Cavitation and Negative Pressure: A Flexible Water Model Molecular Dynamics Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The critical negative pressure for cavitation in water has been theoretically predicted to be in the range of -100 to -200 MPa at room temperature, whereas values around -30 MPa have been obtained by many experiments. The discrepancy has yet to be resolved. Molecular dynamics (MD) is an effective method of observing bubble nucleation, however, most MD simulations use a rigid water model and do not take the effects of intermolecular vibrations into account. In this manuscript we perform MD simulations to study cavitation in water by using a TIP4P/2005f model under volumecontrolled stretching. It is found that the critical negative pressure of water was -168 MPa in the simulation and the critical negative pressure of water containing 50 oxygen molecules was -150 MPa. Hydrogen bonds played a major role in the cavitation process: the breaking of hydrogen bonds promoted bubble generation and growth. The O-H bond could release energy to increase the amount of potential energy in the system, so that cavitation was more likely to occur. When cavitation occurred, the O-H bond could absorb energy to reduce the amount of potential energy in the system, which will promote the growth of bubbles, and stabilise the cavitation 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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".