Sessile-Water-Droplet Contact Angle: the Effect of Adsorption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method has been recently proposed for determining the surface tension of solid-vapor interfaces. The proposed method was used in conjunction with Gibbsian thermodynamics to investigate both analytically and experimentally the possible role of line tension in determining the contact angle of sessile-water-droplets. After forming a sessile-water-droplet in a closed system, its contact angle was determined by measuring the curvature of three-phase contact line and the height of the axisymmetric droplet on its centerline. The total number of the moles in the closed system was determined from the minimum in the Helmholtz function. The total number of moles in the system was then changed to a new value and the system allowed to come to equilibrium again. The contact angle in the new equilibrium condition could be measured and predicted by taking the adsorption at the solid-liquid and solid-vapor interfaces into account but with line tension completely neglected. The predicted values of contact angle are in closed agreement with those measured indicating line tension plays no role in determining the contact angle of mm-sized water droplets on a polished Cu surface. The surface tension of the solid-vapor interface was approximately constant and equal to the surface tension of adsorbing fluid; that is, the Young equation could be simplified.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".