Droplet lift-off from hydrophobic surfaces from impact with soft-hydrogel spheres
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
Abstract Droplet impacts on superhydrophobic surfaces may result in complete bouncing, with the absence of contact hysteresis and viscous dissipation leading the droplet to fully rebound off the surface. This rebound usually happens in the retraction phase, when the droplet retracts back after reaching a maximum spread diameter. Here, we present experimental evidence of a bouncing phenomenon where a sessile droplet on a hydrophobic surface bounces off the surface in its spreading phase when a soft deformable hydrogel sphere axisymmetrically impacts the droplet. We term this as ‘Lift-Off’ and propose a simple force balance based on the deformation characteristics of the hydrogel sphere to explain the out-of-plane jump of the droplet during spreading. We observe three different impact regimes, and propose their dependency on a modified elastic ‘Mach’ number ( M a * ) with M a * ≈ 0.1 corresponding to the onset of lift-off. We also report on the unique acoustic signatures of lift-off cases, associated with the capture of air-bubbles through the air-borne retracting droplet rim. These results may have potential applications for drainage and surface cleaning, non-stick surface coating, industrial mixing and plant disease spreading.
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 | 0.001 | 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