Kinetics of microbubble–solid surface interaction and attachment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microbubble–solid surface interaction and attachment under the influence of hydrodynamic and physicochemical forces were studied experimentally and theoretically. An impinging‐jet technique was developed to measure bubble‐attachment flux onto a flat solid surface in an impinging‐jet stagnation flow. A video imaging system enables direct observation of the attachment behavior of hydrogen microbubbles onto two different collector surfaces: hydrophilic untreated glass and hydrophobic methylated glass. Experimental results showed that the attachment flux depends on both hydrodynamic flow and electrolyte concentration. A mass‐transfer model developed computes bubble‐attachment flux, considering hydrodynamic convection, Brownian diffusion, migration under gravitational buoyancy, and DLVO surface forces (that is, van der Waals and electric double‐layer forces). At high flow rates, the numerical predictions for attachment rates onto methylated glass generally agreed well with the experimental data. However, a difference exists between theoretical and experimentally determined attachment rates for both untreated and methylated glass when the Reynolds number of the flow is low. Several mechanisms are proposed to account for this discrepancy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".