Spreading and breakup of a compound drop on a partially wetting substrate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spreading of a compound drop on a partially wetting solid substrate is numerically simulated using a diffuse-interface method. Compared with a simple drop, the spreading of a compound drop exhibits much more complex behaviour. Depending on the core–shell size ratio and the substrate wettability, various flow regimes are identified in which the interfacial morphology evolves in distinct ways. A phase diagram is constructed in the parameter space of the core–shell size ratio and the wetting angle. For relatively small inner drops, the outer interface does not rupture during the spreading and the inner drop either remains suspended and encapsulated or attaches onto the substrate. Otherwise, the compound drop spontaneously breaks up and releases the inner drop into the ambient fluid. Several breakup scenarios are observed depending on the location of the initial rupture. In some regimes, the wetting of the substrate by one fluid can entrap secondary drops of the other, which can either attach to the substrate or stay suspended. The viscosity ratio mainly affects the spreading rate and plays a minor role in the morphology evolution.
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) | 0.000 | 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".