Understanding the Edge Effect in Wetting: A Thermodynamic Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Edge effect is known to hinder spreading of a sessile drop. However, the underlying thermodynamic mechanisms responsible for the edge effect still is not well-understood. In this study, a free energy model has been developed to investigate the energetic state of drops on a single pillar (from upright frustum to inverted frustum geometries). An analysis of drop free energy levels before and after crossing the edge allows us to understand the thermodynamic origin of the edge effect. In particular, four wetting cases for a drop on a single pillar with different edge angles have been determined by understanding the characteristics of FE plots. A wetting map describing the four wetting cases is given in terms of edge angle and intrinsic contact angle. The results show that the free energy barrier observed near the edge plays an important role in determining the drop states, i.e., (1) stable or metastable drop states at the pillar's edge, and (2) drop collapse by liquid spilling over the edge completely or staying at an intermediate sidewall position of the pillar. This thermodynamic model presents an energetic framework to describe the functioning of the so-called "re-entrant" structures. Results show good consistency with the literature and expand the current understanding of Gibbs' inequality condition.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".