P. Coussot写的一篇综述Bingham’s heritage，发表在这个月的Rheol. Acta上

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][3][4][5][8]。

P. Coussot的这篇综述花了比上述的几篇更大的篇幅来回顾历史，讲述在当时的整体物理认识环境中，“屈服应力流体”的概念是如何被接受的。我在这篇文章里也提过，Bingham提出“流变学”（rheolgy）的初衷是为了搞清楚屈服应力流体，或者宽泛地说是为了研究胶体体系的流变学。相比高分子流变学，胶体流变学问题提出得更早，目前的认识却不如高分子的深。其实是中间隔了很多年的冷淡期。正如文中说：

However, contrary to what one would expect for a new and useful concept, Bingham’s findings and the creation of the Society of Rheology did not lead to an explosion of publications concerning yield stress fluids. Instead, the number of studies in this field remained rather limited during the first 70 years.

今天，屈服应力流体的研究已经不是停留在流动性的现象学，而是结合胶体物理了。这也要归功于液体物理的发展。这篇暂时放在arXiv.org上的综述，作者是David Chandler，应该将会发表在2017年的Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem.。这篇综述严格来说应该是个历史传记。故事是从1967年参加Gordon Research Conference开始讲起的。作者以他在这一年的这一个会议看到的人物为主线，介绍了这些人物当时和后来的工作，最终展示出的历史事实就是，那年参加这个会议的这些人，最终共同建立了液体物理的学科范式（或者称“语言”、“工具”或“重要议题”吧）。包括临界现象、分子模拟方法、WCA理论、时间相关函数、水的物理、乃至玻璃化转变等先驱工作，其主要创始人都在1967年的GRC出现过。但作者没有花笔墨去介绍这些具体知识，只重点讲谁做了什么，为后来的什么奠定基础等等，同时穿插着作者与这些人相处的印象、趣闻、秩事。

例如，作者生动地描述了Onsager讲课时的情景：

Onsager went to the board, mumbled something as he wrote an equation blocked from view by his notable height and broad shoulders. Upon completing the equation, he turned to show us all, and with a smile and a twinkle in his eye, he told us the uncovered formula was a remarkable result. I couldn’t understand its content, but the presentation so captivated me that to this day I almost always think of Onsager when I say or write “remarkable.”

当年就使用计算机模拟方法来研究液体性质的工作很稀有。因为当时计算机也刚出现没几年。在GRC上，Rahman被问到他的计算工作花费成本有多大，

Rahman demurred by saying it was trivial in comparison to one hour’s expense in the ongoing Vietnam War.

这两篇注重历史的综述作者都是big names。

References

1. P. Coussot, "Yield stress fluid flows: A review of experimental data", Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, vol. 211, pp. 31-49, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnnfm.2014.05.006
2. Q.D. Nguyen, and D.V. Boger, "Measuring the Flow Properties of Yield Stress Fluids", Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 24, pp. 47-88, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.fl.24.010192.000403
3. H.A. Barnes, "The yield stress—a review or ‘παντα ρει’—everything flows?", Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, vol. 81, pp. 133-178, 1999. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0257(98)00094-9
4. H.A. Barnes, "Thixotropy—a review", Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mechanics, vol. 70, pp. 1-33, 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0377-0257(97)00004-9
5. H.A. Barnes, and K. Walters, "The yield stress myth?", Rheologica Acta, vol. 24, pp. 323-326, 1985. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01333960