Interfacial properties of compressible polymer solutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A chemomechanical model for the interfacial concentration and density in compressible polymer solutions is formulated using variational principles. The nonlinear model with boundary conditions obtained from phase equilibrium calculations gives the coupled concentration and density profiles. The couplings between chemical and mechanical balances are identified and efficient ways to calculate the interfacial structure is identified. A specific model appropriate to high‐pressure processing of the polyolefins is developed using the modified Sanchez Lacombe equation of state. Bakker's formula for the interfacial tension is adapted to compressible polymer solutions. The structure and tension of a flat interface is characterized using the developed model and material properties of three molecular weight hydrogenated polybutadiene; the main variables of interest were the pressure, polymer molecular weight, and temperature. The relation between the pressure profile across the interface and the interfacial tension is characterized. Scaling power laws for interfacial tension and interfacial thickness as a function of pressure are obtained and contrasted with the corresponding laws observed and predicted for incompressible polymer solutions. It is found that the modified Sanchez Lacombe‐based power law prediction predictions for compressible solutions in terms of pressure quenches are similar to those from those obtained by the Flory‐Huggins incompressible model for temperature quenches. The present results provide the basis for the future study of the kinetics of pressure‐induced phase separation in compressible polymer solutions. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Polym Sci Part B: Polym Phys 47: 640–654, 2009
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".