The theory of surface tension components and the equation of state approach
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".