Theoretical and experimental investigations of dynamics of bubble growth and triple line
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dynamics of triple line and bubble growth were investigated inside water, gold, silver, and alumina nanofluids. The presence of nanoparticles was found to modify the behaviour of the triple line, depending on nanoparticle materials. Two analytical expressions were developed, one for the contact angle of bubbles and another for the contact angle of droplets, using force balance in the horizontal direction. It was mathematically proven that these analytical expressions are the exact analytical solutions of the Young‐Laplace equation. These analytical expressions prove that the Young equation cannot be an accurate force balance at the triple line for axisymmetric bubbles and droplets. The analytical expressions predict the contact angle of bubbles and droplets and prove theoretically that the contact angles of axisymmetric bubbles and droplets depend on volume or size, which agreed with existing experimental data. The predictions of the analytical expressions were compared with experimental data, and close agreements were observed. To reduce uncertainty and error, these two analytical expressions can be used instead of the Young equation, particularly in CFD calculations, to predict the behaviour of triple line or fluid flow in the vicinity of substrate for droplets and bubbles.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".