Bibliographic record
Abstract
The impact of a single liquid drop on a flowing liquid film is experimentally and theoretically studied. The drop impact produces a crownlike rising liquid sheet, which radially expands. Small droplets can be formed from the crown sheet, resulting in splash. The present study results in three major contributions. (1) A theoretical model is developed to predict the expansion of the crown base. The model with an introduced energy loss factor is shown to be in satisfactory agreement with our experimental observations of drop impact on both stationary and flowing films. The energy loss factor is correlated to the properties of the film and drop. (2) Analysis is conducted to derive an equation for evaluating the stretching rate of the rising crown sheet, which is the local gradient of the rising velocity at the top edge of the crown sheet. It shows that the highest stretching rate appears where the drop spreading flow is right opposite to the film flow, which helps explain why the same location is most probable for splash to take place. (3) A parameter as a function of modified Weber and Reynolds numbers is defined to predict splash and nonsplash of drop impact on flowing films. The two nondimensional numbers evaluate the competition of the two flows (drop and film) against viscosity and surface tension effects. A threshold value of the parameter is found for the occurrence of splash impact on flowing films.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".