Behaviour and dynamics of two bubbles in conjunct condition in high‐viscosity liquids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Two bubbles in conjunct condition are often encountered in high‐viscosity liquids, but have received very little attention in the literature. The conjunct bubbles rise together with unchanged shapes and constant velocities, showing some unique properties compared to single bubbles. The current research built on the previous work of Cai et al.,[1] and extended the bubble size ratio (κ) to the range 1.0–1.2. The formation and motion characteristics of conjunct bubbles made by direct collision of two in‐line bubbles were investigated, including the effects of bubble volume, bubble size ratio, and liquid viscosity. Models for the conjunct bubbles and the single bubbles were provided for predicting the projected area diameters and the rising velocities respectively, and the predicted values closely agreed with the measurements in glycerol‐water solutions with Morton numbers in the range of 1.690–661.8. The dynamic forces on the conjunct bubbles were analyzed, and a succinct algorithm was proposed for calculating the drag forces on the conjunct bubbles and the interaction force between the two 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".