Hydrodynamics and mechanism of hydrophobic foam column tray: Contact angle hysteresis effect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interfacial wettability adjustment is a new method for intensifying vapor–liquid mass transfer process. Contact angle effect has been well investigated but not complete due to interfacial wettability consisting of both static behavior (contact angle) and dynamic behavior (contact angle hysteresis). Here, methods of adjusting contact angle hysteresis (CAH) were proposed, and then, the CAH effect on the hydrodynamics was investigated. A multiscale analysis of CAH effect, from interfacial force and wettability to single‐bubble and gas–liquid two‐phase flow inside the foam to bubble swarm hydrodynamics, was conducted, and thus, the hydrodynamic performance criteria were derived. The interfaces had similar contact angles, whereas a significant difference in the CAH was prepared by using the developed sol dip‐coating and spray coating methods. Subsequent experiments revealed that lower CAH can decrease the pressure drop, homogenize the gas distribution, and increase the weeping rate, which are consistent with the derived criteria.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".