Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 20 references

Effect of trap potential on the Rayleigh breakup of a levitated charged droplet

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that a charged droplet levitated off-center in a loose quadrupole trap breaks by a Coulombic (Rayleigh) instability at about 98.7% of the Rayleigh charge, with the trap's uniform field component only biasing the jet…

desk verdict The experiments and new scaling laws deserve a serious look, but the BEM simulations are seeded with the very asymmetry they are used to explain, so the central mechanism is less independently supported than the paper claims. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03132 v1 pith:FJQM2F7L submitted 2019-08-08 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.soft

Mohit Singh , Neha Gawande , Y. S. Mayya , Rochish Thaokar This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.soft
keywords RayleighbreakupchargeddropletquadrupoletrapboundaryelementmethodCoulombicinstabilityconeanglejetdiameterelectrohydrodynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that the breakup of a charged droplet levitated in a loose quadrupole trap—where no DC balancing voltage is applied and gravity holds the droplet off-center—is a genuine Rayleigh (Coulombic) instability rather than a field-induced one. Using high-speed imaging at 100–130 thousand frames per second, the authors capture the full sequence of deformation, asymmetric jet ejection, and relaxation in single videos, and they compare it with axisymmetric boundary element simulations. The simulations become unstable at 98.7% of the Rayleigh charge (close to the ideal 8π), the cone angle at the emitting pole stays nearly constant around 30° over the experimental range of applied field, and the asymmetry (measured by the ratio of the distances from the two poles to the centroid) grows weakly with trap strength. If the claim is right, the trap potential is a symmetry-breaking perturbation rather than the destabilizing agent, which means breakup onset can still be predicted from the charge-to-surface-tension balance, while the field and the off-center displacement control direction, jet thickness, and progeny size.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective uniform field created by off-center levitation: with the droplet displaced by $z_{\mathrm{shift}}$ from the trap center, the ideal quadrupole potential $\varphi = \Lambda_0(z^2-\rho^2/2)$ produces a nearly uniform field $E = 4\Lambda_0 z_{\mathrm{shift}}$ at the droplet location. This field couples with the Rayleigh-driven $P_2$ prolate deformation to generate a $P_3$ Legendre perturbation, which asymmetrically redistributes surface charge toward the north pole. The quantitative engine is the axisymmetric boundary element method (BEM) in the Stokes-flow limit, treating the droplet as a perfect conductor; it solves Laplace's equation for the potential and the Stokes equations for the flow on the drop surface, tracks charge density and normal electric stress up to the moment of tip divergence, and is used to map how the aspect ratio, the asymmetric deformation parameter ($AD=L_1/L_2$), the cone angle, and the jet diameter respond to $Ca_\Lambda$ and $z_{\mathrm{shift}}$.

What would settle it

Measure $z_{\mathrm{shift}}$ directly with stereo imaging (or by fitting the three-dimensional center-of-mass trajectory from the high-speed videos) while holding the droplet size, charge, and field fixed, and repeat the breakup experiments with a DC bias that centers the droplet. If a centered droplet still breaks asymmetrically, or if the breakup threshold moves away from ~98.7% of the Rayleigh charge, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the experimental geometry, a positively charged droplet is levitated with pure AC voltage, so the droplet's weight shifts it to a stable off-center position $z_{\mathrm{shift}}$ below the trap center. That offset produces a uniform electric field $E = 4\Lambda_0 z_{\mathrm{shift}}$ around the droplet, which the paper shows modifies—but does not trigger—the Rayleigh instability. The authors demonstrate in simulations that at the experimentally extracted $P_2$ prolate perturbation, and with the field acting from south to north pole, surface charge accumulates at the north pole until the local electric stress diverges and the droplet ejects a jet from a conical tip; the instability sets in at 98.7% of the Rayleigh charge (7.9π), close to the ideal 8π threshold, indicating a subcritical Coulombic bifurcation. They report that the cone angle stays near $30^\circ$ over the experimental range of $Ca_\Lambda$, that the jet diameter grows with the electric capillary number ($J_d \propto Ca_\Lambda^{0.41}$) and shrinks with the Saville number ($J_d \propto Sa^{0.12}$), and that the sign of the endcap potential and of the droplet charge together decide whether the breakup points up or down.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's comparison of experiments to simulations depends on the off-center displacement $z_{\mathrm{shift}}$, which could not be measured and was instead assigned values (2, 6, or 10 times the droplet radius, or 4.5 in the 210 µm case) chosen to match the observed asymmetry; if the real $z_{\mathrm{shift}}$ differs, the claimed agreement may be coincidental.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Breakup onset in quadrupole-trap experiments can be predicted from the Rayleigh charge limit; the trap field only needs to be included as a symmetry-breaking term, not as a destabilizing force.
  • Because the cone angle stays near 30° across the tested field range, the local cone geometry at breakup is set by charge-surface-tension balance, which simplifies modeling of the emitted jet and its progeny.
  • The measured scalings $J_d \propto Ca_\Lambda^{0.41}$ and $J_d \propto Sa^{0.12}$ provide practical control laws for tuning progeny size via trap voltage and droplet conductivity.
  • The direction of breakup (up vs down) can be selected by choosing the sign of the droplet charge and the end-cap polarity, which matters for designing electrospray or single-droplet analysis devices.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the same $P_2$–$P_3$ coupling should arise from any off-center equilibrium, the authors' mechanism predicts that centering the droplet in the trap (with a DC bias to null the field) would restore symmetric breakup and push the critical charge back toward exactly $8\pi$.
  • The 98.7% threshold is below the ideal $8\pi$ value; measuring how this gap varies with the initial $P_3$ amplitude and the trap voltage would test whether the sub-Rayleigh threshold is a finite-perturbation effect.
  • The sharp-tip-to-jet transition with increasing conductivity suggests charge relaxation time is the missing ingredient; a finite-Saville-number extension of the perfect-conductor model should reproduce the observed phase diagram.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports high-speed videography of the deformation, breakup, and relaxation of charged ethylene-glycol/ethanol droplets levitated off-center in an AC quadrupole trap. The main experimental findings are that breakup is predominantly upward, that the aspect ratio and asymmetric deformation vary weakly with the electric capillary number Ca_Lambda, that the cone angle is approximately 30 degrees across the experimental Ca_Lambda range, and that the jet diameter grows with Ca_Lambda and decreases with conductivity. The authors compare the observations with axisymmetric BEM simulations in the Stokes limit, in which the drop is modeled as a perfect conductor and the trap field is represented as a DC quadrupole offset by zshift. From a simulation initialized with the experimentally fitted critical shape (P2 and P3 perturbations) and an assigned zshift, they find breakup at 98.7% of the Rayleigh charge and conclude that the instability is Coulombic and only field-influenced, not field-induced.

Significance. If the mechanistic conclusion were established, the paper would be a valuable contribution: it provides a single-video sequence of all stages of Rayleigh breakup of a levitated charged droplet, the parametric trends include explicit error estimates, and the effect of conductivity on jet diameter is systematically explored over two decades. The experimental observations are repeated and appear internally consistent. However, the central claim that breakup is Coulombic rather than field-induced is not independently established by the simulations as presented, because the simulations are initialized with the experimentally measured near-critical shape and use off-center distances that were not measured. The strengths of the paper are the high-speed imaging data and the parametric trends; the load-bearing numerical validation needs substantial reworking before the mechanistic conclusion can be accepted.

major comments (4)
  1. [Numerical simulations] The 98.7%-of-Rayleigh-charge result is not an independent prediction. The text states that 'the shape obtained from the shape analysis of the drop at critical point, is given as an initial shape in terms of P2 and P3 perturbations in the simulations', with P2=0.12, P3=0.02 and zshift=4.5 for the representative case. The critical charge is then found by increasing the charge in 0.1% steps of the Rayleigh charge from this state. Because the initial Legendre amplitudes already encode the near-critical deformation and the up/down asymmetry that the simulation is supposed to predict, the 98.7% value cannot discriminate a field-influenced Rayleigh instability from a field-assisted subcritical breakup. Please provide a simulation that starts from a spherical or systematically varied initial shape and report the critical charge and breakup direction as functions of P2, P3, and zshift; otherwise the conclusion should be weakened to a consistency statement.
  2. [Effect of Ca_Lambda on deformation] The comparison between BEM and experiment is weakened by the unmeasured zshift. The text states that zshift 'could not be determined experimentally', and simulations are run for zshift=2, 6, 10, 'chosen in accordance with the average values observed in the experiments'; figure 4 shows that AD depends strongly on zshift. Under these conditions the apparent agreement in figures 2 and 3 could be coincidental. Please report the estimated zshift values with uncertainties, or treat zshift as a fitted parameter and state the sensitivity of the conclusions to it.
  3. [Effect of conductivity on Jd] The perfect-conductor assumption is applied beyond its stated validity range. The numerical model is justified for 'droplet conductivity is high (>100 µS/cm)', but the Jd versus Sa plot in figure 7 covers conductivities from 1 to 250 µS/cm, and the section on the effect of Ca_Lambda on jet diameter includes droplets with 0.8-1 µS/cm. The BEM does not include finite charge relaxation (the Saville number that is used to present the data), so the reported agreement with the Sa^0.12 trend cannot validate the model. Please either restrict the comparison to the high-conductivity branch or extend the model to finite charge relaxation.
  4. [Numerical simulations] The use of static DC potentials to represent the AC trap field is not quantitatively defended. The text notes that breakup occurs in one quarter of the AC period and therefore the simulations use either positive or negative DC quadrupole potential; however, at the lower conductivities in the dataset the charge relaxation time is not negligible compared with a quarter period, and the shape at breakup is the result of the full time-dependent stress history. Please justify this reduction with a time-scale estimate or with a time-dependent simulation for at least one representative case.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Description of Experimental setup] Equation (1) is labelled 'non-dimensional' yet contains dimensional quantities such as g/omega^2; if x_i is a dimensional length this should be stated, and if x_i is dimensionless the gravity term needs an additional length scale.
  2. [Description of Experimental setup] The surface tension appears as '~30 N/m' in the experimental-setup section and as '0.03 mN/m' in the captions of figures 7 and 8; one of these is off by a large factor, and the physical value of a glycol/ethanol mixture is near 0.03 N/m. Please correct the units.
  3. [EFFECT of Ca_Lambda on deformation / on jet diameter / conductivity] The scaling exponents 0.08, 0.41, and 0.12 are quoted without fit statistics or confidence intervals; please report the standard errors and the number of data points for each power-law fit.
  4. [General] The unnumbered sections make cross-referencing difficult; please add numbered sections and equation numbers, as Equation (2) is currently the only numbered equation.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusions] The phrases 'first of its kind' and 'reported here for the first time' should be tempered with a comparison to previous high-speed studies of charged-droplet breakup to avoid overclaiming.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The BEM 'validation' feeds the experimentally fitted critical shape and an unmeasured zshift into the simulation, so the 98.7%-Rayleigh charge and upward breakup direction are not independent predictions of the Coulombic mechanism.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Numerical simulations, paragraph beginning 'Further to validate the experimental observations...' (after Eq. (2))]
    "Further to validate the experimental observations, the shape obtained from the shape analysis of the drop at critical point, is given as an initial shape in terms of P2 and P3 perturbations in the simulations. ... For the above parameters, the critical charge on the droplet required for the breakup is determined by increasing the total surface charge on the droplet with a step change of 0.1% of the Rayleigh charge. It is found that the droplet breaks at 98.7 % (i.e 7.9π) of the Rayleigh charge for the given parameters."

    The initial P2 and P3 amplitudes are obtained by nonlinear least-squares fitting of the experimentally observed critical shape, and zshift is not measured but taken as 4.5 for the representative case. The simulation then reports upward breakup and a charge threshold found by incrementing charge until breakup from that fitted state. The near-critical deformation and the asymmetry leading to upward breakup are therefore already encoded in the initial condition; the 98.7%-Rayleigh result is a consistency check on the fitted state, not an independent first-principles discrimination between Coulombic and field-induced breakup.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Effect of CaΛ on deformation, paragraph discussing zshift estimation (after Fig. 2 discussion)]
    "the values of zshift are different in different experiments due to different sizes of the drops at a fixed applied voltage. Moreover, the zshift could not be determined experimentally. Therefore, for comparison of experimental data numerical simulations are carried out for three different (non-dimensionalised by the radius of the droplet) values of zshift=2, 6 and 10. These values are chosen in accordance with the average values observed in the experiments."

    zshift is the key parameter controlling the uniform-field asymmetry that the paper invokes to explain asymmetric breakup. Since it was not measured, the three simulation values are deliberately chosen to match the average experimental observations, and the representative 210-micron case uses zshift=4.5. The reported agreement between BEM and experimental asymmetric deformation is therefore partly obtained by selecting the asymmetry parameter to the data rather than testing the field-influenced mechanism out of sample.

full rationale

The paper is not globally circular: the high-speed imaging, cone-angle measurements, charge-loss estimates, and scaling relations are genuine experimental observations, and the BEM method is a standard numerical approach. The circularity is concentrated in the simulation step used to support the central mechanistic claim. The representative simulation is initialized with Legendre amplitudes P2=0.12 and P3=0.02 fitted from the experimental critical shape, together with an estimated zshift, and the critical charge is then computed by incrementing charge until breakup. The resulting 98.7%-Rayleigh value and upward breakup direction are thus conditioned on the very event they are claimed to confirm; they cannot independently establish that the breakup is Coulombic rather than field-assisted, because the near-critical and asymmetric state is already an input. Similarly, the CaΛ versus AD comparisons use zshift=2, 6, 10 chosen to match the experimental average, since zshift could not be measured, so the BEM agreement is partly a consistency check with a tuned asymmetry parameter. The experimental content remains valuable, and the threshold computation is not a pure renaming of inputs, but the paper's headline inference is not a parameter-free prediction. Score 6 reflects partial circularity rather than a fully forced derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative comparisons depend on several parameters that are fitted or chosen rather than measured: zshift is not directly measured; the critical P2 and P3 perturbations are read off from experimental images; and the critical charge is found by stepwise increase until breakup. The physical model adds no new entities, but it does rely on a perfect-conductor, Stokes-flow, axisymmetric approximation and on the group's prior bifurcation theory.

free parameters (4)
  • zshift (non-dimensional off-center distance) = 2, 6, 10 in parametric BEM runs; 4.5 in the representative 210 micron case
    Not measured experimentally; values are chosen to match average observed displacements, so they act as fitted parameters in the model comparison.
  • Initial P2 perturbation amplitude = 0.12 for the 210 micron case; otherwise incremented in steps of 0.01 until breakup
    The critical P2 is obtained by increasing its magnitude until the simulated droplet breaks, i.e., it is tuned to produce the instability rather than predicted independently.
  • Initial P3 perturbation amplitude = 0.02 for the 210 micron case
    Obtained from nonlinear least-squares fitting of the experimental critical shape; it is an input from data, not a prediction.
  • Critical surface charge fraction = 98.7% of Rayleigh charge (7.9π)
    Determined by increasing the total surface charge in steps of 0.1% until breakup; the value is a threshold search that reproduces instability, not a parameter-free output.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The flow is in the Stokes limit (zero Reynolds number) for both the droplet and the surrounding air.
    The BEM simulations solve Stokes equations; this is valid for small droplets and slow motion but is an idealization of the high-speed jetting event.
  • domain assumption The droplet is a perfect conductor with infinite charge relaxation, and the surrounding air is a perfect dielectric.
    Used to justify solving only the Laplace equation for potential; questionable for low-conductivity droplets where charge relaxation is slower.
  • domain assumption The trap field is approximated as a uniform electric field E = 4 Λ0 zshift due to the off-center position.
    Equation (2) substitutes the quadrupole potential with this shifted form; the uniform-field approximation underlies the P1 contribution to asymmetry.
  • standard math Axisymmetric boundary element method with Legendre mode decomposition of the shape.
    Standard numerical approach; assumes the breakup remains axisymmetric, which is consistent with the reported single-jet breakup.
  • domain assumption Rayleigh breakup is a transcritical bifurcation at a critical charge of 8π, as derived in ref 16 (Das, Mayya, Thaokar).
    Invoked to interpret the simulated critical charge of 7.9π as validation; this theory comes from the same research group and is not independently re-derived here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effect of trap potential on the Rayleigh breakup of a levitated charged droplet." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FJQM2F7L

@misc{pith2026190803132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effect of trap potential on the Rayleigh breakup of a levitated charged droplet},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FJQM2F7L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03132}
}
read the original abstract

Rayleigh instability that results in the breakup of a charged droplet, levitated in a quadrupole trap, has been investigated in the literature, but only scarcely. We report here asymmetric breakup of a charged drop, levitated in a loose trap, wherein, the droplet is stabilized at an off-center location in the trap. This aspect of levitation leads to an asymmetric breakup of the charged drop, predominantly in a direction opposite to that of gravity. In a first of its kind of study, we capture the successive events of the droplet deformation, breakup and relaxation of the drop after jet ejection using high speed imaging at a couple of hundred thousand frames per second. A pertinent question of the effect of the electrodynamic trap parameters such as applied voltage as well as physical parameters such as the size of the drop, gravity and conductivity on the characteristics of droplet breakup is also explored. A clear effect of the trap strength on the deformation (both symmetric and asymmetric) is observed. Moreover, the cone angle at the pole undergoing asymmetric breakup is almost independent of the applied field investigated in the experiments. All the experimental observations are compared with numerical simulations carried out using the boundary element method (BEM) in the Stokes flow limit. The BEM simulations are also extended to other experimentally achievable parameters. It is observed that the breakup is mostly field influenced, and not field induced. A plausible theory for the observations is reported, and a sensitive role of the sign of the charge on the droplet and the sign of the end cap potential, as well as the off-center location of the droplet in the trap.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.03132 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Surface charge density as a fucntion of arclength indicates that asymmetry is set as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Effect of CaΛ on the asymmetric deformation of the charged droplet breakup. The inset plot is the experimental observation showing the effect of CaΛ on the AD. The effect of zshif t in BEM calculations is included by shifting the center of the trap in the positive z-direction which modifies the equation of applied quadrupole field, as shown in equation 2. The initial perturbation in the shape is given as a critical … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effect of CaΛ on the asymmetric deformation of the charged droplet breakup. The inset plot is the experimental observation indicating effect of CaΛ on the AR. for a nondimensional charge fixed at Rayleigh limit (8π). The critical P2 perturbation in numerical simulations is obtained by increasing its magnitude in the step of 0.01 until the droplet breaks for the given charge and CaΛ. In the present experimental setup… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Normal stress distribution on the surface of the charged drop showing effect of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Change in cone angle with CaΛ. The solid vertical and horizontal lines indicate the standard deviation in the experimental data. Effect CaΛ on jet diameter (Jd) When a droplet is levitated at high value of CaΛ at constant zshif t it experiences high electric stresses a…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effect of CaΛ on the jet diameter. Parameters: Dp varies from 100 to 260µm, Λ0 varies from 2 to 3.6×107V/m2 . Effect of conductivity on Jd A continuous jet with measurable jet thickness can be observed for low conductivity droplets. To the best of our knowledge, no exp…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Change in jet diameter with Sa. Parameters: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Deformation, breakup and relaxation sequence of droplet in the breakup process [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The phase diagram of effect of conductivity on the droplet breakup characteristics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

20 extracted references · 19 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1882, 14, 184--186

    Rayleigh, L. The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 1882, 14, 184--186

    work page

  2. [2]

    Physical Review 1917, 10, 1

    Zeleny, J. Physical Review 1917, 10, 1

    work page 1917

  3. [3]

    Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    Macky, W. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Character 1931, 565--587

    work page 1931

  4. [4]

    Disintegration of water drops in an electric field

    Taylor, G. Disintegration of water drops in an electric field. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 1964; pp 383--397

    work page 1964

  5. [5]

    R.; Vonnegut, B

    Doyle, A.; Moffett, D. R.; Vonnegut, B. Journal of Colloid Science 1964, 19, 136--143

    work page 1964

  6. [6]

    Millikan, R. A. Electrons, Protons, Photons, Neutrons, and Cosmic Rays.; 1935

    work page 1935

  7. [7]

    Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1967, 30, 663--670

    Abbas, M.; Latham, J. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 1967, 30, 663--670

    work page 1967

  8. [8]

    A.; Leisner, T

    Duft, D.; Achtzehn, T.; M \"u ller, R.; Huber, B. A.; Leisner, T. Nature 2003, 421, 128--128

    work page 2003

Show all 20 references
  1. [9]

    A.; Guet, C.; Leisner, T

    Duft, D.; Lebius, H.; Huber, B. A.; Guet, C.; Leisner, T. Physical Review Letters 2002, 89, 084503--084507

    2002

  2. [10]

    Physics of Fluids 1994, 6, 404--414

    Gomez, A.; Tang, K. Physics of Fluids 1994, 6, 404--414

    1994

  3. [11]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02294 2019,

    Singh, M.; Gawande, N.; Mayya, Y.; Thaokar, R. arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.02294 2019,

    1907 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Physics of Fluids 2018, 30, 122105

    Singh, M.; Gawande, N.; Mayya, Y.; Thaokar, R. Physics of Fluids 2018, 30, 122105

    2018

  5. [13]

    The European Physical Journal D-Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 2005, 34, 311--313

    Achtzehn, T.; M \"u ller, R.; Duft, D.; Leisner, T. The European Physical Journal D-Atomic, Molecular, Optical and Plasma Physics 2005, 34, 311--313

    2005

  6. [14]

    Singh, M.; Mayya, Y.; Gaware, J.; Thaokar, R. M. Journal of Applied Physics 2017, 121, 054503

    2017

  7. [15]

    Physical Review Fluids 2017, 2, 113603

    Gawande, N.; Mayya, Y.; Thaokar, R. Physical Review Fluids 2017, 2, 113603

    2017

  8. [16]

    EPL (Europhysics Letters) 2015, 111, 24006

    Das, S.; Mayya, Y.; Thaokar, R. EPL (Europhysics Letters) 2015, 111, 24006

    2015

  9. [17]

    Physical Review E 2018, 98, 032202

    Singh, M.; Thaokar, R.; Khan, A.; Mayya, Y. Physical Review E 2018, 98, 032202

    2018

  10. [18]

    L.; Beauchamp, J

    Grimm, R. L.; Beauchamp, J. L. The Journal of Physical Chemistry B 2005, 109, 8244--8250

    2005

  11. [19]

    A.; Kindel \'a n, U.; Vantzos, O

    Fontelos, M. A.; Kindel \'a n, U.; Vantzos, O. Physics of Fluids 2008, 20, 092110

    2008

  12. [20]

    " -D*2**2*D<I;7;I<lUKKUl ici -

    Collins, R. T.; Sambath, K.; Harris, M. T.; Basaran, O. A. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2013, 110, 4905--4910 mcitethebibliography document AD_vs_CaL_exp_simu.jpg0000664000000000000000000160243013523040767013721 0ustar rootroot JFIF - " " -D*2**2*D<I;7;I<lUK...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.