When is a surface foam-phobic or foam-philic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is commonly assumed that the liquid making up a sessile bubble completely wets the surface upon which the bubble lies. However, this need not be so, and the degree of wetting will determine how well a collection of bubbles - a foam - sticks to a surface. As a preliminary to this difficult problem, we study the shape of a single vertical soap film spanning the gap between two flat, horizontal solid substrates of given wettabilities. For this simple geometry, the Young-Laplace equation can be solved (quasi-)analytically to yield the equilibrium shapes, under gravity, of the two-dimensional Plateau borders along which the film contacts the substrates. We thus show that these Plateau borders, where most of a foam's liquid resides, can only exist if the values of the Bond number Bo and of the liquid contact angle θc lie within certain domains in (θc,Bo) space: under these conditions the substrate is foam-philic. For values outside these domains, the substrate cannot support a soap film and it is foam-phobic. In other words, on a substrate of a given wettability, only Plateau borders of a certain range of sizes can form. For given (θc,Bo), the top Plateau border can never have greater width or cross-sectional area than the bottom one. Moreover, the top Plateau border cannot exist in a steady state for contact angles above 90°. Our conclusions are validated by comparison with both experimental and numerical (Surface Evolver) data. We conjecture that these results will hold, with slight modifications, for non-planar soap films and bubbles. Our results are also relevant to the motion of bubbles and foams in channels, where the friction force of the substrate on the Plateau borders plays an important role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".