Splashing of a Small Droplet Impinging on a Solid Surface at High Velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We photographed water droplets (550 μm diameter) as they impacted on a stainless steel surface. We varied droplet impact velocity (10–40 m/s) and the average surface roughness (0.03–0.23 μm) of the steel plates used as test surfaces in our experiments. A piezoelectric droplet generator was used to produce water droplets. The stainless steel substrate was mounted on the end of a rotating arm, giving linear velocities of up to 40 m/s. A CCD video camera was used to photograph droplets impinging on the substrate. By synchronizing the ejection of a single droplet with the position of the rotating arm and triggering of the camera, different stages of droplet impact were photographed. From these photographs we measured the size of droplets as they spread. It was observed that as the impact velocity increased, finger-shape perturbations around the spreading droplet became longer and narrower. At sufficiently high velocities the tips of these fingers detached, producing satellite droplets. Increasing surface roughness was found to promote splashing and reduce the velocity at which splashing was first observed. By increasing surface roughness, both the number of fingers and the maximum extent of spreading were decreased. At high impact velocities the spreading liquid film became so thin that it ruptured in several places.
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 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".