Development of a New Methodology To Study Drop Shape and Surface Tension in Electric Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Development of a new methodology for the study of both shape and surface tension of conducting drops in an electric field is presented. This methodology, called axisymmetric drop shape analysis-electric fields (ADSA-EF), generates numerical drop profiles in an electrostatic field, for a given surface tension. Then, it calculates the true value of the surface tension by matching theoretical profiles to the shape of experimental drops, using the surface tension as an adjustable parameter. ADSA-EF can be employed to simulate and study drop shapes in the electric field and to determine its effect on liquid surface tension. The method can also be used to measure surface tension in microgravity, where current drop-shape techniques are not applicable. The axisymmetric shape of the drop is the only assumption made in the development of ADSA-EF. The new scheme is applicable when both gravity and electrostatic forces are present. Preliminary measurements using ADSA-EF suggest that the surface tension of water increases by about 2% when an electric field with the magnitude of 10(6) V/m is applied.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".