MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404107102 · doi:10.1063/5.0232326

Leidenfrost effect in the flash vaporization of hydrogen peroxide and water mixtures

2024· article· en· W4404107102 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Chartray-Pronovost, Étienne Robert

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersInstitut TransMedTechNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhysicsVaporizationLeidenfrost effectHydrogen peroxideHydrogenThermodynamicsFlash (photography)OpticsNucleate boilingHeat transfer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Leidenfrost effect, a phenomenon where a droplet levitates on a heated surface due to rapid vaporization, has been extensively studied with various liquids. However, the behavior of binary mixtures, specifically those involving hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and water, remains relatively unexplored. This study investigates such mixtures, focusing on the ejection dynamics of secondary droplets under different temperatures and solution concentrations. High-speed imaging is used to capture the evolution of droplets upon impacting a hot surface. The results reveal a significant increase in droplet fragmentation and ejection with increasing temperature and hydrogen peroxide concentration. Droplet ejection volume increased by a factor of 2.5 when the temperature was 60 °C over the Leidenfrost point, while it increased by a factor of 1.7 when comparing a solution of 10% wt. H2O2 up to a concentration of 50%. A comprehensive analysis of the observed phenomena is proposed. The impact of hydrogen peroxide's thermal decomposition on systems such as H2O2 vapor decontamination enclosures is revealed. The main difficulty in obtaining highly concentrated H2O2 gas is attributed to the Leidenfrost effect ejecting secondary droplets.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.375
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.202 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207