Tangential electroviscous drag on a sphere surrounded by a thin double layer near a wall for arbitrary particle–wall separations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When a charged particle moves along a charged wall in a polar fluid, it experiences an electroviscous lift force normal to the surface and an electroviscous drag, superimposed on the viscous drag, parallel to the surface. Here a theoretical analysis is presented to determine the electroviscous drag on a charged spherical particle surrounded by a thin electrical double layer near a charged plane wall, when the particle translates parallel to the wall without rotation, in a symmetric electrolyte solution at rest. The electroviscous (electro-hydrodynamic) forces, arising from the coupling between the electrical and hydrodynamic equations, are determined as a solution of three partial differential equations, for electroviscous ion concentration (perturbed ion clouds), electroviscous potential (perturbed electric potential) and electroviscous or electro-hydrodynamic flow field (perturbed flow field). The problem was previously solved for small gap widths and low Peclet numbers in the inner region around the gap between the sphere and the wall, using lubrication theory. Here the restriction on the particle–wall distances is removed, and an analytical and numerical solution is obtained valid for the whole domain of interest. For large sphere–wall separations the solution approaches that for the electroviscous drag on an isolated sphere in an unbounded fluid. For small particle–wall distances it differs from that obtained by the use of lubrication theory, showing that lubrication theory is inadequate for electroviscous problems. The analytical results are in complete agreement with the full numerical calculations. For small particle–wall distances a model is given which provides both physical insight and an easy way to calculate the force with high precision.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".