Contact angle hysteresis generated by the residual gravitational field of the Space Shuttle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When the two fluid phases of a substance are present in a cylinder, one of the possible equilibrium configurations is for two liquid phases to be present, one above the vapor phase and one below. If surface tension dominates the gravitational effects, the two-interface configuration is the thermodynamically favored one. When the system is in the two-interface configuration, the difference in pressure between the two liquid phases is predicted to be the same as it would have been had no vapor phase been present! Although the pressure profile cannot be measured directly, it is predicted to cause the contact angle value at the upper three-phase line to be smaller than that at the lower three-phase line. This difference in contact angles can be measured, and from the measured values, the theory can be used to determine the value of the gravitational intensity. In an experiment conducted on a Space Shuttle flight, the configuration adopted when glass cylinders of different diameters were each partially filled with water was recorded. The fluid in each cylinder was found to adopt the two-interface configuration, as predicted. A 56 mm diam glass cylinder that had a height of 86 mm was observed to have a contact angle at the upper three-phase line of 6.7±1.3° and 26.5±4.0° at the lower. The value of the gravitational intensity inferred from the measured contact angles agrees with that reported from the (NASA) electronic Space Acceleration Measurement System (SAMS). This agreement supports the prediction that contact angle hysteresis is generated by a difference in pressure between the two liquid phases of the two-interface configuration.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".