Puerto Rico, San Juan, PR 00931-3343, USA
Get access

Abstract

Liquid crystals (LCs)—pentylcyanobiphenyl (5CB) and octylcyanobiphenyl (8CB)—were confined in random porous media with narrow pores of mean size equal to 100 Å and investigated by means of broad band dielectric spectroscopy in deeply supercooled state. In liquid crystalline phases, bulk 5CB and 8CB have two dielectrically active modes. The main mode with the relaxation time τ ∼ 10”8s is due to the rotation of molecules about their short axis, and the secondary mode is due to the tumbling motion of molecules with the relaxation time ツ ∼ 10”10s. Bulk 5CB and 8CB are nonglass formers and they crystallize at cooling. The confinement strongly influences the dynamical behavior of LCs and is resulted in qualitative changes in their properties. Deep supercooling of LCs in pores up to ∼ 150 degrees below the bulk crystallization temperature was observed. The relaxation rate of the process due to the molecular rotation in deeply supercooled state is slower than at the temperatures corresponding to nematic phase by many orders of magnitude. This slowing down is accompanied by anomalous broadening of the dielectric spectra.

Other new properties observed in confined LCs are two low frequency relaxation processes absent in bulk LCs. One of these processes is due to the molecular relaxation in the surface layers at liquid crystal-solid pore wall interface. The second process is probably a collective mode due to the relaxation of the surface induced polarization. The collective process due to surface polarization and the surface molecular mode show features typical for glass formers.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 543: Symposium W – Dynamics in Small Confining Systems IV , 1998 , 27
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1999

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Schuller, J., Mel'nichenko, Yu.B., Richert, R., and Fischer, E.W., Phys. Rev. Lett. 73, p.2224 (1994).Google Scholar
2. Arndt, M. and Kremer, F. in: Dynamics in Small Confining Systems II, edited by Drake, J. M., Klafter, J., Kopelman, R., Troian, S.M., (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 363, Pittsburgh, PA 1995), pp. 259–263.Google Scholar
3. Mel'nichenko, Yu., Schuller, J., Richert, R., Ewen, B. and Loong, C.-K., J. Chem. Phys. 103, p. 2016 (1995).Google Scholar
4. Schuller, J., Richert, R., Fischer, E.W., Phys. Rev. B 52, 15232 (1995).Google Scholar
5. Arndt, M., Stannarius, R., Gorbatschow, W., and Kremer, F., Phys. Rev. E 54, 5377 (1996).Google Scholar
6. Arndt, M., Stannarius, R., Hempel, E., and Kremer, F., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2077 (1997).Google Scholar
7. Barut, G., Pissis, P., Pelster, R., and Nimtz, G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 3543 (1998).Google Scholar
8. Aliev, F.M. and Sinha, G.P.: Electrically based Microstructural Characterization, edited by Gerhardt, R.A., Taylor, S.R., and Garboczi, E. J. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 411, Pittsburgh, PA 1996), pp. 413–418.Google Scholar
9. Rozanski, S.R., Stanarius, R., Groothues, H., and Kremer, F., Liquid Crystals 20, 59 (1996).Google Scholar
10. Sinha, G.P. and Aliev, F.M., Mol.Cryst.Liq.Cryst. 304, 309 (1997).Google Scholar
11. Sinha, G.P. and Aliev, F.M.: Dynamics in Small Confining Systems III, edited by Drake, J. M., Klafter, J. and Kopelman, R. (Mater. Res. Soc. Proc. 464, Pittsburgh, PA 1997), pp. 195–200.Google Scholar
12. Ch. Cramer, Th. Cramer, Kremer, F., and Stannarius, R., J. Chem. Phys. 106, 3730 (1997).Google Scholar
13. Sinha, G.P. and Aliev, F.M., Phys. Rev. E 58, 2001 (1998).Google Scholar
14. Havriliak, S. and Negami, S., Polymer 8, 101 (1967).Google Scholar
15. Cummins, P.G., Danmur, D.A., and Laidler, D.A., Mol.Cryst.Liq.Cryst. 30, 109 (1975).Google Scholar
16. Lippens, D., Parneix, J. P., and Chapoton, A., J. de Phys. 38, 1465 (1977).Google Scholar
17. Wacrenier, J.M., Druon, C., and Lippens, D., Molec. Phys. 43, 97 (1981).Google Scholar
18. Bose, T.K., Chahine, R., Merabet, M., and Thoen, J., J. de Phys. 45, 11329 (1984).Google Scholar
19. Bose, T. K., Campbell, B., Yagihara, S., and Thoen, J., Phys. Rew. A 36, 5767 (1987).Google Scholar