Stokes flow of incompressible liquid through a conical diffuser with partial slip boundary condition

Peter Lebedev-Stepanov

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Stokes flow of incompressible liquid through a conical diffuser with partial slip boundary condition

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper derives a vector-potential form of the Stokes solution and shows that, in a conical diffuser with partial slip, the first-order-in-$\lambda/r$ flow has a nonzero polar velocity component and thus vorticity; at zero slip it…

desk verdict First partial-slip conical diffuser solution, worth refereeing despite a real degeneracy at the equatorial cone angle and some unverified claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15853 v2 pith:XYI47K5Y submitted 2024-11-24 physics.flu-dyn cond-mat.soft

Peter Lebedev-Stepanov This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.flu-dyncond-mat.soft MSC 76D0733C4576M45

keywords StokesflowpartialslipNavierconditionconicaldiffuservectorpotentialassociatedLegendrepolynomialsstreamfunctionvorticity

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

This paper proposes an alternative general solution to slow, axisymmetric Stokes flow in spherical coordinates, built from a vector potential rather than from a stream function, so boundary conditions can be imposed directly on velocity components. It applies this solution to a conical diffuser whose wall satisfies the partial-slip (Navier) condition with slip length $\lambda$. To first order in the small parameter $\lambda/r$, the flow acquires a nonzero polar velocity component $V_{\theta}$ that is proportional to $\lambda$; this produces vorticity and curved streamlines. At zero slip length the formulas reduce exactly to the known strictly radial no-slip diffuser solution. Because partial slip is common on hydrophobic and structured surfaces, the result gives a direct way to predict how wall slip changes the flow pattern in a cone.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $\varphi$-component $A$ of the vector potential for the transverse part of the velocity, expanded in associated Legendre functions $P_l^1(\cos\theta)$ times powers of $r$. The velocity components are obtained by taking curl-like derivatives of $A$, while the pressure is a harmonic function proportional to the same vortex coefficients, so the whole field is carried by the coefficient sequences $b_l$ and $d_l$. Substituting the external-problem solution into the Navier slip condition at $\theta=\theta_0$ produces the recurrence (2.23), which determines all higher coefficients once $b_2$ is known; $b_2$ itself is fixed by the flow rate through equation (2.41). Truncating after the first order in $\lambda/R$ leaves only $b_2$, $b_3$, and $d_1$, yielding the explicit solution (2.52)--(2.55).

What would settle it

Evaluate the recurrence (2.23) at a cone angle with $P_2^1(\cos\theta_0)=0$, for example $\theta_0=\pi/2$: if no finite $b_2$, $b_3$, and $d_1$ satisfy (2.22)--(2.23), the claimed first-order solution does not cover all angles stated. Alternatively, a numerical Stokes solver with the Navier slip condition at $\theta_0=\pi/2$ can be compared with (2.53); a mismatch in the sign, magnitude, or $\lambda$-scaling of $V_{\theta}$ would show that the slip-induced vorticity is not as described.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Stokes flow in a conical diffuser with partial slip is described, to first order in $\lambda/R$, by the explicit formulas (2.52)--(2.55) for the radial and polar velocity components, pressure, and stream function in terms of the total flow rate $Q$. The polar component $V_{\theta}$ is nonzero whenever $\lambda\neq 0$, so slip at the cone wall breaks the radial character of the classical no-slip flow and generates vorticity that increases with $\lambda$. Setting $\lambda=0$ recovers the known no-slip solution with strictly radial streamlines (3.5)--(3.8). The coefficients in the series are fixed by recurrence relations (2.21)--(2.23) that follow from the impermeability and Navier boundary conditions, and all coefficients are ultimately expressed through the flow rate.

Load-bearing premise

The recurrence divides by $P_l^1(\cos\theta_0)$ and assumes these values are nonzero; for a cone angle such as $\theta_0=\pi/2$, where $P_2^1(\cos\theta_0)=0$, the coefficient construction fails, and the paper does not analyze the limiting behavior.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any nonzero slip length gives a nonzero polar velocity component in a conical diffuser, so slip generically turns the strictly radial no-slip flow into a flow with vorticity.
The no-slip solution is recovered as the $\lambda\to0$ limit, so the new formulas contain the classical radial solution as a special case.
Given the flow rate $Q$, slip length $\lambda$, and cone angle $\theta_0$, equations (2.52)--(2.55) give the velocity, pressure, and stream function directly without solving a boundary value problem.
Higher-order corrections, needed when $\lambda$ is not small compared with $r$, can be generated systematically from the recurrence (2.21)--(2.23).
Because the vector-potential solution covers both internal and external axisymmetric problems, the same table of general solutions can be applied to other slip-boundary geometries.

Reading between the lines

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

For cone angles at which $P_l^1(\cos\theta_0)$ vanishes, such as $\theta_0=\pi/2$, the paper's recurrence must be re-examined; a limiting or alternative gauge may be needed to cover the full stated range $0<\theta_0<\pi$.
The proportionality of $V_{\theta}$ to $\lambda$ suggests an experimental signature: in a conical microfluidic channel with a hydrophobic wall, tracer trajectories should show a systematic angular drift whose magnitude scales linearly with the slip length at fixed flow rate.
The same vector-potential formalism could be extended to a cone with spatially varying slip length or to a conical annulus, since the boundary conditions would enter only through the same Legendre projection used here.
One could compute the viscous torque or force on a truncated cone with slip from the same expansion, a quantity the paper does not report.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take. The paper actually delivers the first partial-slip solution for Stokes flow in a conical diffuser, as far as the cited literature goes. The vector-potential general solution is explicitly a reformulation—the author says so—but the genuinely new content is the lambda-nonzero solution and the slip-induced polar velocity, which vanishes in the no-slip limit. The no-slip limit correctly reduces to the known radial flow, which is a good benchmark. The derivation is coherent and there are no fitted parameters; the structure is: separation of variables, boundary conditions, recurrence, truncation at first order.

The main soft spot is a degeneracy the paper doesn't discuss. The recurrence (2.23) divides by P_l^1(cos theta0), and Eq. (2.20) assumes all these are nonzero. At theta0=pi/2, P_2^1(cos theta0)=0, so b4 cannot be determined and the claimed general solution fails for a physically allowed cone angle. The stress-test worry that the first-order V_theta also disappears there does not land: the first-order solution (2.53) has nonzero V_theta inside the flow and satisfies V_theta=0 at the wall, and the first-order coefficients don't require P_2^1. But the series solution as written doesn't cover theta0=pi/2, and the author should either exclude it explicitly or handle the limit. That's a genuine gap, not fatal.

Other soft spots: the conclusion claims verification against Stokes drag and Hadamard-Rybczynski without showing any of it; the plots use lambda/R = 0.2 and 0.3 where lambda/r isn't small over much of the domain; and the appendix's scalar/vector Laplacian notation is ambiguous in places. These are fixable. Self-citations appear only in the concluding electrostatics analogy, not as load-bearing inputs, so no circularity.

My bottom line: the paper deserves a serious referee. The result is new, the no-slip check is clean, and the flaws are localized. I'd send it out and ask the referee to verify the recurrence algebra and to request a discussion of the excluded cone angles. I'd likely cite it if I were working on slip flow in confined geometries.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an alternative general solution of the axisymmetric Stokes equations in spherical coordinates using a vector potential formulation, tabulates the internal and external solutions in Table 1, and applies the external solution to flow through a conical diffuser with a Navier partial-slip boundary condition. Recurrence relations for the expansion coefficients are derived, and the solution is analyzed to first order in the dimensionless parameter lambda/r. The final formulas express velocity, pressure, and stream function in terms of the flow rate Q and slip length lambda. In the no-slip limit lambda=0, the known radial solution for a conical diffuser is recovered. The authors conclude that slip produces a nonzero polar velocity component and, as they phrase it, a 'vorticity' of the flow.

Significance. If correct, the general solution in Table 1 would provide a useful alternative to the stream-function formalism for axisymmetric Stokes problems with slip boundary conditions, and the first-order diffuser solution would be a new explicit analytical result with potential applications in microfluidics. The paper has concrete strengths: the solution is derived from first principles without fitted parameters, the no-slip limit reproduces the standard radial solution, and the final formulas (2.52)-(2.55) are explicit and ready to use. However, the construction has several gaps, concerning the domain of validity of the recurrence, the ordering of the truncation, and the physical interpretation of the result, that need to be addressed before the central claims are fully supported.

major comments (3)

[Section II, Eqs. (2.20) and (2.23)] The recurrence for b_{l+2} divides by P_l^1(cos theta_0), which is assumed nonzero in Eq. (2.20). For a physically allowed cone angle such as theta_0 = pi/2, P_2^1(cos theta_0) = 0, so the recurrence cannot determine b_4 (and similarly for higher even l). The paper states the problem for 0 < theta_0 < pi without excluding such angles, and it gives no limiting procedure for these degenerate cases. The first-order formulas (2.52)-(2.55) are finite at theta_0 = pi/2, but the claim that Eq. (2.23) 'allows us to sequentially calculate' all coefficients is not valid for this geometry. The domain of validity of the recurrence must be stated, and the degenerate case must be analyzed separately or by a limit.
[Section II, Eqs. (2.23)-(2.25)] The paper asserts that the coefficients b_2, b_3, b_4, ... form a series in powers of lambda/R with strictly increasing order of smallness, justifying the first-order truncation in Eqs. (2.42)-(2.45). This assertion is not proved. In particular, the expression for b_4 in Eq. (2.25) appears to contain a term proportional to b_2 in the numerator; unless that term cancels when the earlier relations are substituted, b_4 is of order lambda/R, the same order as b_3, and the truncation would omit a first-order contribution. The authors should either prove the ordering explicitly or retain all coefficients of the same order in lambda/R.
[Abstract and Section III] The statement that slip 'leads to a vorticity of the flow' is inaccurate. The no-slip radial solution (3.5)-(3.8) already has nonzero vorticity, since omega_phi = -(1/r) dV_r/dtheta is proportional to sin(theta)/r^3. The qualitative change introduced by slip is a nonzero polar velocity V_theta and non-radial streamlines (recirculation), not the appearance of vorticity. The abstract and the related sentences in Section III should be reworded to state the result correctly.

minor comments (5)

[Appendix, Eqs. (A.22)-(A.23)] The operator written as nabla_phi^2 in Eq. (A.23) is not defined; the reader cannot tell whether it is the phi-component of the vector Laplacian from Eq. (A.1) or a scalar operator. Please define it clearly and show the intermediate steps from Eq. (A.33) to Eq. (A.41), which are essential for verifying Table 1.
[Eqs. (2.23)-(2.25)] The typography makes the indices and Legendre arguments in the recurrence relations difficult to parse; please rewrite with explicit P_l^1(cos theta_0) and P_{l+2}^1(cos theta_0) notation and consistent parentheses.
[Figure 2 and Eq. (3.1)] Panels (b)-(d) of Figure 2 use lambda/R = 0.2-0.3, which is not small compared to unity; near the apex, where r is of order R, this violates the asymptotic condition lambda/r << 1 stated in Eq. (3.1). The figure should either use smaller lambda/R or indicate the region where the first-order approximation is valid.
[Eqs. (2.52)-(2.55)] The factor 1/sin(theta_0) diverges as theta_0 approaches pi, a limit that is not discussed; the domain of the final formulas should be stated together with the behavior near theta_0 = pi.
[Abstract and Section III] The paper uses 'vorticity' in the abstract and 'vortex' in Figure 2 and Section III; the terminology should be made consistent, since a vortex (recirculating flow) is not the same as vorticity (the curl of the velocity field).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the conical-diffuser solution is derived from first principles with slip length and flow rate as independent inputs; the no-slip limit checks against an external benchmark.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The general vector-potential solution (Table 1) is derived in the Appendix from the Helmholtz decomposition and separation of variables of the vorticity equation (A.22)-(A.44), with no parameters fitted and no reliance on the author's prior work. The conical diffuser problem then imposes the physical inputs—the Navier slip condition (1.9) with slip length λ and the impermeability condition (1.8)—on this basis; the recurrence (2.23) determines the coefficients from these boundary conditions, and Eq. (2.41) fixes b_2 in terms of the independently specified flow rate Q. The central claim that V_θ is nonzero at first order in λ (Eqs. (2.49), (2.53)) follows algebraically from the matched boundary conditions, and at λ=0 the solution reduces to the known no-slip solution (3.5)-(3.8) attributed to external sources (Harrison; Slezkin; Happel-Brenner), i.e., an external benchmark rather than a self-citation. The only self-citations ([23], [24]) occur in the Conclusion as a methodological analogy with droplet evaporation and are not load-bearing. The asserted but unshown checks (Stokes drag, Hadamard-Rybczynski) are verifications of the general solution against known results, not derivations from the target result, so their omission is a completeness gap rather than circularity. The genuine limitations—assumption (2.20) that P_l(cosθ0) and P_l^1(cosθ0) are nonzero, division by P_l^1(cosθ0) in (2.23)-(2.25), and the vanishing denominator in (2.41) at θ0=2π/3—are domain-of-validity issues, not reductions of the output to the input.

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

No new physical entities, fitted constants, or data-derived parameters are introduced. The slip length lambda and flow rate Q are external inputs. The central derivation rests on standard separation of variables plus the stated regularity, nonzero-Legendre, and ordering assumptions.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Stokes linearization and incompressibility (Eqs. 1.1-1.5) valid for the flow regime.
The paper restricts to small Reynolds number; Section III, Eq. (3.3), states Re<<1 and therefore restricts validity to regions far from the cone apex.
domain assumption Navier partial-slip boundary condition with constant slip length lambda (Eqs. 1.6-1.9).
The boundary condition is postulated as linear slip with a single constant lambda; it is the physical input for the problem.
domain assumption Axisymmetry and regularity on the polar axis select Legendre polynomials P_l rather than non-integer-order Legendre functions.
The solution in Table 1 and Appendix A uses P_l and P_l^1 with integer l; this requires the flow to be finite and single-valued on the axis theta=0.
ad hoc to paper Associated Legendre values at the cone wall are nonzero (Eq. 2.20).
The recurrence (2.23) divides by P_l^1(cos theta_0); cone angles such as theta_0=pi/2 (where P_2^1(cos theta_0)=0) are excluded, and the paper does not analyze the limit.
domain assumption The expansion coefficients are ordered in powers of lambda/R, allowing first-order truncation (Eqs. 2.46-2.47 and discussion after 2.41).
The first-order solution assumes b_l ~ (lambda/R)^(l-2) b_2 and correspondingly small d_l; this is plausible from recurrence (2.23) but is not proved uniformly in theta and r.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stokes flow of incompressible liquid through a conical diffuser with partial slip boundary condition." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XYI47K5Y

@misc{pith2026241115853,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stokes flow of incompressible liquid through a conical diffuser with partial slip boundary condition},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XYI47K5Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15853}
}

read the original abstract

An alternative form of the general solution of the linearized stationary Navier-Stokes equations for an incompressible fluid in spherical coordinates is obtained by the vector potential method. A previously published solution to this problem, dating back to the paper by Sampson, is given in terms of a stream function, which leads to formulas that are difficult to apply in practice. The presented form of solution is applied to the problem of liquid flowing through a conical diffuser under a partial slip boundary condition for a certain slip length lambda. Recurrent relations are obtained that allow us to determine the velocity, pressure and stream function. The solution is analyzed in the first order of decomposition with respect to a small dimensionless parameter (lambda divided by r). It is shown that the sliding of the liquid over the surface of the cone leads to a vorticity of the flow. At zero slip length, we obtain the well-known solution to the problem of a diffuser with no-slip boundary condition corresponding to strictly radial streamlines.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15853 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The following parameter values were adopted in the calculations: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. Streamlines in a cone for different values of the polar angle and slip length: a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Sliding of a liquid spherical drop in an external fluid: a generalization of the Hadamard-Rybczynski equation
physics.flu-dyn 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

A generalized Hadamard-Rybczynski terminal-velocity formula is derived for a spherical drop with partial slip at the liquid-liquid interface, recovering the classic no-slip result and the slip-modified Stokes law as limits.
Sliding of a liquid spherical droplet in an external insoluble liquid at low Reynolds numbers
physics.flu-dyn 2025-02 conditional novelty 3.0 of 10

A Navier partial-slip condition at the liquid-liquid interface produces a one-parameter generalized Hadamard-Rybczynski drag formula that interpolates between the classic droplet and solid-sphere limits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

24 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Lauga, M.P

E. Lauga, M.P. Brenner, H.A. Stone, Microfluidics: the no-slip boundary condition. In: J. Foss, C. Tropea, A.L. Yarin (Eds.) Handbook of Experimental Fluid Dynamics (Springer, New York, 2007)

work page 2007
[2]

Boundary slip in Newtonian liquids: a review of experimental studies

C. Neto, D.R. Evans, E. Bonaccurso, H.-J. Butt, V .S.J. Craig. “Boundary slip in Newtonian liquids: a review of experimental studies”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 2859 (2005)

work page 2005
[3]

Slip on Superhydrophobic Surfaces

J. P. Rothstein, “Slip on Superhydrophobic Surfaces”, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 89 (2010)

work page 2010
[4]

Drainage of a thin liquid film confined between hydrophobic surfaces

O.I. Vinogradova, “Drainage of a thin liquid film confined between hydrophobic surfaces”, Langmuir 11, 2213 (1995)

work page 1995
[5]

Boundary conditions at the gas sectors of superhydrophobic grooves

A.L. Dubov, T.V . Nizkaya, E.S. Asmolov, O.I. Vinogradova, “Boundary conditions at the gas sectors of superhydrophobic grooves”, Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 014002 (2018). 22

work page 2018
[6]

Superhydrophobic materials and coatings: a review

J.T. Simpson, S.R. Hunter, T. Aytug, “Superhydrophobic materials and coatings: a review”, Reports on Progress in Physics 78 (8), 086501 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Hydrophobic materials and coatings: principles of design, properties and applications

L.B. Boinovich. A.M. Emelyanenko, “Hydrophobic materials and coatings: principles of design, properties and applications”, Russ. Chem. Rev. 77, 583 (2008)

work page 2008
[8]

Slippage of water over hydrophobic surfaces

O.I. Vinogradova, “Slippage of water over hydrophobic surfaces”, Int. J. Miner. Process. 56, 31 (1999)

work page 1999

Show all 24 references

[9]

Effective slip in pressure-driven Stokes flow

E. Lauga, H. A. Stone, “Effective slip in pressure-driven Stokes flow”, J. Fluid Mech. 489, 55 (2003)

2003
[10]

Partial air wetting on solvophobic surfaces in polar liquids

U.C. Boehnke, T. Remmler, H. Motschmann, S. Wurlitzer, J. Hauwede, M. Th. Fischer, “Partial air wetting on solvophobic surfaces in polar liquids”, J. Colloid Int. Sci. 211, 243 (1999)

1999
[11]

Landau, E.M

L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics: Landau and Lifshitz: Course of Theoretical Physics. V ol. 6 (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1987)

1987
[12]

Batchelor, An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

G.K. Batchelor, An Introduction to Fluid Dynamics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2000)

2000
[13]

Happel, H

J. Happel, H. Brenner, Low Reynolds number hydrodynamics with special applications to particulate media (Springer Netherlands, 1983)

1983
[14]

P. Moon, D. E. Spencer, Field theory handbook Including coordinate systems, differential equations and their solutions. 2nd Edition (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1971)

1971
[15]

The pressure in a viscous liquid moving through a channel with diverging boundaries

W.J. Harrison, “The pressure in a viscous liquid moving through a channel with diverging boundaries”, Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 19(6), 307 (1920)

1920
[16]

Slezkin, Dynamics of a Viscous Incompressible Liquid [in Russian] (Gostekhizdat, Moscow, 1955)

N.A. Slezkin, Dynamics of a Viscous Incompressible Liquid [in Russian] (Gostekhizdat, Moscow, 1955)

1955
[17]

On Stokes's Current Function

R.A. Sampson, “On Stokes's Current Function”, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 182, 449 (1891)
[18]

Savic, Rept

P. Savic, Rept. No. MT-22, Nat. Res. Council Canada (Ottawa), July 31 (1953)

1953
[19]

Motion of rigid and fluid spheres in stationary and moving liquids inside cylindrical tubes

W.L. Haberman, R.M. Sayre. “Motion of rigid and fluid spheres in stationary and moving liquids inside cylindrical tubes”. David Taylor Model Basin. Hydromechanics laboratory research and development report No. 1143, Washington, D.C (1958)

1958
[20]

Arfken, H.-J

G.B. Arfken, H.-J. Weber, F. E. Harris, Mathematical methods for physicists: a comprehensive guide (Elsevier, 2012)

2012
[21]

The evaporation of sessile or pendant drops in still air

R.G. Picknett, R. Bexon, “The evaporation of sessile or pendant drops in still air”, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 61, 336 (1977)

1977
[22]

Evaporative deposition patterns: Spatial dimensions of the deposit

Yu.O. Popov, “Evaporative deposition patterns: Spatial dimensions of the deposit”, Phys. Rev. E 71, 036313 (2005). 23

2005
[23]

Sessile liquid drop evaporation: Analytical solution in bipolar coordinates

P. Lebedev-Stepanov, “Sessile liquid drop evaporation: Analytical solution in bipolar coordinates”, arXiv:2103.15582v3 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[24]

Evaporation of Small Sessile Drop Deposited on a Horizontal Solid Surface: New Exact Solutions and Approximations

P. Lebedev-Stepanov, O. Savenko, “Evaporation of Small Sessile Drop Deposited on a Horizontal Solid Surface: New Exact Solutions and Approximations”, Colloids Interfaces 8, 2 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Lauga, M.P

E. Lauga, M.P. Brenner, H.A. Stone, Microfluidics: the no-slip boundary condition. In: J. Foss, C. Tropea, A.L. Yarin (Eds.) Handbook of Experimental Fluid Dynamics (Springer, New York, 2007)

work page 2007

[2] [2]

Boundary slip in Newtonian liquids: a review of experimental studies

C. Neto, D.R. Evans, E. Bonaccurso, H.-J. Butt, V .S.J. Craig. “Boundary slip in Newtonian liquids: a review of experimental studies”, Rep. Prog. Phys. 68, 2859 (2005)

work page 2005

[3] [3]

Slip on Superhydrophobic Surfaces

J. P. Rothstein, “Slip on Superhydrophobic Surfaces”, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 42, 89 (2010)

work page 2010

[4] [4]

Drainage of a thin liquid film confined between hydrophobic surfaces

O.I. Vinogradova, “Drainage of a thin liquid film confined between hydrophobic surfaces”, Langmuir 11, 2213 (1995)

work page 1995

[5] [5]

Boundary conditions at the gas sectors of superhydrophobic grooves

A.L. Dubov, T.V . Nizkaya, E.S. Asmolov, O.I. Vinogradova, “Boundary conditions at the gas sectors of superhydrophobic grooves”, Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 014002 (2018). 22

work page 2018

[6] [6]

Superhydrophobic materials and coatings: a review

J.T. Simpson, S.R. Hunter, T. Aytug, “Superhydrophobic materials and coatings: a review”, Reports on Progress in Physics 78 (8), 086501 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Hydrophobic materials and coatings: principles of design, properties and applications

L.B. Boinovich. A.M. Emelyanenko, “Hydrophobic materials and coatings: principles of design, properties and applications”, Russ. Chem. Rev. 77, 583 (2008)

work page 2008

[8] [8]

Slippage of water over hydrophobic surfaces

O.I. Vinogradova, “Slippage of water over hydrophobic surfaces”, Int. J. Miner. Process. 56, 31 (1999)

work page 1999