Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 44 references

The Radial Distribution Functions of Nanofluids: Molecular Dynamics Simulations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-07-10 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Soft nanoparticles of 28 atoms lose their two-shell structure in a polymer melt when temperature rises; larger ones of 42 and 56 atoms keep it.

desk verdict Clear size-dependent ARDF observation in a carefully documented homemade CG model, but the stability claim rests on visual contour inspection without a quantitative metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.08527 v1 pith:5DWWCTIH submitted 2026-07-09 cond-mat.mes-hall cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Özlem Öztürk This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallcond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords MolecularDynamicsSimulationsNanofluidsNanoparticlesRadialDistributionFunctionsAngleDependentShapeStabilityPolymerMeltSoft
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 uses molecular dynamics to ask how soft nanoparticles of different sizes keep their shape once they are suspended in a polymer melt. Each nanoparticle is built as two concentric shells around a central atom. By computing ordinary radial distribution functions and angle-resolved three-dimensional maps, the author tracks whether the empty gap between those shells survives when temperature is raised and when the attraction between nanoparticle and polymer is weakened. The central finding is size-dependent: particles made of 28 atoms lose the gap and the shell structure as temperature goes from 1.2 to 1.8, while particles of 42 and 56 atoms keep both shells under the same conditions. A sympathetic reader cares because nanofluid performance depends on long-term particle integrity and dispersion; knowing that a modest size change can decide whether a soft particle stays intact or collapses inside the host liquid is directly useful for designing stable suspensions.

What carries the argument

Angle-dependent three-dimensional radial distribution functions (ARDF) rendered as two-dimensional contour maps of particle density relative to the nanoparticle centre; the maps are used as a visual order parameter that reveals whether the inter-shell vacuum remains open or fills.

What would settle it

Recompute the ARDF maps with a finer radial mesh and longer trajectories, then check whether a free-energy or shell-occupancy order parameter still shows a clear transition for the 28-atom particles while remaining flat for the 42- and 56-atom particles under the same temperature ramp.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Inside a polymer melt, soft nanoparticles of 28 atoms lose the empty vacuum between their two concentric shells and therefore lose the two-shell architecture when the temperature is raised from T=1.2 to T=1.8; nanoparticles of 42 and 56 atoms preserve the same concentric-shell structure under identical temperature increases and under reduced nanoparticle–polymer affinity.

Load-bearing premise

That the visual closing of the inter-shell gap on ARDF contour maps, without a quantitative free-energy or occupancy measure, is enough to declare thermodynamic shape instability.

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

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports coarse-grained NVE molecular-dynamics simulations of polymeric nanofluids containing soft nanoparticles of 28, 42, and 56 atoms in a linear polymer melt. Nanoparticles are constructed as a central atom FENE-bonded to the remaining atoms, which self-organize into two concentric shells; interactions are 12-6 LJ (monomer–monomer, intra-NP) and modified LJ with tunable C_nn and C_mn (inter-NP and NP–monomer). One-dimensional RDFs and angle-dependent three-dimensional ARDFs are computed both for pure nanoparticles and for the nanofluids over T = 1.2–1.8 and C_mn = 0.1, 0.5, 1.0. The central claim is that 28-atom nanoparticles lose their inter-shell vacuum and two-shell structure inside the melt upon heating, whereas 42- and 56-atom nanoparticles preserve concentric shells under the same temperature rise and under reduced NP–monomer affinity. Supporting material includes construction/equilibration protocols, pure-NP shell radii, mean-force magnitude profiles, and extensive contour maps.

Significance. If the size-dependent shape-stability claim is robust, the work supplies a concrete, simulation-based design rule for soft nanoparticles in polymer melts and demonstrates that ARDFs can diagnose internal shell integrity. The manuscript is unusually transparent about potentials, neighbor lists, construction algorithms, and equilibration (velocity rescaling, Maxwellian checks, Boltzmann H-function for a test LJ liquid). The qualitative trend—28-atom shells fill while 42/56 do not—is consistent across the plotted C_mn and T windows. Those strengths make the study potentially useful for the nanofluid and soft-matter communities once the stability criterion is placed on a quantitative footing.

major comments (3)
  1. The size-dependent stability claim (Abstract; section “Angle Dependent Three-Dimensional Radial Distribution Functions for Nanofluids,” Figs. 26–28 vs. 29–34) rests on visual inspection of 2-D ARDF contour maps (mesh Δr = Δθ = Δφ = 0.1, 5×10^5 frames). No radial density ρ(r) of non-central NP atoms, shell-occupancy order parameter, gap-density time series, free-energy histogram, or fluctuation/barrier analysis is reported. Thermal broadening alone can fill a ~0.43-wide gap on a coarse mesh without a structural transition. A quantitative metric (e.g., time-averaged density in Rin < r < Rout, or a two-shell order parameter) is required before “breaks down / disappears” language can establish thermodynamic shape instability.
  2. Pure-nanoparticle controls (Figs. 10–16 and associated ARDFs) are shown only at T = 1.2. Without the same ARDF/RDF series for isolated 28-, 42-, and 56-atom nanoparticles at T = 1.4–1.8, the fluid’s role cannot be separated from simple heating. The Abstract and instability-analysis claim that the particles were researched “both within the base fluid and without this polymeric medium”; the missing high-T pure-NP data leave that comparison incomplete and weaken the attribution of instability specifically to the melt environment.
  3. Mean-force magnitude profiles (Figs. 35–37) are presented as supporting material but are never linked quantitatively to the shell-stability conclusion. The bimodal features are interpreted as signatures of outer-shell thickness, yet no comparison of force peaks (or their temperature evolution) between the 28-atom and larger particles is used to corroborate or refute the visual ARDF claim. Either integrate these data into the stability argument or clarify that they are independent of it.
minor comments (6)
  1. Figure 9 caption repeats “nanoparticle of 28 particles” while the surrounding text and Fig. 8 refer to 42- and 56-atom systems; correct the caption.
  2. Table 2 lists Ain and Aout as integers (11, 23, …) without units or explanation of rounding; either report continuous surface areas or state that they are atom counts.
  3. Several figure panels (e.g., Figs. 23–25) are dense; increasing line contrast or adding a legend inset would improve readability.
  4. Typographical inconsistencies appear throughout (e.g., “Corsed-Grained,” “tirbunes,” “degredation,” “purporse,” “distirbutions”); a careful copy-edit is needed.
  5. The long introductory survey of nanofluid applications is only loosely connected to the RDF/ARDF results; a shorter motivation focused on dispersion stability and soft-particle structure would tighten the narrative.
  6. Eqs. (7)–(8) and the definition of C_αβ are clear, but the text sometimes writes U_αβ(r) for both the unshifted and shifted forms; a single consistent notation would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: shape-stability claims are direct visual observations from MD-computed ARDF contour maps; interaction parameters and nanoparticle construction are free inputs, not fitted to or defined by the stability conclusion.

full rationale

The paper’s derivation chain is a standard MD workflow: construct soft nanoparticles via FENE + LJ (with chosen R0, k, d0, r0), equilibrate them, insert into a polymer melt with chosen C_nn=0.1 and C_mn values, integrate trajectories in the NVE ensemble, then compute one-dimensional RDFs and three-dimensional ARDFs directly from particle coordinates (homemade binning algorithms given explicitly). The size-dependent stability statements (28-atom shells collapse between T=1.2 and T=1.8 while 42- and 56-atom shells persist) are qualitative readings of the resulting 2-D ARDF contour maps (Figs. 26–34). No parameter is fitted to a stability target and then re-used as a “prediction”; C_nn and C_mn are free control parameters that set interaction strength; the pure-NP controls (Figs. 10–16) are independent runs at fixed T=1.2. Citations are to standard algorithms (Verlet, Kremer–Grest FENE, Numerical Recipes RNG) and external experimental/application literature; none is a load-bearing self-citation of a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that forces the present result. The chain therefore contains no self-definitional loop, no fitted-input-called-prediction, and no renaming of a known result. (Weakness of the visual criterion is a separate evidence issue, not circularity.)

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central stability claim rests on a constructed soft-nanoparticle model (central atom FENE-bonded to outer atoms that form two shells), standard Kremer–Grest polymer parameters, and several hand-chosen interaction and geometry numbers (C_nn, C_mn, R0, r0, d0, densities). No new physical entity is postulated beyond this model construction; free parameters are mostly interaction and construction choices rather than fits to experimental data.

free parameters (6)
  • C_nn (nanoparticle–nanoparticle attraction coefficient) = 0.1
    Fixed at 0.1 after the author ‘discovered’ it yields well-dispersed non-flocculating nanoparticles; not derived from first principles and held constant for all production runs.
  • C_mn (nanoparticle–monomer attraction coefficient) = 0.1, 0.5, 1.0
    Scanned over 0.1, 0.5, 1.0 to control affinity; values are chosen by hand to span weak-to-strong adsorption, not fitted to experiment.
  • FENE R0 for nanoparticles = 1.52 / 1.62 / 1.71
    Set to 1.52, 1.62, 1.71 for 28/42/56-atom particles so that two concentric shells form; construction choice that defines the target morphology.
  • Construction r0 and d0 = r0=1.50–1.69; d0=0.55
    Initial radial placement and minimum inter-atom distance (r0=1.50/1.60/1.69, d0=0.55) chosen to ease equilibration into two-shell spheres.
  • Bulk number densities at P≈0 = 0.815 / 0.820 / 0.825
    ρσ³ = 0.815, 0.820, 0.825 for the three system sizes, set so that pressure is near zero at T=1.2 and C_mn=1.0; system-specific choices.
  • Temperature window and nanoparticle count = T=1.2..1.8; N_par=20
    T=1.2–1.8 and N_par=20 nanoparticles per box are simulation design choices that define the reported stability map.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Pairwise additive truncated-shifted 12-6 LJ plus FENE bonds (Kremer–Grest style) adequately represent neutral polymer melts and soft nanoparticles for structural RDF analysis.
    Invoked throughout ‘The Coarse-Grained Molecular Dynamics Model’ and interaction sections; standard soft-matter modeling assumption, not re-derived.
  • domain assumption NVE integration with velocity-Verlet and prior velocity-rescaling equilibration yields equilibrium configurations whose RDFs/ARDFs report true thermodynamic structure.
    Stated in ensemble and equilibration sections; production is labeled NVE after rescaling equilibration.
  • ad hoc to paper Visual persistence or disappearance of the inter-shell vacuum on ARDF contour maps equals shape stability or instability.
    Operational definition used in the ARDF results section (Figs. 26–34) without a quantitative order parameter.
  • standard math Minimum-image convention and spherical-shell binning with Δr=0.1 (RDF) / mesh 0.1 (ARDF) correctly estimate local densities for the reported box sizes.
    Standard MD histogram practice described in the RDF and ARDF algorithm sections.
invented entities (1)
  • Two-concentric-shell soft nanoparticle (central atom FENE-bonded to N−1 outer atoms that self-organize into Rin/Rout shells)
    purpose: Provide a nonrigid nanoparticle morphology whose shape stability can be tracked by RDF/ARDF inside a polymer melt.
    Constructed by the author’s Fortran placement algorithm plus FENE radii chosen so that two hollow shells appear; not taken from a standard nanoparticle force field. independent_evidence is false because no experimental or independent simulation validation of this specific morphology is given.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Radial Distribution Functions of Nanofluids: Molecular Dynamics Simulations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5DWWCTIH

@misc{pith2026260708527,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Radial Distribution Functions of Nanofluids: Molecular Dynamics Simulations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5DWWCTIH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.08527}
}
read the original abstract

Nanofluids, which are composed of insoluble, stable, and well-dispersed solid particles of nanoscale and/or subnanometer sizes suspended in a base liquid, are the next generation of liquids of today. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the one dimensional and three dimensional angle dependent radial distribution functions RDF and ARDF of polymeric nanofluids made up of nonrigid (soft) nanoparticles and a polymer melt (base fluid) using the molecular dynamics simulation approach and to search the shape stabilities by using these results. For this purpose, we use the nanoparticles of three different sizes: 28, 42, and 56 particles. We research them both within the base fluid and without this polymeric medium for instability analysis. We found that the nanoparticles with 28 atoms show the shape instability inside the base fluid when we increase the system temperature from T=1.2 to T=1.8 and hence, the structure of two concentric spherical shell of the nanoparticle breaks down and as a result the empty vacuum between these inner and the outer shells disappears. In contrast to this findings, the nanoparticles with 42 and 56 atoms show the shape stability inside the base fluid by preserving their concentric shell structures when we rise the system temperature and decrease the affinity between the nanoparticles and the base liquid medium.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.08527 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. An illustration of the interactions inside the bulk nanofluid systems of 28, 42, and 56 particles. In the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. For the given values of the parameters k and R [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. For six different Cαβ coefficients, modified, truncated and shifted Lennard-Jones (12,6) potential energy, Uαβ(r), as a function of the central distance r between two particles is shown. For Cαβ = 0.1, the minimum of the Uαβ(r) is approximately equal to −0.0071 at r = 1.6. Construction of a Nanoparticle. In our spherical nanoparticle model systems with two homocentric shells, we analyze nanoparticles of three differ… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (34 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The visualization of a spherical nanoparticle with 28 atoms created by using the Algorithm in Table [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Side by side visualization of spherical nanoparticles of 28 (a), 42 (b), 56 (c) atoms just after the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Figures show the graph of Ep (a), Ek (b), and Ep+Ek (c) versus total number of atoms in a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Eight molecular dynamics simulation observables of a nanoparticle of 28 particles at equilibrium as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Eight molecular dynamics simulation observables of a nanoparticle of 42 particles at equilibrium as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Eight molecular dynamics simulation observables of a nanoparticle of 28 particles at equilibrium as a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: The frame-averaged distance between the central atom and the other atoms belonging to same the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: The frame-averaged distance between the central atom and the other atoms belonging to the nanopar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The frame-averaged distance between the central atom and the other atoms belonging to the nanopar [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: if nphi is even, then gcircle = nphi 2 , as seen in the left-hand side Figure (a), and if nphi is odd, then gcircle = nphi+1 2 , as seen in the right-hand side Figure (b). if nphi is odd, then (gcircle − 2)∆phi < ϕ < gcircle∆phi, if nphi is even, then (gcircle − 1)∆ph…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Three dimensional angle dependent radial distribution function of a nanoparticle with 28 atoms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Three dimensional angle dependent radial distribution function of a nanoparticle with 42 atoms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: Three dimensional angle dependent radial distribution function of a nanoparticle with 56 atoms. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Molecular dynamics simulation snapshot of a bulk nanofluid of 6160 particles at equilibrium. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Visualization of the nanofluid before extracting the monomers and the nanoparticles (a) and right [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Schematic illustration of the first six spherical coordination spheres (equidistant concentric circles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: The two-dimensional contour map of the three-dimensional angle dependent radial distribution function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: The main figure shows two velocity-dependent probability density functions calculated for only one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: A schematic representation of local particle distributions of B and A atoms around A and B atoms, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: Radial distribution function (RDF) as a function of relative distance for nanofluids of 28 particles. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: Radial distribution function (RDF) as a function of relative distance for nanofluids of 42 particles. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: Radial distribution function (RDF) as a function of relative distance for nanofluids of 56 particles. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_26.png]
Figure 27
Figure 27. Figure 27: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_27.png]
Figure 28
Figure 28. Figure 28: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_28.png]
Figure 29
Figure 29. Figure 29: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_29.png]
Figure 30
Figure 30. Figure 30: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_30.png]
Figure 31
Figure 31. Figure 31: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_31.png]
Figure 32
Figure 32. Figure 32: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_32.png]
Figure 33
Figure 33. Figure 33: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_33.png]
Figure 34
Figure 34. Figure 34: The two-dimensional contour maps of the angle dependent three-dimensional radial distribution func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_34.png]
Figure 35
Figure 35. Figure 35: Mean force calculations for the nanofluids with 28 particles for C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_35.png]
Figure 36
Figure 36. Figure 36: Mean force calculations for the nanofluids with 42 particles for C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_36.png]
Figure 37
Figure 37. Figure 37: Mean force calculations for the nanofluids with 56 particles for C [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_37.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    S. U. S. Choi and J. A. Eastman. Enhancing thermal conductivity of fluids with nanoparticles.ASME International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition Proceedings, 231:99, 1995

    work page 1995

  2. [2]

    Puliti, S

    G. Puliti, S. Paolucci, and M. Sen. Nanofluids and their properties.Applied Mechanics Reviews, 64:031002, 2011

    work page 2011

  3. [3]

    Dotan, P

    I. Dotan, P. J. R. Roche, M. Paliouras, E. J. Mitmaker, and M. A. Trifiro. Engineering multi-walled carbon nanotube therapeutic bionanofluids to selectively target papillary thyroid cancer cells.PLoS ONE, 11:1, 2016

    work page 2016

  4. [4]

    Jones, B

    N. Jones, B. Ray, K. T. Ranjit, and A. C. Manna. Antibacterial activity of ZnO nanoparticle suspensions on a broad spectrum of microorganisms.FEMS Microbiology Letters, 279:71, 2008

    work page 2008

  5. [5]

    Kavitha and S

    T. Kavitha and S. Kuma. Turning date palm fronds into biocompatible mesoporous fluorescent carbon dots. Scientific Reports, 8:1, 2018

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Zomorodbakhsh, Y

    S. Zomorodbakhsh, Y. Abbasian, M. Naghinejad, and M. Sheikhpour. The effects study of isoniazid conjugated multi-wall carbon nanotubes nanofluid onMycobacterium tuberculosis.International Journal of Nanomedicine, 15:5901, 2020

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Tripathi and O

    D. Tripathi and O. A. B´ eg. A study on peristaltic flow of nanofluids: Application in drug delivery systems. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 70:61, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Rafati, A

    M. Rafati, A. A. Hamidi, and M. S. Niaser. Application of nanofluids in computer cooling systems (heat transfer performance of nanofluids).Applied Thermal Engineering, 45-46:9, 2012

    work page 2012

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    K. Y. Leong, R. Saidur, S. N. Kazi, and A. H. Mamun. Performance investigation of an automotive car radiator operated with nanofluid-based coolants (nanofluid as a coolant in a radiator).Applied Thermal Engineering, 30:2685, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    Hadad, A

    K. Hadad, A. Hajizadeh, K. Jafarpour, and B. D. Ganapol. Neutronic study of nanofluids application to VVER- 1000.Annals of Nuclear Energy, 37:1447, 2010

    2010

  3. [11]

    P. Yi, A. A. Kayani, A. F. Chrimes, K. Ghorbani, S. Nahavandi, K. Kalantar-zadeh, and K. Khoshmanesh. Thermal analysis of nanofluids in microfluidics using an infrared camera.Lab on a Chip, 12:2520, 2012

    2012

  4. [12]

    D. P. Dubal and P. Gomez-Romero. Electroactive graphene nanofluids for fast energy storage.2D Materials, 3:1–5, 2016

    2016

  5. [13]

    P. S. G. Natividade, G. M. Moura, E. Avallone, E. P. B. Filho, R. V. Gelamo, and J. C. S. I. Gon¸ calves. Experimental analysis applied to an evacuated tube solar collector equipped with parabolic concentrator using multilayer graphene- based nanofluids.Renewable Energy, 138:152, 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    Hedayatnasab, F

    Z. Hedayatnasab, F. Abnisa, and W. M. A. W. Daud. Review on magnetic nanoparticles for magnetic nanofluid hyperthermia application.Materials and Design, 123:174, 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    R. K. Gilchrist, R. Medal, W. D. Shorey, R. C. Hanselman, J. C. Parrott, and C. B. Taylor. Selective inductive heating of lymph nodes.Annals of Surgery, 146:596, 1957. p-31 ¨Ozlem ¨Ozt¨ urk*

    1957

  8. [16]

    J. t. Jang, J. Lee, J. Seon, E. Ju, M. Kim, Y. I. Kim, M. G. Kim, Y. Takemura, A. S. Arbab, K. W. Kang, K. H. Park, S. H. Paek, and S. Bae. Giant magnetic heat induction of magnesium-dopedγ-Fe 2O3 superparamagnetic nanoparticles for completely killing tumors.Advanced Materials...

    2018

  9. [17]

    Kaka¸ c and H

    S. Kaka¸ c and H. Liu.Heat Exchangers: Selection, Rating, and Thermal Design. CRC Press, 2 edition, 2002

    2002

  10. [18]

    Farajollahi, S

    B. Farajollahi, S. Gh. Etemad, and M. Hojjat. Heat transfer of nanofluids in a shell and tube heat exchanger. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 53:12, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    S. s. Bi, L. Shi, and L. l. Zhang. Application of nanoparticles in domestic refrigerators.Applied Thermal Engineering, 28:1834, 2008

    2008

  12. [20]

    T. O. Babarinde, S. A. Akinlabi, and D. M. Madyira. Energy performance evaluation of R600a/MWCNTnanolubricant as a drop-in replacement for R134a in household refrigerator system.Energy Reports, 6:639, 2020

    2020

  13. [21]

    A. D. Risi, M. Milanese, G. Colangelo, and D. Laforgia, High efficiency nanofluid cooling system for wind turbines. Thermal Science, 18:543, 2014

    2014

  14. [22]

    Kalogirou.Solar Energy Engineering Processes and Systems

    Soteris A. Kalogirou.Solar Energy Engineering Processes and Systems. Academic Press USA, 2 edition, 2014

    2014

  15. [23]

    Markides, Robert A

    Omid Mahian, Evangelos Bellos, Christos N. Markides, Robert A. Taylor, Avinash Alagumalai, Liu Yang, Caiyan Qin, Bong Jae Lee, Goodarz Ahmadi, Mohammad Reza Safaei, and Somchai Wongwises. Recent advances in using nanofluids in renewable energy systems and the environmental imp...

    2021

  16. [24]

    Solar evaporation enhancement using floating light-absorbing magnetic particles.Energy & Enviromental Science, 4:4074, 2011

    Yao Zeng, Jianfeng Yao, Bahman Amini Horri, Kun Wang, Yuzhou Wu, Dan Li, and Huanting Wang. Solar evaporation enhancement using floating light-absorbing magnetic particles.Energy & Enviromental Science, 4:4074, 2011

    2011

  17. [25]

    Koilraj Gnanadason, P

    M. Koilraj Gnanadason, P. Senthil Kumar, G.Jemilda, and S.Sherin Jasper. Effect of nanofluids in vacuum single basin solar still.International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 3:1, 2012

    2012

  18. [26]

    Lovedeep Sahota and G.N. Tiwari. Exergoeconomic and enviroeconomic analyses of hybrid double slope solar still loaded with nanofluids.Energy Conversion and Management, 148:413, 2017

    2017

  19. [27]

    Computer

    Verlet, L. “Computer ””Experiments”” On Classical Fluids. I. Thermodynamical Properties of Lennard- Jones Molecules” .Physical Review, 159, 98-103

  20. [28]

    Haile.Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Elementary Methods

    J.M. Haile.Molecular Dynamics Simulations: Elementary Methods. Wiley, New York, 1992

    1992

  21. [29]

    L. G. MacDowell, M. M¨ uller, C. Vega, and K. Binder. Equation of state and critical behavior of polymer models: A quantitative comparison between Wertheim’s thermodynamic perturbation theory and computer simulations. Journal of Chemical Physics, 113:419, 2000

    2000

  22. [30]

    M¨ uller and L

    M. M¨ uller and L. G. MacDowell. Wetting of a short chain liquid on a brush: First-order and critical wetting transitions.Europhysics Letters, 55:221, 2001

    2001

  23. [31]

    Pastorino, T

    C. Pastorino, T. Kreer, M. M¨ uller, and K. Binder. Comparison of dissipative particle dynamics and Langevin thermostats for out-of-equilibrium simulations of polymeric systems.Physical Review E, 76:026706, 2007

    2007

  24. [32]

    Servantie and M

    J. Servantie and M. M¨ uller. Statics and dynamics of a cylindrical droplet under an external body force.Journal of Chemical Physics, 128:014709, 2008

    2008

  25. [33]

    Servantie and M

    J. Servantie and M. M¨ uller. Temperature dependence of the slip length in polymer melts at attractive surfaces. Physical Review Letters, 101:026101, 2008

    2008

  26. [34]

    Pastorino and A

    C. Pastorino and A. Gama Goicochea. Dissipative particle dynamics: A method to simulate soft matter systems in equilibrium and under flow.Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015 J. Klapp et al. (eds.) Selected Topics of Computational and Experimental Fluid Mechanics...

    2015

  27. [35]

    W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, and B. P. Flannery.Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77: The Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press, 2 edition, 1992

    1992

  28. [36]

    Baschnagel and F

    J. Baschnagel and F. Varnik. Computer simulations of supercooled polymer melts in the bulk and in confined geometry.Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter, 17:R851, 2005

    2005

  29. [37]

    Grest and K

    G.S. Grest and K. Kremer. Molecular dynamics simulation for polymers in the presence of a heat bath.Physical Review A, 33:3628, 1986

    1986

  30. [38]

    Kremer and G.S

    K. Kremer and G.S. Grest. Dynamics of entangled linear polymer melts: a molecular-dynamics simulation.The Journal of Chemical Physics, 92:5057, 1990

    1990

  31. [39]

    M. D. Hanwell, D. E. Curtis, D. C. Lonie, T. Vandermeersch, E. Zurek, and G. R. Hutchison;. Avogadro: An advanced semantic chemical editor, visualization, and analysis platform.Journal of Cheminformatics, 4:17, 2012

    2012

  32. [40]

    Humphrey, et

    H. Humphrey, et. al. VMD: Visual Molecular Dynamics,Journal of Molecular Graphics, 14, 33, 1996

    1996

  33. [41]

    Barrat and L

    J.-L. Barrat and L. Bocquet. Influence of Wetting Properties on Hydrodynamic Boundary Conditions at a Fluid/Solid Interface,Faraday Discussions, 112, 119, 1999

    1999

  34. [42]

    M. J. P. Nijmeijer, A. F. Bakker, and C. Bruin. A molecular dynamics simulation of the Lennard-Jones liquid-vapor interface.Journal of Chemical Physics, 89:3789, 1988

    1988

  35. [43]

    P. Orea, Y. Duda, and J. Alejandre. Surface tension of a square well fluid.Journal of Chemical Physics, 118:5635, 2003

    2003

  36. [44]

    and Smit, B.,Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to Applications, 3rd Edition, Academic Press, 2023

    Frenkel, D. and Smit, B.,Understanding Molecular Simulation: From Algorithms to Applications, 3rd Edition, Academic Press, 2023. p-32

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed July 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.