Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 2 minor 1 cited by

Diffuse Interface Models for Two-Phase Flows with Phase Transition: Modeling and Existence of Weak Solutions

T0 review · 1 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves global existence of weak solutions for two diffuse-interface models of two-phase flow that include phase transitions and unmatched densities, and it derives the first model from continuum thermodynamics.

desk verdict New models with first existence theorems, and a false Proposition 2.4 that makes the pressure estimate for Theorem 1.2 unjustified as written—repairable, but a real flaw. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05383 v1 pith:4RXDU6HE submitted 2025-05-08 math.AP

Helmut Abels , Harald Garcke , Julia Wittmann This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.AP MSC 35Q3035Q3535D3035G6176D0576D0376T06
keywords two-phaseflowNavier–StokesequationsCahn–Hilliardequationdiffuseinterfacemodelphasetransitionweaksolutionssingularfreeenergyquasi-incompressible
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper proves that two diffuse-interface descriptions of two-phase flow remain solvable when the two fluids have different densities and can exchange mass through phase transitions. The first description, a new quasi-incompressible Navier–Stokes/Cahn–Hilliard system with volume-averaged velocity, is derived from mass and momentum balance together with an energy-dissipation inequality; it generalizes the Abels–Garcke–Grün model by adding phase-transition source terms. The second description is the quasi-stationary Stokes version of the Aki–Dreyer–Giesselmann–Kraus model with mass-averaged velocity, relevant at small Reynolds numbers. The main theorems state that both systems have global weak solutions for all admissible initial data, provided the free energy is singular at the pure-phase values. This matters because phase change is precisely where unmatched densities and mass transfer occur, and few existence results cover such coupled systems.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the subgradient of the singular free energy $E(\varphi)=\int_\Omega F_0(\varphi)+\frac12|\nabla\varphi|^2\,dx$, where $F_0$ is the convex part of the double-well potential $F$ fixed in (A2) (for the mass-averaged model, the same functional is restricted to a fixed spatial mean). Here 'subgradient' is the set-valued analogue of a derivative that remains meaningful when $F'$ blows up at $\pm1$. Known estimates, stated as (2.4)–(2.5) and (2.8)–(2.9), convert bounds on the subgradient into $H^2$ or $W^{2,r}$ regularity of $\varphi$ and $L^r$ bounds on $F'_0(\varphi)$; these are exactly the compactness and limit-passage tools used in the proofs. Around this, the construction uses an implicit time discretization, a Leray–Schauder fixed-point argument for the discrete systems, and a discrete energy-dissipation inequality that yields uniform a priori estimates. For the quasi-stationary model, a damping term $h\lambda_0$ plus a very weak formulation of the Neumann–Laplace problem controls the pressure, and a measure-theoretic argument identifies the weak limit of $F'(\varphi_N)$.

What would settle it

A concrete test is to implement the implicit time-discrete scheme of Lemma 4.8 for the logarithmic Flory–Huggins potential and check whether the discrete energy inequality (4.5) and the a priori bounds of Lemma 4.6 hold for a range of admissible initial data; if any single admissible datum produces approximate solutions for which the discrete energy grows or for which $\|F'_0(\varphi_N)\|_{L^2}$ becomes unbounded, the compactness construction behind Theorem 1.1 would be invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated as Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, is that both models are globally well-posed in the weak sense. For a bounded domain with $C^2$ boundary in dimension two or three, under assumptions (A1)–(A3), the quasi-incompressible Navier–Stokes/Cahn–Hilliard system (1.1) admits a weak solution $(v,\lambda,\mu,\varphi)$ for any initial velocity $v_0\in L^2(\Omega)^d$ and phase field $\varphi_0\in H^1(\Omega)$ with $|\varphi_0|\le 1$ a.e. and $\langle\varphi_0\rangle\in(-1,1)$; under (A1)–(A4) the same holds for the quasi-stationary Stokes/Cahn–Hilliard system (1.3) for any such $\varphi_0$. The solutions satisfy the respective energy inequalities, so the total energy is non-increasing along the flow. In addition, the paper derives model (1.1) from continuum thermodynamics, starting from partial mass balances and momentum conservation and fixing the constitutive laws by requiring a local energy-dissipation inequality to hold. The phase field is governed by a Cahn–Hilliard equation with a source term modeling the phase transition, and the chemical potential is defined through the singular free energy.

Load-bearing premise

The entire proof leans on the free energy being singular at the pure-phase values $\pm1$, so that its derivative blows up there and the subgradient estimates yield enough regularity of $\varphi$ and $F'(\varphi)$; with a smooth double-well potential the arguments as written would break down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every admissible initial datum with $\langle\varphi_0\rangle\in(-1,1)$ starts a global weak solution of the volume-averaged system (1.1), and likewise of the quasi-stationary system (1.3) under the slightly stronger assumptions.
  • Because the energy inequality holds for the weak solutions, the total energy is non-increasing and the dissipation rate has the explicit form $\int_\Omega S(\varphi,Dv):Dv + m_j(\varphi)|\nabla\mu|^2 + m_r(\varphi)(\mu+\alpha\lambda)^2\,dx$ for model I, and the analogous expression with $c_+^2$ and the boundary friction term for model II.
  • The singular free energy is not merely an admissible choice: it enforces $|\varphi|\le1$ throughout the evolution, which is physically the statement that the phase field stays within the pure-phase interval.
  • Stationary solutions of both systems are characterized by Cahn–Hilliard equilibria: in model I they solve $F'(\varphi_*)-\Delta\varphi_*=\mu_*$ with constant $\mu_*,\lambda_*$, while in model II they solve the same equation with $-\alpha\lambda_*$ on the right-hand side.
  • The generalization of the Abels–Garcke–Grün model derived in Section 3 reduces to the original model when the reaction rates vanish, so the new result contains the earlier existence theory as a special case.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the discrete energy inequality is uniform in the time step, the proof is a natural starting point for designing and analyzing energy-stable finite-element schemes for phase-change flows; the paper does not take that numerical step.
  • The pressure-control strategy used for model II—damping term plus very weak Neumann–Laplace solution—looks transferable to other quasi-incompressible diffuse-interface systems in which the pressure enters the chemical potential equation.
  • One route beyond the paper is to study the singular limit in which the quasi-stationary model (1.3) emerges from the instationary model (1.1) as the Reynolds number tends to zero; the paper develops both models but does not connect them by such a limit.
  • The assumption that the mobilities are bounded away from zero (A3) excludes degenerate mobilities that vanish in the pure phases; extending the two theorems to degenerate mobility would need new estimates near $\varphi=\pm1$.
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

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives two diffuse interface models for binary fluid flows with unmatched densities and phase transitions, and establishes existence of global weak solutions for both: a quasi-incompressible Navier–Stokes/Cahn–Hilliard system with volume-averaged velocity (Theorem 1.1) and a quasi-stationary Stokes/Cahn–Hilliard system with mass-averaged velocity (Theorem 1.2). The analysis is based on implicit time discretization, a Leray–Schauder fixed-point argument, discrete energy estimates, and compactness arguments, with singular free energies of logarithmic type admitted. Section 3 derives the first model from balance laws and a dissipation inequality, while Section 5 reformulates the Aki–Dreyer–Giesselmann–Kraus model with mass-averaged velocity before the analytical treatment.

Significance. The paper contributes a thermodynamically consistent derivation of a phase-transition extension of the Abels–Garcke–Grün model and provides existence theories for two systems that have not been analyzed in this generality. The proofs are detailed, follow established strategies, and are largely self-contained up to standard subgradient results. The main obstruction to acceptance is the incorrect statement of Proposition 2.4 and its use in the pressure estimate for Theorem 1.2; this is a real but localized flaw that can be repaired by a mean-zero reformulation of the Neumann–Laplace very weak solution theory.

major comments (1)
  1. [Section 2.3, Proposition 2.4; used in Section 6.3] Proposition 2.4 is false as stated. The Neumann Laplacian Δ_N : W^{2,p'}_N(Ω) → L^{p'}(Ω) is not bijective: every constant function lies in its kernel (so the map is not injective), and its range is the mean-zero subspace L^{p'}_{(0)}(Ω), not all of L^{p'}(Ω). Consequently, the adjoint Δ'_N : L^p(Ω) → (W^{2,p'}_N(Ω))' is not injective: for f = 0 every constant function u satisfies (u, Δφ) = 0 for all φ, so the asserted uniqueness in L^p fails and estimate (2.10) is false for arbitrary f. This error is load-bearing: in Section 6.3 the bound ∥λ_0^N∥_{L^2(0,∞;L^r(Ω))} ≤ C∥f_N∥_{L^2(0,∞;(W^{2,r'}_N(Ω))')} is obtained by invoking (2.10), so the pressure estimate as written is unjustified. The repair is simple: reformulate Proposition 2.4 for u ∈ L^p_{(0)}(Ω) and f ∈ (W^{2,p'}_N(Ω))' satisfying ⟨f,1⟩=0 (or, equivalently, work with Δ_N on W^{2,p'}_N ∩ L^{p'}_{(0)}), and verify that the particular functional f_N in (6.8a) satisfies this compatibility condition because Δ1=0. The authors should correct this proposition and the preceding incorrect claim that Δ_N : W^{2,p}_N(Ω) → L^p(Ω) is bijective, and then re-derive the pressure estimate accordingly.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Section 1, paragraph on Model II] The phrase “Naver-slip boundary condition” should read “Navier-slip boundary condition”.
  2. [Lemma 4.8 and Lemma 6.7] The product space X defined in the Leray–Schauder setup is not a Banach space because D(∂E) and D(∂E_m) are not linear spaces; this does not affect the argument, but the notation could be adjusted to avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the model derivation and existence proofs are self-contained conditional on standard prior estimates, and the heavy self-citation is background tool use rather than a reduction of the central claims to their own inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2, asserting existence of weak solutions to systems (1.1) and (1.3). The derivation in Section 3 starts from balance laws (3.2), (3.5), (3.8) and an energy dissipation inequality (3.9), then chooses constitutive assumptions so that the dissipation inequality (3.12) holds; the resulting system (3.13) is exactly model (1.1). This is a genuine derivation from stated physical principles, not a prediction fitted to the target result. The existence proofs in Sections 4 and 6 are conditional on assumptions (A1)-(A4) and use prior results from the authors' own work, especially [11], [1], [6], and [2], as lemmas. These prior results are subgradient estimates, compact resolvent arguments, and pressure-estimate strategies for different Cahn-Hilliard or diffuse-interface systems; they are not equivalent to the target existence theorems and are not derived from them. Thus the heavy self-citation is load-bearing in the sense of being used as mathematical tools, but it does not make the argument circular because the cited statements have independent content and do not presuppose Theorem 1.1 or Theorem 1.2. The reader's concern about Proposition 2.4, namely that the Neumann Laplacian has constants in its kernel and therefore the stated bijectivity is false without a mean-zero restriction, is a genuine correctness issue in the proof of the pressure estimate for Theorem 1.2, but it is not an instance of circularity: it is a mathematical gap, not a definitional or self-citational reduction. Overall, no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no free parameters: b±, c±, alpha, beta are defined in terms of the given densities and are not fitted. It relies on the stated domain and regularity assumptions (A1)-(A4) plus standard functional analysis background. No new physical entities are postulated.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Omega subset R^d, d in {2,3}, is a bounded domain with C^2 boundary (A1).
    Used for elliptic regularity, trace theorems, and Korn's inequality with Navier-slip boundary conditions.
  • domain assumption Free energy F is continuous on [-1,1], C^2 on (-1,1), with F'(s) tending to +/- infinity as s tends to +/-1 and F'' >= -kappa (A2).
    Ensures phi stays in [-1,1] and provides the subgradient estimates (2.4)-(2.5) and (2.8)-(2.9) used in Lemmas 4.6 and 6.5.
  • domain assumption Mobility and viscosity coefficients m_j, m_r, nu, eta are continuous and bounded between positive constants (A3).
    Needed for coercivity of the bilinear forms in the Leray-Schauder fixed point argument.
  • domain assumption Friction parameter gamma > 0 in Model II (A4).
    Ensures the boundary integral in the energy dissipation controls u_tau, and Korn's inequality applies.
  • standard math Standard Banach space tools: Lax-Milgram theorem, Leray-Schauder principle, Aubin-Lions lemma, maximal monotone operator theory, elliptic regularity.
    Used throughout Sections 4 and 6 without proof; accepted background results in PDE analysis.
  • domain assumption Specific densities rho_tilde_plus and rho_tilde_minus are positive and unequal, and the mixture obeys the vanishing excess volume relation (3.1).
    Underpins the derivation of both models, giving rho(phi) = b+ + b- phi and the constants alpha and beta.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffuse Interface Models for Two-Phase Flows with Phase Transition: Modeling and Existence of Weak Solutions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4RXDU6HE

@misc{pith2026250505383,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffuse Interface Models for Two-Phase Flows with Phase Transition: Modeling and Existence of Weak Solutions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4RXDU6HE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05383}
}
read the original abstract

The flow of two macroscopically immiscible, viscous, incompressible fluids with unmatched densities is studied, where a transfer of mass between the constituents by phase transition is taken into account. To this end, two quasi-incompressible diffuse interface models with singular free energies are analyzed, differing primarily in their velocity averaging. Firstly, to generalize a model by Abels, Garcke, and Gr\"un, a thermodynamically consistent system of Navier--Stokes/Cahn--Hilliard type with source terms is derived in a framework of continuum fluid dynamics, followed by a proof of existence of weak solutions to the latter. Secondly, the quasi-stationary version of a model by Aki, Dreyer, Giesselmann, and Kraus is investigated analytically, with existence of weak solutions being established for the resulting quasi-stationary Stokes system coupled to a Cahn--Hilliard equation with a source term.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Weak solutions and incompressible limit of a quasi-incompressible Navier--Stokes/Cahn--Hilliard model for viscous two-phase flows

    math.AP 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Global weak solutions exist for the quasi-incompressible Navier-Stokes/Cahn-Hilliard model with fractional diffusion, and as the density mismatch alpha tends to zero the solutions converge to Model H at rate alpha on ...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    H. Abels. Diffuse interface models for two-phase flows of viscous, incompressible fluids. Habilitation Thesis, 2007

    work page 2007

  2. [2]

    H. Abels. Existence of weak solutions for a diffuse interface model for viscous, incompressible fluids with general densities.Communications in Mathematical Physics, 289(1):45–73, 2009

    work page 2009

  3. [3]

    H. Abels. On a diffuse interface model for two-phase flows of viscous, incompressible fluids with matched densities. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 194(2):463–506, 2009

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 44(1):316–340, 2012

    H.Abels.Strongwell-posednessofadiffuseinterfacemodelforaviscous, quasi-incompressible two-phase flow. SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 44(1):316–340, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [5]

    Abels, S

    H. Abels, S. Bosia, and M. Grasselli. Cahn–Hilliard equation with nonlocal singular free energies.Annali di Matematica Pura ed Applicata, 2014

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Abels, D

    H. Abels, D. Depner, and H. Garcke. Existence of weak solutions for a diffuse interface model for two- phase flows of incompressible fluids with different densities.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 15(3):453–480, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [7]

    Abels, D

    H. Abels, D. Depner, and H. Garcke. On an incompressible Navier–Stokes/Cahn–Hilliard system with degenerate mobility. Annales de l’Institut Henri Poincaré C, Analyse non linéaire, 30(6):1175–1190, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Abels, H

    H. Abels, H. Garcke, and A. Giorgini. Global regularity and asymptotic stabilization for the in- compressible Navier–Stokes-Cahn–Hilliard model with unmatched densities.Mathematische Annalen, 389(2):1267–1321, 2023

    work page 2023

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Abels, H

    H. Abels, H. Garcke, and G. Grün. Thermodynamically consistent, frame indifferent diffuse interface models for incompressible two-phase flows with different densities.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 2012

    2012

  2. [10]

    Abels and J

    H. Abels and J. Weber. Local well-posedness of a quasi-incompressible two-phase flow. Journal of Evolution Equations, 21(3):3477–3502, 2020

    2020

  3. [11]

    Abels and M

    H. Abels and M. Wilke. Convergence to equilibrium for the Cahn–Hilliard equation with a logarithmic free energy.Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications, 67(11):3176–3193, 2007

    2007

  4. [12]

    G. L. Aki, W. Dreyer, J. Giesselmann, and C. Kraus. A quasi-incompressible diffuse interface model with phase transition.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 24(05):827–861, 2014

    2014

  5. [13]

    Amann.Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems, volume 1

    H. Amann.Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems, volume 1. Birkhäuser Basel, 1995

    1995

  6. [14]

    T. Blesgen. A generalization of the Navier-Stokes equations to two-phase flows.Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, 32(10):1119–1123, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    F. Boyer. Mathematical study of multi-phase flow under shear through order parameter formulation. Asymptotic Analysis, 20:175–212, 1999

    1999

  8. [16]

    F. Boyer. A theoretical and numerical model for the study of incompressible mixture flows.Computers & Fluids, 31(1):41–68, 2002

    2002

  9. [17]

    H. Ding, P. D. M. Spelt, and C. Shu. Diffuse interface model for incompressible two-phase flows with large density ratios.Journal of Computational Physics, 226(2):2078–2095, 2007

    2007

  10. [18]

    C. G. Gal and M. Grasselli. Longtime behavior for a model of homogeneous incompressible two-phase flows. Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 28(1):1–39, 2010

    2010

  11. [19]

    C. G. Gal, M. Grasselli, and H. Wu. Global weak solutions to a diffuse interface model for incompressible two-phase flows with moving contact lines and different densities.Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 234(1):1–56, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    C. G. Gal, Maoyin Lv, and H. Wu. On a thermodynamically consistent diffuse interface model for two-phase incompressible flows with non-matched densities: Dynamics of moving contact lines, surface diffusion, and mass transfer. 2024

    2024

  13. [21]

    Giorgini

    A. Giorgini. Well-posedness of the two-dimensional Abels–Garcke–Grün model for two-phase flows with unmatched densities.Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations, 60(3), 2021

    2021

  14. [22]

    Giorgini

    A. Giorgini. Existence and stability of strong solutions to the Abels–Garcke–Grün model in three dimensions. Interfaces and Free Boundaries, Mathematical Analysis, Computation and Applications, 24(4):565–608, 2022. 44 HELMUT ABELS, HARALD GARCKE, AND JULIA WITTMANN

    2022

  15. [23]

    Giorgini, M

    A. Giorgini, M. Grasselli, and H. Wu. On the mass-conserving Allen–Cahn approximation for incom- pressible binary fluids.Journal of Functional Analysis, 283(9):109631, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Giorgini and P

    A. Giorgini and P. Knopf. Two-phase flows with bulk–surface interaction: Thermodynamically consis- tent Navier–Stokes–Cahn–Hilliard models with dynamic boundary conditions.Journal of Mathematical Fluid Mechanics, 25(3), 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Giorgini, A

    A. Giorgini, A. Miranville, and R. Temam. Uniqueness and regularity for the Navier–Stokes-Cahn– Hilliard system.SIAM Journal on Mathematical Analysis, 51(3):2535–2574, 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    M. E. Gurtin, D. Polignone, and J. Viñals. Two-phase binary fluids and immiscible fluids described by an order parameter.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 06(06):815–831, 1996

    1996

  19. [27]

    Heida, J

    M. Heida, J. Málek, and K. R. Rajagopal. On the development and generalizations of Cahn–Hilliard equations within a thermodynamic framework. Zeitschrift für angewandte Mathematik und Physik, 63(1):145–169, 2011

    2011

  20. [28]

    P. C. Hohenberg and B. I. Halperin. Theory of dynamic critical phenomena.Reviews of Modern Physics, 49(3):435–479, 1977

    1977

  21. [29]

    Jiang, Y

    J. Jiang, Y. Li, and C. Liu. Two-phase incompressible flows with variable density: An energetic varia- tional approach.Discrete & Continuous Dynamical Systems - A, 37(6):3243–3284, 2017

    2017

  22. [30]

    Kotschote

    M. Kotschote. Strong solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations for a compressible fluid of Allen–Cahn type. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis, 206(2):489–514, 2012

    2012

  23. [31]

    Lowengrub and L

    J. Lowengrub and L. Truskinovsky. Quasi–incompressible Cahn–Hilliard fluids and topological transi- tions. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 454(1978):2617–2654, 1998

    1978

  24. [32]

    Shokrpour Roudbari, G

    M. Shokrpour Roudbari, G. Şimşek, E. H. van Brummelen, and K. G. van der Zee. Diffuse-interface two- phase flow models with different densities: A new quasi-incompressible form and a linear energy-stable method. Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 28(04):733–770, 2018

    2018

  25. [33]

    R. E. Showalter.Monotone Operators in Banach Space and Nonlinear Partial Differential Equations. American Mathematical Society, 1997

    1997

  26. [34]

    M. F. P. ten Eikelder, K. G. van der Zee, I. Akkerman, and D. Schillinger. A unified framework for Navier–Stokes Cahn–Hilliard models with non-matching densities.Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences, 33(01):175–221, 2023

    2023

  27. [35]

    M. F. P. ten Eikelder, K. G. van der Zee, and D. Schillinger. Thermodynamically consistent diffuse- interface mixture models of incompressible multicomponent fluids.Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 990, 2024

    2024

  28. [36]

    J. T. Weber. Analysis of diffuse interface models for two-phase flows with and without surfactants. PhD Thesis, 2016

    2016

  29. [37]

    Zeidler.Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications I

    E. Zeidler.Nonlinear Functional Analysis and its Applications I. Springer, 1992. Fakultät für Mathematik, Universität Regensburg, D–93040 Regensburg, Deutschland Email address: helmut.abels@ur.de Email address: harald.garcke@ur.de Email address: julia4.wittmann@ur.de

    1992

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.