Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 25 references

A groove that fixes a droplet's spread in one direction splits rebound into a fast transverse mode and a slow axial mode whose time scales multiply to the square of the flat-plate inertio-capillary time, making contact time depend on Weber

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 21:46 UTC pith:XEIU5XWP

load-bearing objection A credible transverse-mode collapse and an honest but under-supported axial-mode claim; the paper deserves refereeing, with data and better axial evidence requested. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.16367 v1 pith:XEIU5XWP submitted 2026-07-17 physics.flu-dyn

Effects of anisotropic confinement on droplet rebound from superhydrophobic surfaces

M. Feinberg , S. A. Hosseini , I. Karlin This is my paper
classification physics.flu-dyn MSC 76D4576M28 PACS 47.55.D-
keywords droplet reboundsuperhydrophobic surfacescontact timeinertio-capillary scalinganisotropic confinementgrooved substratesblob modelWeber number
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

On a flat superhydrophobic surface, a bouncing droplet's contact time is set by one inertio-capillary time and is independent of impact energy, because spreading is radially symmetric. The paper argues that a grooved surface breaks that symmetry: the groove fixes the spreading length in one direction and leaves the other free, so the rebound splits into two modes with inversely related time scales. The fast transverse mode, set by recoil between the groove walls, scales as the inverse square root of a blob number; the slow axial mode, set by retraction of the elongated droplet, scales as its square root, so their product is the flat-plate time squared. The visible contact time then becomes a mode-selection outcome: on non-wetting grooves it follows the fast transverse mode and falls with Weber number, while on mildly wetting grooves a slow axial branch and a fast transverse branch compete, with the transition set by a single parameter. If this picture is right, contact-time reduction on textured surfaces becomes a matter of choosing between two conjugate inertio-capillary modes rather than accelerating a single rebound mode.

Core claim

The central claim is that anisotropic confinement, realized by a groove of width W, imposes a fixed transverse length and thereby breaks the radial degeneracy of flat-plate rebound. Extending the blob model from one transverse scale to two, the paper represents the spread droplet as a rectangular prism of width W, axial length ℓ_max, and thickness h, partitionable into N=ℓ_max/W isotropic blobs. The transverse recoil mode has time τ⊥/τ0 ~ N^{-1/2}, and the axial retraction mode has time τ∥/τ0 ~ N^{1/2}, so that τ⊥ τ∥ ~ τ0². Using flat-plate spread-area scaling to close the model gives τ⊥ ∝ (W/R0) We^{-1/4} and τ∥ ∝ (We^{1/4})/(W/R0). Simulations with a fully non-wetting boundary collapse con

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the blob number N = ℓ_max/W, the ratio of the droplet's axial length at maximum surface area to the groove width. The paper extends the blob model by pairing the usual transverse mode with a second axial mode, derived both from thin-sheet rim retraction and from a capillary-force/constant-acceleration argument, so the exponent is not tied to one mechanism. Converting N into imposed parameters requires two geometric closures: volume conservation for a rectangular prism, W ℓ_max h ~ R0³, and a flat-plate area law Smax/R0² ~ We^{1/2} assumed to hold independent of groove width. The mode-selection picture on wetting grooves is carried by the parameter χ, which compares

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a grooved surface reshapes the spreading droplet without changing the maximum surface area set by flat-plate inertio-capillary balance, Smax/R0² ~ We^{1/2}; the paper itself flags this as a strong assumption, and its simulations show Smax and ℓ_max carry extra groove-width dependence, so the imposed-parameter scalings (though not the measured-N scaling) rest on this closure.

What would settle it

Measure, at fixed Ohnesorge number and a single non-wetting groove width, both contact time τ_c and the axial recoil half-period across Weber numbers from about 3 to 30. If τ_c does not fall as We^{-1/4} once the droplet is well confined (N>1.2), or if the product of the transverse and axial times drifts away from τ0² by more than experimental scatter, the reciprocal-mode claim fails. A second check on a wetting groove: the predicted collapse of the two branches at χ≈1.61 and the scaling We*∝(W/R0)² are directly testable, and their absence would falsify the mode-selection mechanism.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Contact time on grooved superhydrophobic surfaces becomes a designable function of Weber number and groove width rather than the fixed 2.6 τ0 flat-plate value.
  • The two modes form a reciprocal pair, so shortening the transverse recoil by stronger confinement lengthens axial recoil by the same factor; their product is invariant.
  • On mildly wetting grooves, the framework predicts a mode-selection transition at a Weber number proportional to (W/R0)², meaning a surface can be operated on either the slow axial branch or the fast transverse branch by changing impact energy.
  • The measured-N collapse of the contact-time data means the blob decomposition itself is the robust core; predictions tied to exact spread morphology are directionally correct but quantitatively approximate.
  • A single non-dimensional parameter χ organizes fast/slow branch selection on wetting grooves, offering a compact design variable for textured repellent surfaces.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A general design rule implied by the paper: any texture that imposes a fixed length along one axis (ridges, fibers, defects) introduces a conjugate slow mode, so minimizing contact time requires suppressing or outrunning that mode, not just shrinking blob mass.
  • A direct experimental extension would measure τ⊥ and τ∥ simultaneously at fixed groove width across a wide Weber range; the product law τ⊥ τ∥ ≈ τ0² is a sharp, quantitative prediction that current data only test indirectly.
  • The super-linear fitted width exponent (p≈1.51 for non-wetting grooves) suggests that Smax itself carries a weak groove-width dependence; replacing the flat-plate area closure with a fitted W-dependent closure could yield an exact imposed-parameter scaling.
  • Sweeping contact angle on wetting grooves should move the transition parameter χ* monotonically; the paper predicts the direction of that shift, so a contact-angle series would sharpen the mode-selection picture beyond the single wetting condition studied.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports entropic multi-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann simulations of droplet impact on grooved superhydrophobic surfaces, validating the method against Chantelot et al. and then extending the blob model from a single transverse mode to a reciprocal pair: τ⊥/τ0 ∼ N^{-1/2} and τ∥/τ0 ∼ N^{1/2}, so that τ⊥τ∥ ∼ τ0^2. It further proposes imposed-parameter forms τ⊥/τ0 ∝ (W/R0) We^{-1/4} and τ∥/τ0 ∝ We^{1/4}/(W/R0), and interprets a two-branch response on partially wetting grooves as a mode-selection transition controlled by χ ∼ We^{1/2}/(W/R0).

Significance. If the reciprocal-pair picture is correct, it is a meaningful conceptual extension: anisotropic confinement would not merely shorten one rebound mode but would replace the degenerate flat-plate mode with two conjugate inertio-capillary modes, making the contact time Weber- and groove-width-dependent. The paper has genuine strengths: the measured-N collapse of the transverse contact time across five groove widths (Fig. 5) is a non-trivial, parameter-light result; the flat-plate validation is quantitative; and the authors are unusually explicit about the limitations of their geometric closure. The axial mode, however, is the load-bearing element for the central claim, and its evidence is currently too weak. The manuscript's own caveats in Sec. VI support a major revision rather than acceptance as-is.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. V B, Eq. (19)] The imposed-parameter prediction fails quantitatively on groove-width dependence. Equation (18) gives N ∼ We^{1/2}/(W/R0)^2, hence τc/τ0 ∝ (W/R0) We^{-1/4}, but the fitted exponent in Eq. (21) is p=1.51 with leave-one-out range 1.45–1.68, not p=1. The paper correctly attributes this to the geometric closure, and Figs. 8–9 show an additional W-dependence in Smax (p≈0.94 in Eq. 22) and ℓmax (width exponent ≈−1.63, and nearly coincident values for the two widest grooves). Because Eq. (18) is used in Eqs. (19), (20), and also in the mode-selection parameter χ of Eq. (24), all imposed-parameter predictions built on this closure are only directional unless the closure is revised. The manuscript should either repair the closure or state more forcefully that Eqs. (19)–(20) are not predictions but approximate heuristics. The current text presents them as predictions and then reports the fitted p
  2. [Sec. V B, Eq. (13) and Fig. 10] The axial-mode scaling τ∥/τ0 ∼ N^{1/2} is not established by the presented data. The proxy is twice the interval between the first and second Ky peaks (events d and i in Fig. 4), which spans detachment and therefore includes post-detachment free-drop Rayleigh oscillations; the text itself notes that after detachment the oscillation relaxes toward radially symmetric modes. The usable N range is tiny: in Fig. 10 the abscissa N^{1/2} covers only about 1.10–1.25 (N ≈ 1.2–1.6), so a straight line with free slope and intercept cannot distinguish N^{1/2} from a constant or a weak logarithmic trend. No fit coefficients, residuals, per-width collapse, or uncertainty estimates are reported for this fit. Since the reciprocal relation Eq. (14) and the two-mode interpretation depend on Eq. (13), this is a load-bearing gap. I would like to see either (i) a more direct in-contact measurement of the axi
  3. [Sec. V C, Eqs. (23)-(25), Figs. 16-17] The mode-selection analysis is partly circular as presented. The transition parameter χ uses τ∥∼N^{1/2} from Eq. (23b), whose validity is not independently confirmed (see previous comment), and the final relation in Eq. (24) uses Eq. (18), whose width dependence is contradicted by the data. Moreover, the threshold χ*≈1.61 is calibrated from the same branch-separation data that the model is then said to explain, and the paper admits that We* ∝ (W/R0)^2 cannot be tested quantitatively because the Weber-number sampling is too coarse. The two-branch structure is interesting and plausibly consistent with the model, but the current evidence does not independently confirm the axial mode or the transition law. The authors should reframe Sec. V C as a consistency check and clearly separate calibrated thresholds from falsifiable predictions.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II, after Eq. (2)] Typo: 'The precise precise form' should be 'The precise form'.
  2. [Fig. 10] Report the slope, intercept, R², and residuals of the linear fit. Show per-width symbols and indicate the excluded high-We breakup points explicitly.
  3. [Sec. V B, Eq. (21)] Provide confidence intervals or standard errors for C, b, and p. The leave-one-out spread of p is informative but not a substitute for fit uncertainty.
  4. [Fig. 12 caption] Typo: 'exlcluded' should be 'excluded'.
  5. [Sec. V C, paragraph before Eq. (24)] Define Ur, Rv, and τ∥ clearly at the point of introduction; the notation Rv is used before it is defined.
  6. [Sec. V B, threshold N>1.2] The N>1.2 cutoff is selected from the observed departure from linearity, not from an a priori criterion. Please show sensitivity of the fitted exponents and R² to this cutoff (e.g., N>1.3 or N>1.15).

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Two-mode scaling derivation is largely self-contained; one calibrated transition threshold is presented as a prediction.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V C, 'The mode-selection transition,' around Eq. (25) and Figs. 16-17]
    "For a constant value of χ=χ⋆, Eq. (24) may be rearranged to give We⋆ ∝(W/R0)2. ... In Fig. 16, plotting τc against χ separates the two regimes, with the transition occurring near χ⋆ ≈1.61. ... An approximation of We⋆, based on the value of χ⋆ mentioned above, is compared with the observed data in Fig. 17, and found to be consistent. ... The dashed black line is the transition criterion predicted by We⋆ = (χ⋆W/R0)2 with χ⋆ =1.61 from Fig. 16."

    χ⋆ is not fixed by the model; it is estimated from the same τc(χ) data whose branching it is then used to 'predict.' Eq. (25) is a one-parameter rearrangement of that threshold, so the We⋆(W/R0) curve in Fig. 17 is a replot of the calibration, not an independent test. The paper even states Eq. (25) 'cannot be tested quantitatively here,' yet the caption labels the curve 'predicted.' This is a small but genuine fit-called-prediction; it does not affect the measured-N transverse collapse or the derivation of Eqs. (9), (13), and (14).

full rationale

The central two-mode derivation is not circular. Eq. (9) follows from the blob mass decomposition τ⊥/τ0 ∼ (mb/m0)^{1/2} with mb/m0 = 1/N, and Eq. (13) follows from a Taylor-Culick/constant-acceleration recoil argument with h ∼ R0^3/(Wℓmax); both are derived from stated geometric assumptions rather than from the data they are meant to predict. Eq. (14) is a legitimate algebraic consequence of Eqs. (9) and (13), not an independent input. The measured-N collapse in Fig. 5 and the Weber-exponent behavior are empirical tests with no parameter fitted to the same quantity being claimed. The paper is also explicit that the width closure Eq. (15) is a strong assumption and that the data deviate from it (p = 1.51 vs p = 1), so that failure is reported rather than hidden. The self-citations to Ref. 3 and to the LB method are to published, externally anchored results, not to unverified uniqueness claims. The only concrete circular step is the mode-selection threshold: χ⋆ ≈ 1.61 is read off the branch separation in Fig. 16 and then the same constant is used to draw the 'predicted' We⋆ line in Fig. 17, so that line cannot validate Eq. (25). The axial-mode evidence is narrow and proxy-based, but that is a data-support weakness, not a definitional or fitted-input circularity. Overall, the main scaling claims retain independent content; the circularity is limited to a secondary calibration presented as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

9 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation imports the flat-plate maximum-spread law and prismatic blob geometry from prior literature; its internal degrees of freedom are closed by two ad hoc assumptions (flat-plate area law and Rv ~ We^{1/4}) that the data only partially support. The scaling checks then introduce fitted constants and exponents, so the claimed predictions are partly empirical correlations.

free parameters (9)
  • Numerical capillarity coefficient kappa = -0.0025
    Chosen negative to offset excess numerical surface tension from a poorly resolved diffuse interface; modifies the measured surface tension.
  • Wall density rho_w (wetting case) = 0.695
    Calibrated to reproduce static contact angle theta_c ~ 165 degrees; all wetting-groove branch results depend on this calibration.
  • Non-wetting contact-time fit constants (C, b) in Eq. 21 = C=0.44, b=0.45
    Least-squares fit on in-regime data; used to claim collapse onto the scaling variable.
  • Non-wetting width exponent p in Eq. 21 = 1.51
    Brent-optimized exponent; theory predicts p=1. The deviation is attributed to geometric closure.
  • Wetting contact-time fit constants (C, b, p) in Eq. 21 = C=3.80, b=-0.68, p=0.46
    Fit to the post-transition branch We > We*; used to claim a separate collapse.
  • Smax fit constants (C, b, p) in Eq. 22 = C=0.11, b=0.76, p=0.94
    Fit to maximum-surface-area data; the width prefactor is not present in the predicted form.
  • In-regime blob-number cutoff N = 1.2
    Chosen from the observed onset of departure from the linear trend in Fig. 5; excludes data from fits.
  • Mode-selection threshold chi* = 1.61
    Read from the transition location in Fig. 16, then used to draw the predicted We* line in Fig. 17.
  • Restitution factor e in Ur = e U0 = O(1), unspecified
    Assumed in Eq. 23a; not measured. It enters the mode-selection parameter chi and the transition criterion.
axioms (7)
  • ad hoc to paper Flat-plate maximum-spread area scaling Smax/R0^2 ~ We^{1/2} applies to grooved impacts independent of groove width.
    Invoked in Sec. V A (Eq. 15) to eliminate ell_max and derive Eqs. 17-20. The paper calls it a strong assumption; data in Figs. 8-9 show a groove-width-dependent prefactor.
  • domain assumption At maximum spread the droplet is a rectangular prism with volume V ~ W ell_max h and area Smax ~ W ell_max.
    Core geometric closure of the blob model, stated in Sec. V A and Appendix C assumption (iv). It leaves one degree of freedom that the paper closes with the flat-plate area law.
  • domain assumption Axial recoil follows Taylor-Culick retraction or equivalently constant-capillary-acceleration retraction, giving tau_parallel ~ tau0 N^{1/2}.
    Sec. V A Eqs. 10-13 and Appendix C. Appendix C lists four assumptions (i)-(iv); assumption (iv) is the prismatic geometry and is violated near N ~ 1.
  • domain assumption Rebound is inertio-capillary with negligible viscosity, Oh fixed at 0.036, and gravity does not matter.
    Secs. III-IV. Flat-plate recovery of tau_c ~ 2.6 tau0 supports the regime; gravity was explicitly tested and ruled out in Sec. IV.
  • ad hoc to paper For wetting mode-selection, rebound velocity Ur ~ We^{1/2} with restitution e=O(1), vertical re-expansion Rv ~ We^{1/4}, and tau_parallel ~ N^{1/2}.
    Sec. V C Eq. 23. The Rv scaling is adopted by analogy with flat-plate spreading, explicitly acknowledged as not derived from axial-collapse dynamics.
  • domain assumption The Leidenfrost surface can be represented by an isothermal fully non-wetting wall (rho_w = rho_v).
    Secs. III-IV. The authors note this omits coupled thermal vapor-layer dynamics and under-predicts flat Leidenfrost contact time (2.19 vs 2.41 tau0).
  • domain assumption The spread droplet can be partitioned into N = ell_max / W effective blobs, each of mass m0/N, that rebound independently with inertio-capillary time.
    Inherited from Chantelot et al.'s blob model, restated in Sec. V A Eq. 9. It is the basis of the transverse scaling law.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21576 in / 18509 out tokens · 179322 ms · 2026-08-01T21:46:01.017286+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

On flat superhydrophobic surfaces, droplet rebound is well described by a single inertio-capillary time scale, yielding a contact-time that is independent of impact energy. This single-mode response reflects the radial symmetry of flat-plate impacts. We demonstrate that an anisotropic geometric constraint, imposing a fixed spreading length along one axis, breaks this degeneracy and splits the rebound into a reciprocal pair of inertio-capillary modes. The fixed length also couples the contact-time to the Weber-dependent maximum spread, introducing an impact-energy dependence absent on the flat plate. We realize this constraint with grooved substrates, simulated using a non-ideal, entropic, multiple-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann method and validated against the experiments of Chantelot et al. Extending their blob model from a single transverse scale to the reciprocal pair, we organize both modes through a geometric blob number and relate their time scales to the Weber number and groove width. We show that on non-wetting grooves the reciprocal modes are recovered directly, and explore the effects of finite wall affinity, using competition between the two modes to explain an observed two-branch structure in the contact-time response on mildly wetting, superhydrophobic grooves. Predictions tied to global energy balance reproduce cleanly across all conditions, while those tied to the details of the droplet's spread morphology are approximate but directionally correct. These results show that anisotropic confinement turns contact-time reduction from a question of accelerating a single rebound mode into one of selecting between conjugate inertio-capillary modes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16367 by I. Karlin, M. Feinberg, S. A. Hosseini.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Simulation domain for a grooved substrate with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Comparison of simulation and experimental contact-times from Ref. 3 across three configurations. Faded markers are experiments, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Droplet impact at We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Evolution of a droplet with We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Groove contact-times as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. contact-time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Maximum droplet surface area as a function of We for each [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Axial-mode period [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_10.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: The fitted width exponent is much smaller than in the non-wetting case, where p ≈ 1.51. Thus wettability affects not only the contact-time offset, but also the apparent groove￾width dependence of the fast branch, reducing the exponent by approximately one power of W/R0. The wetting-groove data therefore introduce two issues that must be explained: the reduction of the groove-width expo- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Post-transition wetting data, We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_13.png] view at source ↗
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Evolution of a droplet with initial Weber number We [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_14.png] view at source ↗
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15. Schematic illustration of the mode-selection transition for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_15.png] view at source ↗
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17. Comparison of simulation data with the estimated transi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_17.png] view at source ↗
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18. Pressure jump as a function of inverse equimolar radius for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_18.png] view at source ↗
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_19.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Richard , author C

    author author D. Richard , author C. Clanet , \ and\ author D. Quéré ,\ title title Contact time of a bouncing drop , \ 10.1038/417811a journal journal Nature \ volume 417 ,\ pages 811--811 ( year 2002 ) ,\ note number: 6891 NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/417811a 2002

  2. [2]

    author author J. C. \ Bird , author R. Dhiman , author H.-M. \ Kwon , \ and\ author K. K. \ Varanasi ,\ title title Reducing the contact time of a bouncing drop , \ 10.1038/nature12740 journal journal Nature \ volume 503 ,\ pages 385--388 ( year 2013 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/nature12740 2013

  3. [3]

    Chantelot , author A

    author author P. Chantelot , author A. M. \ Moqaddam , author A. Gauthier , author S. S. \ Chikatamarla , author C. Clanet , author I. V. \ Karlin , \ and\ author D. Quéré ,\ title title Water ring-bouncing on repellent singularities , \ 10.1039/C7SM02004J journal journal Soft Matter \ volume 14 ,\ pages 2227--2233 ( year 2018 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1039/c7sm02004j 2018

  4. [4]

    Blossey ,\ title title Self-cleaning surfaces — virtual realities , \ 10.1038/nmat856 journal journal Nature Materials \ volume 2 ,\ pages 301--306 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    author author R. Blossey ,\ title title Self-cleaning surfaces — virtual realities , \ 10.1038/nmat856 journal journal Nature Materials \ volume 2 ,\ pages 301--306 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/nmat856 2003

  5. [5]

    author author M. J. \ Kreder , author J. Alvarenga , author P. Kim , \ and\ author J. Aizenberg ,\ title title Design of anti-icing surfaces: smooth, textured or slippery? \ 10.1038/natrevmats.2015.3 journal journal Nature Reviews Materials \ volume 1 ,\ pages 15003 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/natrevmats.2015.3 2015

  6. [6]

    Lv , author Y

    author author J. Lv , author Y. Song , author L. Jiang , \ and\ author J. Wang ,\ title title Bio-inspired strategies for anti-icing , \ 10.1021/nn406522n journal journal ACS nano \ volume 8 ,\ pages 3152--3169 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/nn406522n 2014

  7. [7]

    author author H. A. \ Stone ,\ title title Ice- Phobic Surfaces That Are Wet , \ 10.1021/nn303372q journal journal ACS Nano \ volume 6 ,\ pages 6536--6540 ( year 2012 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1021/nn303372q 2012

  8. [8]

    Wildeman , author C

    author author S. Wildeman , author C. W. \ Visser , author C. Sun , \ and\ author D. Lohse ,\ title title On the spreading of impacting drops , \ 10.1017/jfm.2016.584 journal journal Journal of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 805 ,\ pages 636--655 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1017/jfm.2016.584 2016

  9. [9]

    Liu , author L

    author author Y. Liu , author L. Moevius , author X. Xu , author T. Qian , author J. M. \ Yeomans , \ and\ author Z. Wang ,\ title title Pancake bouncing on superhydrophobic surfaces , \ 10.1038/nphys2980 journal journal Nature Physics \ volume 10 ,\ pages 515--519 ( year 2014 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/nphys2980 2014

  10. [10]

    Okumura , author F

    author author K. Okumura , author F. Chevy , author D. Richard , author D. Quéré , \ and\ author C. Clanet ,\ title title Water spring: A model for bouncing drops , \ 10.1209/epl/i2003-00340-1 journal journal Europhysics Letters \ volume 62 ,\ pages 237 ( year 2003 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1209/epl/i2003-00340-1 2003

  11. [11]

    Clanet , author C

    author author C. Clanet , author C. Béguin , author D. Richard , \ and\ author D. Quéré ,\ title title Maximal deformation of an impacting drop , \ 10.1017/S0022112004000904 journal journal Journal of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 517 ,\ pages 199--208 ( year 2004 ) ,\ note aDS Bibcode: 2004JFM...517..199C NoStop

    work page doi:10.1017/s0022112004000904 2004

  12. [12]

    Wang , author C

    author author Z. Wang , author C. Lopez , author A. Hirsa , \ and\ author N. Koratkar ,\ title title Impact dynamics and rebound of water droplets on superhydrophobic carbon nanotube arrays , \ 10.1063/1.2756296 journal journal Applied Physics Letters \ volume 91 ,\ pages 023105 ( year 2007 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2756296 2007

  13. [13]

    Gauthier , author S

    author author A. Gauthier , author S. Symon , author C. Clanet , \ and\ author D. Quéré ,\ title title Water impacting on superhydrophobic macrotextures , \ 10.1038/ncomms9001 journal journal Nature Communications \ volume 6 ,\ pages 8001 ( year 2015 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1038/ncomms9001 2015

  14. [14]

    Liu , author S

    author author Y. Liu , author S. A. \ Hosseini , author C. Liu , author M. Feinberg , author B. Dorschner , author Z. Wang , \ and\ author I. Karlin ,\ title title Transition time of a bouncing drop , \ 10.1103/PhysRevFluids.10.013602 journal journal Physical Review Fluids \ volume 10 ,\ pages 013602 ( year 2025 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevfluids.10.013602 2025

  15. [15]

    Hosseini , author B

    author author S. Hosseini , author B. Dorschner , \ and\ author I. Karlin ,\ title title Towards a consistent lattice Boltzmann model for two-phase fluids , \ 10.1017/jfm.2022.867 journal journal Journal of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 953 ,\ pages A4 ( year 2022 a ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1017/jfm.2022.867 2022

  16. [16]

    author author S. A. \ Hosseini , author B. Dorschner , \ and\ author I. V. \ Karlin ,\ http://arxiv.org/abs/2201.12404 title Entropic multi-relaxation-time lattice Boltzmann model for large density ratio two-phase flows , \ ( year 2022 b ),\ note arXiv:2201.12404 [physics] NoStop

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  17. [17]

    author author A. Kupershtokh ,\ title title New method of incorporating a body force term into the lattice Boltzmann equation , \ in\ @noop booktitle Proceedings of the 5th International EHD Workshop \ ( address Poitiers-France ,\ year 2004 )\ pp.\ pages 241--246 NoStop

    2004

  18. [18]

    Benzi , author L

    author author R. Benzi , author L. Biferale , author M. Sbragaglia , author S. Succi , \ and\ author F. Toschi ,\ title title Mesoscopic modeling of a two-phase flow in the presence of boundaries: The contact angle , \ 10.1103/PhysRevE.74.021509 journal journal Physical Review E \ volume 74 ,\ pages 021509 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1103/physreve.74.021509 2006

  19. [19]

    Sbragaglia , author R

    author author M. Sbragaglia , author R. Benzi , author L. Biferale , author S. Succi , \ and\ author F. Toschi ,\ title title Surface Roughness - Hydrophobicity Coupling in Microchannel and Nanochannel Flows , \ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.97.204503 journal journal Physical Review Letters \ volume 97 ,\ pages 204503 ( year 2006 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.97.204503 2006

  20. [20]

    Krüger , author H

    author author T. Krüger , author H. Kusumaatmaja , author A. Kuzmin , author O. Shardt , author G. Silva , \ and\ author E. M. \ Viggen ,\ 10.1007/978-3-319-44649-3 title The Lattice Boltzmann Method : Principles and Practice ,\ Graduate Texts in Physics \ ( publisher Springer International Publishing ,\ address Cham ,\ year 2017 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44649-3 2017

  21. [21]

    author author G. I. \ Taylor ,\ title title The dynamics of thin sheets of fluid. III . Disintegration of fluid sheets , \ 10.1098/rspa.1959.0196 journal journal Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences \ volume 253 ,\ pages 313--321 ( year 1959 ) NoStop

    arXiv 1959

  22. [22]

    author author F. E. C. \ Culick ,\ title title Comments on a Ruptured Soap Film , \ 10.1063/1.1735765 journal journal Journal of Applied Physics \ volume 31 ,\ pages 1128--1129 ( year 1960 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1735765 1960

  23. [23]

    Josserand \ and\ author S

    author author C. Josserand \ and\ author S. T. \ Thoroddsen ,\ title title Drop Impact on a Solid Surface , \ 10.1146/annurev-fluid-122414-034401 journal journal Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics \ volume 48 ,\ pages 365--391 ( year 2016 ) NoStop

    doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-122414-034401 2016

  24. [24]

    author author J. W. \ Gibbs ,\ title title On the equilibrium of heterogeneous substances , \ 10.2475/ajs.s3-16.96.441 journal journal American Journal of Science \ volume s3-16 ,\ pages 441--458 ( year 1878 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.2475/ajs.s3-16.96.441

  25. [25]

    author author S. A. \ Hosseini \ and\ author I. V. \ Karlin ,\ title title Lattice Boltzmann for non-ideal fluids: Fundamentals and Practice , \ 10.1016/j.physrep.2023.07.003 journal journal Physics Reports \ series Lattice Boltzmann for non-ideal fluids: Fundamentals and Practice ,\ volume 1030 ,\ pages 1--137 ( year 2023 ) NoStop

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2023.07.003 2023