The role of fiber entanglement in the strength of wet papers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experiments show that the wet web strength ofpaper cannot be explained by capillary forces, which are found to be negligible above the fiber saturation point (FSP). Instead it is proposed that fibers entangled in a wet sheet cause an entanglement friction, which keeps the fibers in the sheet toget-her. Various experiments were performed to investigate thisentanglement friction. Adding cellulose microfibrils to a sheetwas found to increase the wet web strength. Adding microfibrilson top of a wet sheet caused a tremendous increase in the fric-tion between wet sheets, especially above the FSP, which is of amechanical nature, because capillary forces are absent in thisregion. Also depositing fibers on top of wet sheets increasedthis mechanical friction. Replacing microfibrils with rigid glassfibers leads to weak sheets with little entanglements. Lowering the surface tension of water by a surface active agent inert tofibers leads to a reduced sheet friction, as predicted by theory,but the entanglement friction was reduced as well. A possible explanation is that surface tension affects the consolidation ofthe sheet, resulting in fewer or weaker entanglements for lowersurface tensions. Finally it was found that van der Waals forcesdo not affect the entanglement friction or friction between wetsheets.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".