MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2770392619 · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.7b03508

Behavior of a Liquid Bridge between Nonparallel Hydrophobic Surfaces

2017· article· en· W2770392619 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammadmehdi Ataei, H. Chen, Alidad Amirfazli

Bibliographic record

VenueLangmuir · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicSurface Modification and Superhydrophobicity
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsCusp (singularity)WettingContact angleIntersection (aeronautics)HysteresisBridge (graph theory)Plane (geometry)GeometrySurface (topology)Motion (physics)Point (geometry)PhysicsMechanicsChemistryMaterials scienceClassical mechanicsCondensed matter physicsMathematicsEngineeringThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When a liquid bridge is formed between two nonparallel identical surfaces, it can move along the surfaces. Literature indicates that the direction of bridge movement is governed by the wettability of surfaces. When the surfaces are hydrophilic, the motion of the bridge is always toward the cusp (intersection of the plane of the two bounding surfaces). On the other hand, the movement is hitherto thought to be always pointing away from the cusp when the surfaces are hydrophobic. In this study, through experiments, numerical simulations, and analytical reasoning, we demonstrate that for hydrophobic surfaces, wettability is not the only factor determining the direction of the motion. A new geometrical parameter, i.e., confinement (cf), was defined as the ratio of the distance of the farthest contact point of the bridge to the cusp, and that of the closest contact point to the cusp. The direction of the motion depends on the amount of confinement (cf). When the distance between the surfaces is large (resulting in a small cf), the bridge tends to move toward the cusp through a pinning/depinning mechanism of contact lines. When the distance between the surfaces is small (large cf), the bridge tends to move away from the cusp. For a specific system, a maximum cf value (cf max ) exists. A sliding behavior (i.e., simultaneous advancing on the wider side and receding on the narrower side) can also be seen when a liquid bridge is compressed such that the cf exceeds the cf max . Contact angle hysteresis (CAH) is identified as an underpinning phenomenon that together with cf fundamentally explains the movement of a trapped liquid between two hydrophobic surfaces. If there is no CAH, however, i.e., the case of ideal hydrophobic surfaces, the cf will be a constant; we show that the bridge slides toward the cusp when it is stretched, while it slides away from the cusp when it is compressed (note sliding motion is different from motion due to pinning/depinning mechanism of contact lines). As such, the displacement is only related to geometrical parameters such as the amount of compression (or stretching) and the dihedral angle between the surfaces.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.734

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.252 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLangmuirSame topicSurface Modification and SuperhydrophobicityFrench-language works237,207