Effects of surface roughness on liquid bridge capillarity and droplet wetting
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
This study examines the influence of surface roughness on the capillarity of liquid bridges between two solid surfaces and the wettability of droplets on solid surfaces. For this purpose, different surface roughnesses were prepared by gluing waterproof sandpaper onto flat glass surfaces. The effects of surface roughness on liquid bridge capillarity were investigated by using a method that is based on an exact analytical solution of the Young-Laplace equation for a liquid bridge between two parallel planes coupled with capillary force measurement. The capillary forces between two parallel planes were measured by a micro-balance, while the geometries of the capillary bridge were recorded using a high-resolution camera. Using the images of capillary bridges, the meridional profiles of capillary bridges were determined by a high-resolution image processing technique and correlated to the measured capillary forces. The effects of surface roughness on droplet wetting were measured by employing the same high-resolution image processing technique. The measured results show that as the roughness increases, the wetting angle increases, whereas the capillary forces of the liquid bridge decrease.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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