Drop impact onto a thin film: Miscibility effect
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".