The separation angle of the free surface of a viscous fluid at a straight edge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We rework some of the die-swell singularity analysis for Stokes flow, originally by Ramalingam (Ramalingam, 1994 Fiber spinning and rheology of liquid-crystalline polymers, PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology) in appendix A of his PhD thesis, in an attempt to demonstrate that for capillary numbers in the range $(0,\infty )$ the curvature may enter into the normal stress balance on the free surface and lead to separation angles exceeding $180^{\circ }$ and infinite curvature at the separation point. The singular coefficients in the asymptotic solution and the free surface shape in a neighbourhood of the separation point cannot be determined by a local analysis of the Michael type (Michael, Mathematika, vol. 5, 1958, pp. 82–84) but must be found from matching with the solution valid away from the die edge. The numerical method that we use in the truncated die-swell domain is a boundary element method incorporating the singular solution near the separation point. Although there is some variation in the extrudate swell ratios at different capillary numbers reported in the numerical literature, our results for capillary numbers $Ca$ from $1$ to $1000$ are within the range of values published in earlier papers. The computed separation angles at different values of $Ca$ agree well with the range of separation angles to be found in experimental and numerical papers. The separation angle appears to converge to a value different from $180^{\circ }$ as $Ca$ increases, leading us to conclude that the case of zero surface tension ( $Ca=\infty$ , with corresponding separation angle of $180^{\circ }$ ), is a singular limit.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".