Electrophoretic motion of ideally polarizable particles in a microchannel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The induced-charge electrophoretic (ICEP) motion of ideally polarizable particles in a microchannel is numerically studied in this paper. A complete 3-D multi-physics model is set up to simulate the transient ICEP motion of spherical ideally polarizable particles in a microchannel. The study shows that a non-uniform distribution of induced surface charge occurs when an ideally polarizable particle is immersed in an externally applied electric field, resulting in a varying slipping (EOF) velocity along the particle's surface and hence producing micro vortexes in the liquid. The numerical results verify that the steady-state ICEP velocity of an ideally polarizable particle does not differ from the electrophoretic velocity of a non-conducting particle, although the flow field near the particle does. A strong wall-repelling effect of ICEP is found when the polarizable particle is placed close to the channel wall. This is due to the lifting effect generated from the interaction between the induced micro vortexes and the channel wall and depends on the electric field and the particle size. The wall effects on ICEP motion can be used for focusing particles and for separation of particle by density.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".