Giant and explosive plasmonic bubbles by delayed nucleation
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
When illuminated by a laser, plasmonic nanoparticles immersed in water can very quickly and strongly heat up, leading to the nucleation of so-called plasmonic vapor bubbles. While the long-time behavior of such bubbles has been well-studied, here, using ultrahigh-speed imaging, we reveal the nucleation and early life phase of these bubbles. After some delay time from the beginning of the illumination, a giant bubble explosively grows, and collapses again within 200 μs (bubble life phase 1). The maximal bubble volume [Formula: see text] remarkably increases with decreasing laser power, leading to less total dumped energy E. This dumped energy shows a universal linear scaling relation with [Formula: see text], irrespective of the gas concentration of the surrounding water. This finding supports that the initial giant bubble is a pure vapor bubble. In contrast, the delay time does depend on the gas concentration of the water, as gas pockets in the water facilitate an earlier vapor bubble nucleation, which leads to smaller delay times and lower bubble nucleation temperatures. After the collapse of the initial giant bubbles, first, much smaller oscillating bubbles form out of the remaining gas nuclei (bubble life phase 2). Subsequently, the known vaporization dominated growth phase takes over, and the bubble stabilizes (life phase 3). In the final life phase 4, the bubble slowly grows by gas expelling due to heating of the surrounding. Our findings on the explosive growth and collapse during the early life phase of a plasmonic vapor bubble have strong bearings on possible applications of such bubbles.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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