Effect of the Pore Geometry on the Driving Pressure across a Bubble Penetrating a Single Pore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The passage of a bubble and the required energy for its motion through a confining pore can potentially be affected by the surface roughness and geometry of the pore. The motion of an isolated bubble passing through four different pore geometries (three circular pores, a smooth pore and 2 with different roughness, and a sharp triangular pore) is investigated. The shape of the deformed bubble passing these geometries was evaluated to determine the pressure drop across the bubble and hence the driving force to cause motion. The results of investigating the motion of the bubbles and the change in the pressure and velocity of the bubbles showed that the pore shape and surface roughness have a significant effect on the passage of the isolated phase. The motion of the bubble entering the entrance of the circular pores was similar for all circular cases. On exiting, however, a clear difference between the cases due to the presence of the peaks of the roughness was observed. These results indicate that, in addition to the critical pressure at the entrance of the pore, extra resistance will be introduced due to bubble phase pinning at the exit caused by roughness of the pore.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".