Synchrotron X-ray phase-contrast imaging of ultrasonic drop atomization
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
Ultrasonic atomization is employed to generate size-controllable droplets for a variety of applications. Here, we minimize the number of parameters dictating the process by studying the atomization of a single drop pending from an ultrasonic horn. Spatiotemporally resolved X-ray phase-contrast imaging measurements show that the number-median sizes of the ejected droplets can be predicted by the linear Navier–Stokes equations, signifying that the size distribution is controlled by the fluid properties and the driving frequency. Experiments with larger pendant water drops indicate that the fluid–structure interaction plays a pivotal role in determining the ejection onset of the pendant drop. The atomization of viscoelastic drops is dictated by extended ligament formation, entrainment of air, and ejection of drop-encapsulated bubbles. Existing scaling laws are used to explain the required higher input amplitudes for the complete atomization of viscoelastic drops as compared to inviscid drops. Finally, we elucidate the differences between capillary wave-based and cavitation-based atomization and show that inducing cavitation and strong bubble oscillations quickens the onset of daughter drop ejection but impedes their size control.
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 | 0.000 | 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