The theory of surface tension components and the equation of state approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are at present two main approaches to the calculation of solid surface tensions from contact angles: the theory of surface tension components and the equation of state approach. These are compared on the basis of their abilities to predict both the outcome of a specially designed contact-angle experiment and the engulfing behavior of microscopic particles at advancing solidification fronts. Each of these experiments provides an independent test of the validity of the two approaches. The equation of state passes both tests. The theory of surface tension components is shown to be inadequate. A theoretical assessment of the Fowkes equation for surface tension components reveals that the “dispersion components” of solid or liquid surface tension are, in fact, meaningless functions of the corresponding total solid and liquid surface tensions. More generally, it is found that contact angles can never be used to measure surface tension components. This is a consequence of Young’s equation and the existence of an equation of state relating the solid-liquid surface tension to the total surface tension of the liquid and solid. Equation of state results are compared with direct measurements of solid surface tension made with an Israelachvili machine and recently reported in the literature.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it