On the estimation of the size of a droplet emerging from a pore opening into a crossflow field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, pressure and crossflow velocity). Three forces, including capillary pressure, interfacial tension, and drag forces, were identified that account for a developed torque balance, which was then used to determine the onset of breakup of an emerging droplet. A comprehensive computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis has been conducted to highlight the physics involved in the process and also to provide scenarios for comparison exercises. The effects of crossflow velocity, applied pressure, and viscosity contrasts have been studied. It has been determined that the emerging droplet experiences deformation along the crossflow field because of the hydrodynamic drag. The receding portion of the contact line at the surface of the membrane wraps around the pore opening, generating an interfacial tension force that produces an opposing torque due to the crossflow drag and capillary pressure. Using this phenomenon, a framework for estimating the size of the droplet upon breakup is established. Comparisons with the results obtained from the CFD analysis under different conditions show very good agreement, which builds confidence in the modeling approach.
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".