Drop impact onto a thin film: Miscibility effect
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work a systematic experimental study was performed to understand the process of liquid drop impact onto a thin film made of a different liquid from drop. The drop and film liquids can be miscible or immiscible. Three general outcomes of deposition, crown formation without splashing, and splashing, were observed in the advancing phase of the drop impact onto a solid surface covered by either a miscible or an immiscible thin film. However, for a miscible film, a larger Weber number and film thickness are needed for the formation of a crown and splashing comparing with immiscible cases. The advancing phase of drop impact onto a thin immiscible film with a large viscosity is similar to that of drop impact onto a dry surface; for a miscible film viscous film, the behavior is far from that of a dry surface. The behavior of liquid lamella in the receding phase of drop impact onto a thin miscible film is reported for the first time. The results show that immiscibility is not a necessary condition for the existence of a receding phase. The existence of a receding phase is highly dependent on the interfacial tension between the drop and the film. The miscibility can significantly affect the receding morphology as it will cause mixing of the two liquids.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it