Foam stability: The importance of film size and the micellar structuring phenomenon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The kinetic stability of SDS foam was probed using Bartsch method at concentrations above CMC (0.03 M and 0.06 M) and below CMC (0.006 M). The foam created from the higher concentration (0.06 M) of micellar solution was more kinetically stable than that produced from the 0.03 M SDS solution and showed a stepwise decrease. On the other hand, the foam produced from SDS surfactant concentration below CMC (0.006 M) did not show such a behaviour and the height remained more or less constant. The effect of the foam lamella size on the bulk foam stability was also investigated. It was found that the critical lamella area is independent of the hydrostatic pressure. And, it took longer to reach the critical lamella area in the 0.06 M SDS system than to reach the critical lamella area in the 0.03 M SDS system. We probed the foam stability by studying the stability of a single foam lamella and observed the micellar layering phenomenon. We found 5 film thickness transitions in the case of 0.06 M SDS system and 3 thickness transitions for 0.03 M SDS system. Therefore, the foam lamella formed from the 0.06 M SDS solution is kinetically more stable than that formed from the 0.03 M SDS solution because the better layering structure in the former case slows down the liquid film drainage. Therefore, this study clearly demonstrates that both the size of the foam lamella and the micellar concentration are important factors in controlling the bulk foam stability.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".