On the Maximum Spreading Diameter of Impacting Droplets on Well-Prepared Solid Surfaces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a systematic study of liquid droplet impact on three polymer surfaces: poly(methyl methacrylate), poly(methyl methacrylate/n-butyl methacrylate), and poly(n-butyl methacrylate). Changing from one surface to the next represents an incremental variation in solid surface tensions of 5-6 mJ/m2. These surfaces were prepared through careful experimental procedures that were used for the determination of solid surface tensions from contact angles. Our data for the maximum spreading diameter of water and formamide impacting on these surfaces were compared with those predicted from literature models. Of the models selected, we modified the model of Pasandideh-Fard et al. [Phys. Fluids 1996, 8, 650] and the results yielded a least error of only 5.09 +/- 5.05% in the determination of the maximum spreading diameter. The improved model was also compared with literature data, and good agreement was found. Of course, any such comparisons would rely on accurate experimental impact dynamics data on carefully prepared surfaces.
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".