Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 29 references

A single length scale rules ballistic aggregation: travels of a droplet train

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A droplet train from a liquid jet realizes one-dimensional ballistic aggregation, governed by a single length scale, with mean mass growing as (z/l)^(2/3).

desk verdict First experimental staging of 1D ballistic aggregation, with a clean length-scale collapse; the drag story is asserted rather than modeled, so the experimental confirmation is suggestive, not decisive. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.21315 v1 pith:7ISPSG5R submitted 2026-07-23 cond-mat.soft cond-mat.stat-mechphysics.flu-dyn

Nathan Vani , Stefan Kooij , Aritro Mukherjee , Antoine Parrenin , Cees J.M. van Rijn , Daniel Bonn This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softcond-mat.stat-mechphysics.flu-dyn
keywords ballisticaggregationdroplettrainsliquidjetbreakupscalinglawcoalescencevelocitycorrelationsmassdistributiontailone-dimensional
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 claims the first experimental realization of one-dimensional ballistic aggregation, using a train of droplets formed by the breakup of a liquid jet. Scaling arguments identify a single length scale l = tau v^2 / sigma_v such that the average droplet mass grows as (z/l)^(2/3) downstream, and the paper shows this collapse holds across jet diameters from 32 to 180 micrometers and speeds from 2 to 120 m/s. Simulations match the predicted scaling, and the number-weighted mass distribution's large-mass tail matches the ballistic-aggregation form rather than a Smoluchowski-type gamma distribution. Air drag inverts the sign of neighbor velocity correlations without changing the 2/3 exponent or the tail shape. The paper concludes that mean-field descriptions fail when collisions carry directional memory, as demonstrated by these jet-generated sprays.

What carries the argument

The central identity is the scaling law <m>/m0 ~ (sigma_v z / (tau v_bar^2))^(2/3) = (z/l)^(2/3), where l = tau v_bar^2 / sigma_v is the length scale governing the process. It is derived by a CPY-type scaling argument: a clump of mass N m0 sweeps distance a0 N over time t, and momentum conservation plus the central limit theorem gives its typical momentum fluctuation delta P ~ sqrt(N) m0 sigma_v, an argument valid in one dimension because the geometric ordering prevents the correlations that break the mean-field assumption in higher dimensions. The paper also uses the equivalence between the unidirectional (spatial) and bidirectional (temporal) formulations, and the Frachebourg distribution

What would settle it

Measure <m>/m0 and the mass distribution at significantly larger rescaled distances (z/l > 100) or at low ambient air pressure; if the fitted exponent deviates outside roughly 0.6 to 0.75, or if a gamma-type tail fits better than the Frachebourg-derived expression under reduced drag, the claimed universality of the ballistic scaling would be refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

We show that a train of droplets formed by jet breakup is a physical realization of one-dimensional ballistic aggregation, with downstream distance playing the role of time in the comoving frame. The system is statistically equivalent to the canonical bidirectional ballistic aggregate under the mapping t = z/v_bar, and the dynamics is ruled by a single length scale l = tau v_bar^2 / sigma_v. The average mass obeys <m>/m0 ~ (z/l)^(2/3), confirmed experimentally with an average fitted exponent of 0.67 plus or minus 0.08 and by event-driven simulations showing collapse of the local density. Even when air drag makes the velocity correlations negative and flips the signs of mass-mass and velocity

Load-bearing premise

The experimental confirmation rests on the premise that air drag alters only the prefactor, not the 2/3 exponent or the large-mass tail shape, without a quantitative drag model or drag-inclusive simulation in the paper.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The observed collapse of <m>/m0 against z/l across five jet conditions establishes l as the controlling parameter for droplet-train coalescence, meaning measurement or prediction of l suffices to predict average mass growth in such systems.
  • The 2/3 exponent and the large-mass tail shape are preserved even when air drag reverses the sign of neighbor correlations, implying that the 1D ordering constraint protects these bulk characteristics beyond the ideal ballistic model.
  • The failure of the generalized-gamma (Smoluchowski) fit and success of the Frachebourg-derived tail provide a sharp experimental discriminator for coalescence mechanisms in sprays: if velocity correlations matter, ballistic scaling should appear in the mass tail.
  • The first numerical validation of Frachebourg's scaling function for one-dimensional ballistic aggregation offers a benchmark for future solvers and for testing other initial velocity distributions.
  • The framework suggests that directional memory is essential in jet sprays; mean-field models should only be trusted when collision velocities are effectively randomized.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the scaling survives outside the probed z/l < 100 window, the length scale l could serve as a universal collapse parameter for other strongly directional spray and train-like systems, including inkjet printing and drug-delivery sprays, where similar coalescence dynamics occur.
  • The inversion of correlation signs induced by drag suggests a testable staging: at sufficiently low ambient pressure (as the paper mentions), experimental correlations should approach the ballistic-solver predictions while the 2/3 growth law and tail shape should remain, cleanly separating drag effects from intrinsic ballistic correlations.
  • The demonstrated sensitivity of the large-mass tail to the coalescence mechanism implies that high-precision droplet-sizing methods, such as the volume-integration technique used here, could be used to infer the physical origin of coalescence in industrial sprays where mean-field fits are currently standard.
  • One might extend the unidirectional/bidirectional equivalence to non-identical initial velocity distributions (e.g., skewed or heavy-tailed) to test whether the collapse in l and the 2/3 exponent hold beyond the near-normal distributions considered.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that a train of droplets produced by Rayleigh-Plateau breakup of a liquid jet is a physical realization of one-dimensional ballistic aggregation. The authors derive a single length scale, ℓ = τ v̄² / σ_v, and predict ⟨m⟩/m₀ ∼ (z/ℓ)^{2/3} (Eq. 1). They support this with event-driven simulations of both the canonical bidirectional model and the unidirectional droplet-train model, showing a collapse of the local density and average mass growth. Experiments on water jets of three diameters and five velocities are reported, with average-mass growth curves that roughly collapse when plotted against z/ℓ and individual fitted slopes averaging 0.67 ± 0.08. The paper further uses the large-mass tail of the mass distribution to distinguish ballistic aggregation from Smoluchowski-type generalized-gamma predictions, and it reports neighbor velocity/mass correlation coefficients from simulation and experiment. The central conclusion is that a single length scale governs the process and that drag, while inverting velocity correlations and changing the prefactor, does not change the growth exponent or the shape of the large-mass tail.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is an important contribution: it provides the first experimental realization of 1D ballistic aggregation; it identifies a concrete, measurable length scale ℓ for droplet trains; it gives the first numerical validation of Frachebourg's scaling function; and it demonstrates that mean-field Smoluchowski descriptions fail when collision dynamics carry directional memory. The paper is strengthened by the release of the event-driven solver code and processed experimental data, which improves reproducibility. The simulation part is convincing and the identification of ℓ is well grounded. The experimental part, however, is less decisive because the system is drag-contaminated and the drag robustness of the exponent is asserted rather than demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Fig. 2 and discussion of air drag] The abstract claims that experiments confirm Eq. (1), but the experimental confirmation rests on an unmodeled assumption: that air drag changes the prefactor but not the exponent. The text states this explicitly ('We attribute this discrepancy to (i) the effect of air drag...') but provides no drag-inclusive simulation or quantitative drag model. Since drag deceleration scales inversely with droplet radius, it preferentially removes small droplets and changes collision rates; within the probed window z/ℓ < 100, the fitted slopes 0.67 ± 0.08, with substantial scatter and few z positions per condition, could be an effective exponent produced by drag. I request a drag-inclusive event-driven simulation (e.g., Stokes drag with mass-dependent deceleration) or a quantitative argument showing that the exponent is stable over the probed window. If this cannot be provided, the 'experiments confirm
  2. [Eq. (3), Eq. (4), Fig. 3] The large-mass-tail discrimination between ballistic aggregation and Smoluchowski-type models is presented as strong evidence, but the statistical support is thin. Eq. (3) is fitted with a fixed λ = 10 and a free amplitude, while Eq. (4) is fitted with ν = 65 in the text and ν = 51 in the caption — an unresolved inconsistency. With ν as a free parameter, a generalized gamma can mimic a stretched/super-exponential tail over a finite interval; one fitted curve does not establish that the mean-field form fails. Please provide a systematic fit scan over both λ and ν, report confidence intervals and goodness-of-fit statistics, and show that the best generalized gamma is outside the data's confidence band for the large-mass tail. Without this, the statement 'mean-field models fail to capture the essential physics' is stronger than the evidence.
  3. [Fig. 4 and concluding discussion] The paper states that a '1D ordering constraint protects bulk characteristics' such as the scaling exponent and tail shape, despite drag flipping the signs of C_mm and C_vv and making C_mv non-antisymmetric. This is an expectation, not a demonstrated result. The sign flips show that the dynamics are substantially altered, yet no mechanism or simulation connects these correlation changes to an unchanged growth exponent. A drag-inclusive simulation that reproduces the experimental correlations and recovers the same exponent would directly test this. As written, the robustness of the exponent to drag is an ad-hoc assumption rather than a finding.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Equation (2)] In the version I received, the normalization of the Frachebourg distribution is not typeset correctly; the denominator of the integral is missing from the displayed equation. Please correct the formula.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption/text] There are internal inconsistencies in the figure: the text gives ν = 65 for the generalized gamma while the caption gives ν = 51. Also, some equation cross-references appear as 'Eq. (X)', 'Eq. (Y)', 'Eq. (Z)' in figure captions; these placeholders must be resolved in the final version.
  3. [General presentation] The extracted manuscript contains repeated blocks of figures and captions (e.g., Fig. 3 and Fig. 5 captions are duplicated in the text). The final version should be cleaned to avoid confusion.
  4. [Abstract/Conclusion wording] The word 'confirm' in the abstract is too strong given the drag caveats and the scatter of the experimental slopes. 'Support' or 'are consistent with' would better match the evidence, unless the requested drag-inclusive analysis is added.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the scaling law and length scale are derived and tested, not defined by the data they predict.

full rationale

The central prediction Eq. (1), ⟨m⟩/m0 ∼ (σ_v z/(τ v̄^2))^{2/3}, follows from the CPY-style clump argument (swept distance a0N = t δP/m with δP ∼ √N m0 σ_v) combined with the mapping t=z/v̄ and a0=τ v̄. The length scale ℓ = τ v̄^2/σ_v is defined from model parameters and is not fitted to the masses whose scaling it predicts; the 2/3 exponent is fixed before any experimental comparison. Simulation confirmation uses an exact event-driven solver of the same model, so agreement with Frachebourg's analytic distribution is a numerical check, not a fitted reproduction. Experimental confirmation computes ℓ from independently measured D_jet, v_jet and σ_v and then tests the predicted slope; the fitted slope 0.67±0.08 is a measurement of the predicted exponent, not an input. The large-mass-tail comparison fits Eq. (3) with λ and Eq. (4) with ν plus free amplitudes, so it is a model-selection argument with adjustable shape parameters; this reduces the evidentiary strength but is not circular because the two families are functionally distinct (e^{-x^3} vs e^{-x^{1/3}}) and the fit parameters are not relabeled as predictions. The paper's admitted lack of a quantitative drag model (air drag is invoked to explain the prefactor and inverted correlations) is a limitation of the experimental validation, not a circularity: the ideal ballistic model and its scaling remain independently derived and simulated. Self-citations ([18], [20], [21]) are used for standard spray models, a slipstream interpretation, and a proposed drag-free experiment; none is load-bearing for the central scaling claim. Therefore no step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling law rests on standard jet-breakup inputs plus a CLT-based heuristic that is supported by prior exact theory and by the paper's own simulations. The load-bearing ad hoc element is the assumption that drag changes prefactors but not the exponent or tail shape. No genuinely new entity is introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • λ (tail shape parameter, Eq. 3) = 10
    Fitted to the experimental large-mass tail with a free amplitude; used to argue the tail matches the ballistic aggregation form. Not predicted from first principles.
  • ν (generalized-gamma shape parameter, Eq. 4) = 65 (text) / 51 (caption)
    Fitted to the same experimental tail; the discrepancy between text and caption indicates an unresolved inconsistency. This is a comparison fit, not the central scaling.
  • Tail-fit amplitude (Eqs. 3 and 4) = unspecified
    A free multiplicative prefactor added to both tail fits; reduces the evidentiary weight of the tail-shape comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Rayleigh–Plateau relations: initial spacing = 4.5 Djet and initial droplet diameter = 1.89 Djet
    Used to set τ and m0, so ℓ = τ v̄²/σ_v depends only on Djet and σ_v/vjet. Standard jet breakup result, but deviations would shift the rescaled axis.
  • domain assumption Central Limit Theorem for clump momentum fluctuations δP ∼ √N m0 σ_v remains valid in 1D despite velocity correlations
    The CPY-style derivation of the 2/3 exponent uses this CLT; the paper argues 1D ordering protects it, supported by Frachebourg's exact solution and simulations but not proven in the text.
  • domain assumption Equivalence of unidirectional droplet train and bidirectional ballistic aggregation under t=z/v̄ with a0=τ v̄
    Verified numerically for selected parameters (End Matter Fig. 6), assumed for all experimental conditions.
  • ad hoc to paper Air drag does not change the 2/3 growth exponent and preserves the large-mass tail shape
    Introduced to reconcile experimental prefactor (~2) and correlation sign flips with the ballistic prediction; no quantitative drag model or drag-inclusive simulations are given.
  • domain assumption Transverse displacements remain negligible (effective 1D)
    Used to justify the point-particle 1D model; experiments were enclosed in a protective box to suppress air perturbations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A single length scale rules ballistic aggregation: travels of a droplet train." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7ISPSG5R

@misc{pith2026260721315,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A single length scale rules ballistic aggregation: travels of a droplet train},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7ISPSG5R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21315}
}
read the original abstract

Ballistic aggregation is a canonical non-equilibrium process, relevant across scales from granular gases to planetary accretion. Collisions are driven by differences in velocities, building up persistent correlations between neighbors. Here, we provide the first experimental realization of one-dimensional ballistic aggregation in a train of droplets formed by the breakup of a liquid jet. Experiments and simulations confirm the analytically predicted scaling, with the global process shown to be governed by a single length scale. While air drag inverts the sign of neighbor velocity correlations, a 1D ordering constraint protects bulk characteristics of ballistic aggregation such as the scaling exponent and the shape of the large mass tail. More broadly, our results show that Smoluchowski-like mean-field descriptions fail when collisions carry directional memory -- as demonstrated here for jet-generated sprays.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21315 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Inherently unstable, a liquid jet breaks up into a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of the average mass normalized by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. FIG. 6. Evolution of the relative local density [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Free cooling of the one-dimensional wet granular gas.Physical Review Letters, 97(1):018001, 2006

    Vasily Yu Zaburdaev, Martin Brinkmann, and Stephan Herminghaus. Free cooling of the one-dimensional wet granular gas.Physical Review Letters, 97(1):018001, 2006

    2006

  2. [2]

    Kinetics of clustering in traffic flows.Physical Review E, 50(2):822, 1994

    Eli Ben-Naim, Pavel L Krapivsky, and Sidney Redner. Kinetics of clustering in traffic flows.Physical Review E, 50(2):822, 1994

    1994

  3. [3]

    Structural transitions in ballistic aggre- gation simulation of thin-film growth.Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 6(3):1749–1751, 1988

    Michael J Brett. Structural transitions in ballistic aggre- gation simulation of thin-film growth.Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology A: Vacuum, Surfaces, and Films, 6(3):1749–1751, 1988

    1988

  4. [4]

    Simulat- ing giant hailstone structure with a ballistic aggregation model.Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological So- ciety, 117(498):427–431, 1991

    EP Lozowski, M Brett, N Tait, and T Smy. Simulat- ing giant hailstone structure with a ballistic aggregation model.Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological So- ciety, 117(498):427–431, 1991

    1991

  5. [5]

    The physics of dust coagulation and the structure of dust aggregates in space

    C Dominik and AGGM Tielens. The physics of dust coagulation and the structure of dust aggregates in space. The Astrophysical Journal, 480(2):647–673, 1997

    1997

  6. [6]

    G. F. Carnevale, Y. Pomeau, and W. R. Young. Statis- tics of ballistic agglomeration.Physical Review Letters, 64(24):2913–2916, 1990

    1990

  7. [7]

    Krapivsky

    Emmanuel Trizac and Pavel L. Krapivsky. Correlations in ballistic processes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 91:218302, 2003

    2003

  8. [8]

    Scaling theory and exactly solved mod- els in the kinetics of irreversible aggregation.Physics Reports, 383(2-3):95–212, 2003

    Fran¸ cois Leyvraz. Scaling theory and exactly solved mod- els in the kinetics of irreversible aggregation.Physics Reports, 383(2-3):95–212, 2003

    2003

Show all 29 references
  1. [9]

    Krapivsky, Sidney Redner, and Eli Ben-Naim

    Pavel L. Krapivsky, Sidney Redner, and Eli Ben-Naim. A Kinetic View of Statistical Physics. Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2010

    2010

  2. [10]

    J. R. Dorfman, Henk van Beijeren, and T. R. Kirk- patrick.Contemporary Kinetic Theory of Matter. Cam- bridge University Press, 2021

    2021

  3. [11]

    Exact solution of the one- dimensional ballistic aggregation.Physical Review Let- ters, 82(7):1502–1505, 1999

    Laurent Frachebourg. Exact solution of the one- dimensional ballistic aggregation.Physical Review Let- ters, 82(7):1502–1505, 1999

    1999

  4. [12]

    Ballistic aggregation: a solvable model of irre- versible many particles dynamics.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 279(1-4):69–99, 2000

    Laurent Frachebourg, Philippe A Martin, and Jaroslaw Piasecki. Ballistic aggregation: a solvable model of irre- versible many particles dynamics.Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 279(1-4):69–99, 2000

    2000

  5. [13]

    Physics of liquid jets.Reports on Progress in Physics, 71(3):036601, 2008

    Jens Eggers and Emmanuel Villermaux. Physics of liquid jets.Reports on Progress in Physics, 71(3):036601, 2008

    2008

  6. [14]

    Breakup of diminutive rayleigh jets.Physics of fluids, 22(12), 2010

    Wim Van Hoeve, Stephan Gekle, Jacco H Snoeijer, Michel Versluis, Michael P Brenner, and Detlef Lohse. Breakup of diminutive rayleigh jets.Physics of fluids, 22(12), 2010

    2010

  7. [15]

    Velocity profile inside piezoacoustic inkjet droplets in flight: comparison between experiment and numerical simulation.Physical review applied, 1(1):014004, 2014

    Arjan van der Bos, Mark-Jan van der Meulen, Theo Driessen, Marc van den Berg, Hans Reinten, Herman Wi- jshoff, Michel Versluis, and Detlef Lohse. Velocity profile inside piezoacoustic inkjet droplets in flight: comparison between experiment and numerical simulation.Physical re...

    2014

  8. [16]

    Frag- mentation of stretched liquid ligaments.Physics of Flu- ids, 16(8):2732–2741, 2004

    Philippe Marmottant and Emmanuel Villermaux. Frag- mentation of stretched liquid ligaments.Physics of Flu- ids, 16(8):2732–2741, 2004

    2004

  9. [17]

    Ligament-mediated spray formation

    Emmanuel Villermaux, Philippe Marmottant, and J´ erome Duplat. Ligament-mediated spray formation. Physical Review Letters, 92(7):074501, 2004

    2004

  10. [18]

    Denn, Emmanuel Villermaux, and Daniel Bonn

    Stefan Kooij, Rick Sijs, Morton M. Denn, Emmanuel Villermaux, and Daniel Bonn. What determines the drop size in sprays?Physical Review X, 8(3):031019, 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Fragmentation as an aggre- gation process.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 471(2184):20150678, 2015

    Alexandre Vledouts, Nicolas Vandenberghe, and Em- manuel Villermaux. Fragmentation as an aggre- gation process.Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 471(2184):20150678, 2015

    2015

  12. [20]

    Effect of coalescence on the propagation of water droplets from a jet.Physics of Fluids, 36(10), 2024

    Antoine Parrenin, Stefan Kooij, Cees JM van Rijn, and Daniel Bonn. Effect of coalescence on the propagation of water droplets from a jet.Physics of Fluids, 36(10), 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Am- bient air pressure controls spray cloud formation.Phys- ical Review Fluids, 11(6):L062301, 2026

    Antoine Parrenin, Cees van Rijn, and Daniel Bonn. Am- bient air pressure controls spray cloud formation.Phys- ical Review Fluids, 11(6):L062301, 2026

    2026

  14. [22]

    Fundamental fluid dynamics challenges in inkjet printing.Annual review of fluid mechanics, 54(1):349–382, 2022

    Detlef Lohse. Fundamental fluid dynamics challenges in inkjet printing.Annual review of fluid mechanics, 54(1):349–382, 2022

    2022

  15. [23]

    Swimming- limited aggregation of bacteria in liquid crystals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.05239, 2026

    Guillaume Sint` es, Martyna Goral, Teresa L´ opez-Le´ on, Anke Lindner, and Maria T˘ atulea-Codrean. Swimming- limited aggregation of bacteria in liquid crystals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.05239, 2026

    2026 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Microfluidic droplet generation based on non-embedded co-flow-focusing us- ing 3d printed nozzle.Scientific reports, 10(1):21616, 2020

    Adrien Dewandre, Javier Rivero-Rodriguez, Youen Vitry, Benjamin Sobac, and Benoit Scheid. Microfluidic droplet generation based on non-embedded co-flow-focusing us- ing 3d printed nozzle.Scientific reports, 10(1):21616, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Breakup cascade in gas filament.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00872, 2025

    Ali´ enor Rivi` ere, Zehua Liu, Jishen Zhang, Laurent Duchemin, Luc Deike, and St´ ephane Perrard. Breakup cascade in gas filament.arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.00872, 2025

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Fragmentation of viscous compound liquid ligaments.Physical Review Flu- ids, 7(11):110501, 2022

    Virgile Thi´ evenaz and Alban Sauret. Fragmentation of viscous compound liquid ligaments.Physical Review Flu- ids, 7(11):110501, 2022

    2022

  19. [27]

    Enhanced lifetime of methane bub- ble streams within the deep ocean.Geophysical research letters, 29(15):21–1, 2002

    Gregor Rehder, Peter W Brewer, Edward T Peltzer, and Gernot Friederich. Enhanced lifetime of methane bub- ble streams within the deep ocean.Geophysical research letters, 29(15):21–1, 2002

    2002

  20. [28]

    Pure hydrodynamic instabilities in active jets of puller microalgae.Physical Review Letters, 135(19):198301, 2025

    Isabelle Eisenmann, Marco Vona, Nicolas Desprat, Takuji Ishikawa, Eric Lauga, and Rapha¨ el Jeanneret. Pure hydrodynamic instabilities in active jets of puller microalgae.Physical Review Letters, 135(19):198301, 2025

    2025

  21. [29]

    NTPItX35N0sMcmuvKS3JZimPeHY=

    Tilman Birnstiel. Dust growth and evolution in proto- planetary disks.Annual Review of Astronomy and As- trophysics, 62:157–202, 2024. 6 END MA TTER Experimental methods.We generate jets by pumping liquid at an imposed flow rate using an HPLC pump (Waters 515) through either a...

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.