Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluid interfaces supported in microgravity by a helical structure are shown to have a more robust stability than more common structures such as liquid bridges. In particular, helical interfaces can take the form of infinite right circular cylinders over a broad range of configurations. In the case of a single fixed contact line support, the infinite cylinder is stable for all cases in which the pitch to diameter ratio is less than π∕3 (more tightly coiled interfaces). When there are two or more equally spaced fixed contact line supports, the infinite cylinder is stable for all configurations. Furthermore, in the two support case (the double helix), stability persists for all volumes from the cylinder to zero volume, when the pitch to diameter ratio is greater than 2.082 (more loosely coiled interfaces). The equivalent to the axisymmetric Young-Laplace equation is derived for helical interfaces. Interfacial stability is determined from equilibrium branch structure following the application of Maddocks’ method by Lowry and Steen [Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 449, 411 (1995)]. Perturbations to finite wavelength disturbances are considered for the case of a single helical support. Overall stability envelopes are presented for single and multiple support cases. Limited experimental results verify the infinite length stability limit for the single helical support case.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".