Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Elongated particles in flow: Commentary on small angle scattering investigations

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read By expanding the measured scattering in spherical harmonics and selecting a coordinate system that follows the deformation gradient, the orientation distribution of flowing elongated particles can be recovered from small-angle scattering…

desk verdict Useful consolidation of a non-parametric rheo-SANS inversion pipeline, but the 'without bias' claim overreaches because the tilted-frame method assumes an axisymmetry that shear flow does not generally provide. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03976 v1 pith:PQPMJARQ submitted 2025-01-07 cond-mat.soft

Guan-Rong Huang , Lionel Porcar , Ryan P. Murphy , Yuya Shinohara , Yangyang Wang , Jan-Michael Carrillo , Bobby G. Sumpter , Chi-Huan Tung
show 2 more authors
Changwoo Do Wei-Ren Chen
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.soft
keywords orientationdistributionfunctionsmall-angleneutronscatteringsphericalharmonicexpansionmaximumentropyflowalignmentorderparametersrheo-SANSelongatedparticles
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 argues that the orientation distribution function (ODF) of elongated particles in flow can be extracted quantitatively from the angular anisotropy of small-angle scattering without guessing its mathematical form. The proposed route is non-parametric: expand the measured intensity and the ODF in real spherical harmonics, convert the measured scattering order parameters into real-space order parameters through the form-factor ratio in Eq. (16), then reconstruct the most probable ODF by maximum probabilistic entropy. The key move is to rotate into a tilted reference frame aligned with the average particle orientation, so that even spectra that look asymmetric in the laboratory frame become axially symmetric and only m=0 harmonics are needed. If the claim holds, rheo-SANS and related experiments can turn flow-plane scattering patterns directly into orientation distributions, giving a model-free window onto shear-induced alignment in wormlike micelles, stiff polymers, fibers, and non-spherical nanoparticles.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing identity is Eq. (16), $S_l^m = (P_0^0(Q)/P_l^m(Q)) \, \hat{S}_l^m(Q)$, which removes the intra-particle form-factor contribution from the measured spectral anisotropy and yields the real-space order parameters that define the ODF. Its companion device is the tilted reference frame of Sec. 3.2.5: a rotation by angle $\theta_t$ aligns the new polar axis with the mean particle orientation, so the flow-plane intensity $I_{xy}(Q)$ becomes mirror-symmetric and the expansion collapses to $m=0$ spherical harmonics, avoiding the coupling that otherwise prevents unique inversion on a two-dimensional detector plane. The maximum probabilistic entropy step then selects the ODF with the largest entropy consistent with the measured $S_l^0$ values, which is what makes the reconstruction non-parametric and free of a prescribed functional form.

What would settle it

Run a small-angle scattering measurement or simulation on rod-like particles in a biaxial shear flow that produces a genuinely biaxial orientation distribution, then search for a tilt angle $\theta_t$ that makes the flow-velocity-gradient projection mirror-symmetric; if no such angle exists, or if the orientation distribution reconstructed from that single projection disagrees with the one computed directly from particle trajectories, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes a complete non-parametric inversion pipeline for the orientation distribution of axially symmetric elongated objects under flow. Starting from the scattering intensity $I(Q)$ expressed as a spherical-harmonic series, it defines the scattering order parameter $\hat{S}_l^m(Q)$ and shows that the desired real-space order parameter is $S_l^m = (P_0^0(Q)/P_l^m(Q)) \, \hat{S}_l^m(Q)$, Eq. (16), where $P_l^m(Q)$ are the spherical-harmonic moments of the known intra-particle form factor. For spectra without axial symmetry, the paper identifies the loss of orthogonality of $m \neq 0$ harmonics on two-dimensional planes as the obstruction, and proposes to rotate the reference frame by a tilt angle $\theta_t$ so that the flow-velocity-gradient projection becomes mirror-symmetric; in that frame the ODF depends only on the polar angle $\Theta$ and the maximum-entropy form $f(\Theta) = \exp\left(\sum_l \Lambda_l^0 Y_l^0(\Theta)\right)$ gives the least-biased reconstruction from the finite set of measured order parameters. The pipeline is benchmarked against dissipative particle dynamics simulations of sheared rigid rods and against rheo-SANS data on wormlike micelles, and the paper uses the same framework to show that two common shortcuts—the high-$Q$ asymptotic relation $\hat{S}_2^0 \approx -S_2^0/2$ and the alignment factor $A_f(Q)$—do not provide reliable quantitative order parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The method presumes that for every non-axially-symmetric flow spectrum there is a single tilted reference frame at some angle $\theta_t$ in which the flow-plane intensity becomes mirror-symmetric and the orientation distribution becomes axially symmetric, a premise demonstrated only by the sheared rigid-rod simulations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For axially symmetric particles with a known form factor, the orientation distribution under shear can be reconstructed from a single flow-velocity-gradient scattering plane without assuming a parametric shape for the ODF.
  • The high-$Q$ shortcut that identifies $\hat{S}_2^0(Q)$ with the real-space order parameter via the factor $-1/2$ is shown to fail in the experimentally accessible $Q$ range, so analyses built on that asymptotic relation need to be revisited.
  • The alignment factor $A_f(Q)$ is not a surrogate for the order parameter $S_2^0$; it mixes in the form factor and $Q$-dependent information and can at best serve as a qualitative indicator.
  • The maximum-entropy reconstruction matches known analytical ODFs from polymer kinetic theory as well as simulation ODFs with no known closed form, indicating that the inversion is not tied to a particular flow geometry.
  • In concentrated systems, the high-$Q$ part of the scattering still reflects intra-particle correlations, so Eq. (16) remains usable when inter-particle contributions are weak at high $Q$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the same tilted-frame treatment could be paired with two-dimensional desmearing, so that instrument resolution smearing is removed before Eq. (16) is applied; this would directly address the resolution issue the paper identifies as open.
  • Editorial inference: for semiflexible chains, where the paper finds the isotropic component $I_0^0(Q)$ to be $Q$-dependent at intermediate $QL$, a natural extension is a length-scale-resolved ODF obtained by applying the inversion locally to segments whose size is set by the probed $Q$.
  • Editorial inference: the existence of a single tilt angle $\theta_t$ is demonstrated only for sheared rigid rods; a biaxial deformation or a non-axially-symmetric particle shape would likely require multiple flow-plane measurements and spherical harmonics with $m \neq 0$ or Wigner D functions, which the paper itself anticipates.
  • Editorial inference: because the method needs the particle form factor as input, a sensitivity study of the reconstructed ODF to form-factor uncertainty would quantify how model-free the result really is in practice.
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

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript is a commentary/review of methods for extracting the orientation distribution function (ODF) of elongated objects in flow from small-angle scattering. It develops a spherical-harmonic expansion of the scattering intensity (Eqs. 7-16), contrasts parametric and non-parametric regression, describes a maximum-entropy reconstruction, and proposes a tilted reference frame for spectra without axial symmetry. The method is benchmarked against DPD simulations of sheared rigid rods and applied to rheo-SANS data on CPyCl/NaSal wormlike micelles. The stated central conclusion (Sec. 5) is that, by choosing a coordinate system and basis functions compatible with the deformation gradient, the ODF can be extracted without bias from the spectral anisotropy.

Significance. If the central claim is valid, the paper would be a useful methodological reference: Eq. (16) provides a clean formal bridge between scattering anisotropy and real-space order parameters, the DPD benchmark in Fig. 6 is an independent test of the reconstruction, and the critical discussion of scalar alignment factors and the asymptotic relation Eq. (38) is valuable. The paper also candidly acknowledges that the form factor must be known and that parametric approaches can induce bias. However, the 'without bias' claim is not established for general shear flows because the tilt-frame construction in Sec. 3.2.5 assumes, rather than proves, full three-dimensional axisymmetry in the tilted frame, and the experimental demonstration lacks uncertainty quantification. The paper would be a serviceable reference if these issues are fixed and the claims appropriately restricted.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2.5; Eqs. (24)-(31); Section 5] The tilt-frame construction assumes that rotating to a frame in which the xy-projection is mirror-symmetric makes the full three-dimensional ODF axisymmetric about the new axis, so that only m=0 harmonics remain. This is not derived; mirror symmetry of a two-dimensional projection is much weaker than three-dimensional axisymmetry. Under simple shear, orientation distributions are generically biaxial, so a single rotation cannot remove the m≠0 components. Those components contribute to Ixy(Q) and are aliased into the S_l^0 extracted by Eq. (31). The DPD benchmark in Fig. 6 plots f(Θ)sinΘ, which is the Φ-integrated marginal, so it cannot detect Φ-dependence and does not validate the reduced m=0 form. Consequently, the 'without bias' statement in Section 5 is supported only for ODFs that are genuinely axisymmetric in some frame, not for general shear flows. A proof of existence (or a counterexample) and a full three-dimensional benchmark are needed.
  2. [§3.2.2, Eqs. (14)-(16)] There is a normalization inconsistency in the central inversion formula. Equation (35) defines S_l^m = (1/4π)∫dΩ f(Ω)Y_l^m(Ω), and for a normalized f this gives S_0^0 = 1/(4π), not 1. Equation (15), however, replaces S_l^m/S_0^0 by S_l^m, and Eq. (16) consequently misses an overall factor of S_0^0. Unless the paper adopts a different convention with S_0^0=1, the order parameters used in Figs. 7-11 and in the maximum-entropy reconstruction are off by a factor of 1/(4π). The normalization convention should be stated explicitly and propagated consistently through Eqs. (15), (16), and (35).
  3. [§3.2.5, Eq. (31)] Equation (31) does not follow from the orthogonality relation (26). Orthogonality is stated for integrals over Θ∈[0,π] with weight sinΘ dΘ, but Eq. (31) integrates over θ∈[θ_t, θ_t+π/2] with weight sinθ and uses unshifted Y_l^0(cosθ). If the change of variables implied by Eq. (27) is applied, the integrand must contain the shifted harmonic Y_l^0(cos(θ-θ_t)) and the Jacobian sin(θ-θ_t). As written, the projection does not isolate a single S_l^0. The definitions of all angles (which angle is measured from which axis and on which plane) should be made explicit, and the extraction formula should be rederived.
  4. [§3.2.8, Figs. 9-11] The experimental demonstration is not yet quantitative. The figures show no error bars on the extracted scattering order parameters, the real-space order parameters, or the reconstructed ODFs. The determination of the tilt angle θ_t is not described; the text only reports its shear-rate dependence. The assumed micellar persistence length b=500 Å and cross-section radius R=20 Å enter P_l^0(Q) in Eq. (16) without a sensitivity analysis. Since the central claim concerns unbiased extraction, the experimental section requires uncertainty propagation and a demonstration that the reconstruction is stable under reasonable variations in the form-factor parameters.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Throughout] The spelling of the surfactant is inconsistent: 'CPyCl' in most places but 'CpyCl' in the experimental section and figure captions; please unify.
  2. [Eq. (27) and surrounding text] The symbol Θ is used both for the polar angle in the tilted frame and inside expressions such as cos(Θ±θ_t), while the tilt angle is also called θ_t; this is confusing and should be clarified with a figure that defines all angles consistently.
  3. [Reference list] The reference 'Evlero, A. L. (1776)' should be 'Euler, L.'; the typo appears in the reference list.
  4. [§4.1] The statement that for axially symmetric particle shapes it is 'always feasible' to find a principal axis on a projection plane exhibiting axial symmetry is too strong and conflicts with the biaxiality caveat discussed in §3.2.5; it should be qualified.
  5. [Fig. 6] The inset reports θ_t as a function of shear rate without error bars or a description of how θ_t is extracted from the DPD trajectories.
  6. [§3.2.2, near Eq. (7)] There is a typo in 'I m l (Q) are the the coefficients' where 'the' is repeated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the spectral inversion is a forward-model inversion with an independent DPD benchmark, but the tilt-frame axisymmetry assumption in Section 3.2.5 is asserted, not derived, so the Section 5 'without bias' claim is stronger than what the derivation establishes.

full rationale

The central inversion formula, Eq. (16), is not circular. It follows from the forward scattering model Eq. (3) together with the spherical-harmonic expansions of the intensity and the ODF. The quantity S_l^m is solved from the measured scattering order parameter S-hat_l^m(Q) using form-factor coefficients P_l^m(Q) that are fixed a priori from the known particle shape, not fitted to the same anisotropy that is being predicted. The relationship is a linear inversion of a stated forward model, not a restatement of the answer. The maximum-entropy closure in Section 3.2.6 is a standard variational construction, and the paper validates it against DPD trajectories of sheared rigid rods in Fig. 6, which is an external computational benchmark rather than a circular reuse of the fitted inputs. The paper does rely on the authors' prior work for the loss of orthogonality of m != 0 harmonics on two-dimensional planes, for the tilted principal-axis construction, and for prior maximum-entropy numerical tests. However, the projection coupling in Eq. (23) is an explicit, independently checkable mathematical fact, and the DPD validation in this paper provides independent support for the maximum-entropy reconstruction. The main caveat is not a circularity but an unproved assumption: Section 3.2.5, Eqs. (24)-(25) and Eq. (31), assumes that a rotation to a tilted frame makes the true ODF axisymmetric, retaining only m = 0 harmonics. For a general biaxial shear-induced ODF, rotating coordinates does not by itself eliminate m != 0 moments, so the recovered f(Theta) would be the axisymmetric projection rather than the full ODF. The text asserts that the rotation 'introduces the desired axial symmetry' and cites Huang et al. (2021) for the construction, but it does not prove that the physical ODF is axisymmetric in that frame. This is a correctness and scope limitation for the Section 5 'without bias' claim, not a circular derivation. The benchmark in Fig. 6 plots f(Theta) sin(Theta), a Phi-integrated marginal, so it does not discriminate axisymmetric from biaxial ODFs. For these reasons the circularity score is low but not zero: the forward inversion is self-contained, while the general-flow validity of the tilt-frame step is carried by an asserted symmetry assumption rather than derived from first principles.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The inversion method depends on assumed micelle dimensions and tilt angles, and the symmetry postulates are introduced specifically to make the inversion tractable. Standard scattering and statistical mechanics axioms are used throughout.

free parameters (3)
  • persistence length b of CPyCl/NaSal micelles = 500 Å
    Used in Eq. (16) to compute P_l^0(Q) for converting scattering order parameters to real-space order parameters; value is stated without source or uncertainty.
  • cross-section radius of CPyCl/NaSal micelles = 20 Å
    Used in the form factor P(Q,Omega) to compute P_l^0(Q); stated without source or uncertainty.
  • tilt angle theta_t = 3.2e-1 to 5.6e-2 radians depending on shear rate
    Defines the principal axis in the tilted reference frame for non-axisymmetric spectra; the method for determining theta_t from Ixy(Q) is not described.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Spherical harmonics form a complete orthonormal basis for functions on the sphere and diagonalize rotations
    Invoked in Section 3.2.1 and 3.2.2 for expanding I(Q), P(Q), and f(Omega).
  • standard math Friedel's law: I(Q) = I(-Q) for real scattering length density, so only even-l harmonics contribute
    Stated in Section 3.2.2 after Eq. (16).
  • domain assumption The measured scattering intensity is a two-point static correlation; particle shape must be known a priori to separate ODF and form factor
    Stated in Section 2 as a constraint on ODF inversion.
  • domain assumption For dilute solutions, inter-particle correlations are negligible so I(Q) equals the orientationally averaged form factor; for concentrated systems, the high-Q limit is dominated by intra-particle correlations
    Assumed in Section 3.2.2, Eqns. (14)-(16), and used throughout the benchmarking and experiment.
  • ad hoc to paper For non-axisymmetric spectra, there exists a tilt angle theta_t such that the projection Ixy(Q) is mirror-symmetric, and the ODF is axially symmetric around the tilted principal axis (depends only on Theta)
    Central to Section 3.2.5; the existence of such a frame is assumed without proof and is not guaranteed for general biaxial ODFs.
  • ad hoc to paper Maximum probabilistic entropy with a truncated set of order parameters yields the most probable ODF and is sufficient for reconstruction
    Section 3.2.6; the truncation to a few low-order terms is justified only by examples and simulations, not by a general convergence argument.
  • domain assumption The ODF is independent of Q, so any Q-dependence of scalar descriptors indicates form-factor contamination
    Used in Section 3.2.7 to critique Af(Q); assumes rod-like particles with rigid-body orientation on all length scales.
  • domain assumption Affine deformation for stretched polymer melts, leading to Eq. (45) I(Qz)-1 / I(Qx)-1 approximately (1+epsilon)^3
    Section 3.2.9; the relation is stated for stretched polymers experiencing affine deformation, which is an idealization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Elongated particles in flow: Commentary on small angle scattering investigations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PQPMJARQ

@misc{pith2026250103976,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Elongated particles in flow: Commentary on small angle scattering investigations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PQPMJARQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03976}
}
read the original abstract

This work thoroughly examines several analytical tools, each possessing a different level of mathematical intricacy, for the purpose of characterizing the orientation distribution function of elongated objects under flow. Our investigation places an emphasis on connecting the orientation distribution to the small angle scattering spectra measured experimentally. The diverse range of mathematical approaches investigated herein provides insights into the flow behavior of elongated particles from different perspectives and serves as powerful tools for elucidating the complex interplay between flow dynamics and the orientation distribution function.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03976 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A schematic representation illustrating mechanically-driven flowing objects [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshot of a sheared semi-dilute solution containing rigid rods with diameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. A demonstration of spectral decomposition as described in Eqn. (18). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Visual representations of the first three real spherical harmonics, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Snapshot of a sheared semi-dilute solution containing rigid rods with diameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The orientational distribution functions, multiplied by sin Θ in the axially [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Scattering order parameters Sˆ0 2 (Q) (blue symbols) and their corresponding order parameters S 0 2 (red symbols) derived from the scattering intensities Ixy(Q) (a), Ixz(Q) (b), and Iyz(Q) (c) of semi-dilute rigid rod suspensions under varying shear rates, as discussed…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The black symbols represent the values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (b)-(f) presents the Ixy(Q) of the sheared CpyCl/NaSal solution at five dis￾tinct shear rates: 5.2, 13, 42, 140, and 410 s−1 . Panel (a) displays the result from the quiescent state for comparison. As the shear rate increases, Ixy(Q) shows a more pronounced anisotropy.…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Scattering order parameters Sˆ0 2 (Q) (a), Sˆ0 4 (Q) (b), Sˆ0 6 (Q) (c), and Sˆ0 8 (Q) (d) extracted from the data in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p034_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a) Order parameters S 0 l calculated from the corresponding scattering order parameters Sˆ0 l (Q) presented in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A schematic illustration depicting a USAS measurement of a rod-like sus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Scattering intensity of (left) a polymer melt at its quiescent state and (right) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p038_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The relationship between the real space orientation (a-c) of a triclinic paral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: The real-space configurations of a flexible self-avoiding chain at its quiescent [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: The isotropic component of I(Q) for a self-avoiding chain under steady shear, characterized by various strain rates, is derived from the analysis of Ixy(Q) depicted in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Resolution maps depicting (a) Qx and (b) Qy for the Extended Q-Range Small Angle Neutron Scattering Diffractometer (EQSANS) at the Spallation Neu￾tron Source, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The standard deviations of the instru￾mental resolution function along the Qx …

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. Scattering Insights into Shear-Induced Scission of Rod-like Micelles

    cond-mat.soft 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Shear flow shortens rod-like CTAB micelles from about 400 to 150 angstroms, and a spherical-harmonic decomposition of SANS data quantifies the length distribution and alignment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

8 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    M., Fisch, M

    Agra-Kooijman, D. M., Fisch, M. R. & Kumar, S. (2018). Liq. Cryst. 45,

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    B., Weber, H

    Arfken, G. B., Weber, H. J. & Harris, F. E. (2012). Mathematical Methods for Physicists: A Comprehensive Guide. Cambridge: Academic Press. Batchelor, G. K. (1970). J. Fluid Mech. 41, 545–570. Berret, J.-F., Roux, D. C. & Lindner, P. (1998). Eur. Phys. J. B , 5, 67–77. Bihannic, I., Baravian, C., Duval, J. F. L., Paineau, E., Meneau, F., Levitz, P., de Sil...

    work page 2012

  3. [46]

    Chen, S.-H. (1986). Ann. Rev. Phys. Chem. 37, 351–399. Chen, X., Burger, C., Fang, D., Ruan, D., Zhang, L., Hsiao, B. S. & Chu, B. (2006). Polymer, 47, 2839–2848. Cummins, P. G., Staples, E., Hayter, J. B. & Penfold, J. (1987).J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 1, 83, 2773–2786. De Gennes, P.-G. & Prost, J. (1993).The Physics of Liquid Crystals. Oxford: Oxford...

    work page 1986

  4. [55]

    & Gao, C

    Li, P., Yang, M., Liu, Y., Qin, H., Liu, J., Xu, Z., Liu, Y., Meng, F., Lin, J., Wang, F. & Gao, C. (2020). Nat. Commun. 11,

    work page 2020

  5. [70]

    Jerrard, H. G. (1959). Chem. Rev. 59, 345–428. Kalus, J., Chen, S. H., Hoffmann, H., Neubauer, G., Lindner, P. & Thurn, H. (1988). J. Appl. Cryst. 21, 777–780. Kardar, M. (2007). Statistical Physics of Particles . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kim, J. & Helgeson, M. E. (2016). Phys. Rev. Fluids , 1, 043302. IUCr macros version 2.1.10: 2016/01/28 ...

    work page 1959

  6. [291]

    Larson, R. G. (2013). Constitutive equations for polymer melts and solutions: Butterworths series in chemical engineering . Butterworth-Heinemann. Larsson, J., Williams, A. P., Wahlgren, M., Porcar, L., Ulvenlund, S., Nylander, T., Tabor, R. F. & Sanchez-Fernandez, A. (2022). J. Colloid Interface Sci. 606, 328–336. Le Brun, A. & Gilbert, E. P. (2024). Adv...

    work page 2013

  7. [2645]

    W., Nettesheim, F., Vasquez, P

    Liberatore, M. W., Nettesheim, F., Vasquez, P. A., Helgeson, M. E., Wagner, N. J., Kaler, E. W., Cook, L. P., Porcar, L. & Hu, Y. T. (2009). J. Rheol. 53, 441–458. Liberatore, M. W., Nettesheim, F., Wagner, N. J. & Porcar, L. (2006). Phys. Rev. E , 73, 020504. Lindner, P. (1991). In Neutron, X-ray and Light Scattering: Introduction to an Investigative Too...

    work page 2009

  8. [4018]

    H ˚ akansson, K. M. O., Lundell, F., Prahl-Wittberg, L. & S¨ oderberg, L. D. (2016).J. Phys. Chem. B , 120, 6674–6686. Jeffery, G. B. (1922). Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A , 102, 161–179. Jeffries, C. M., Ilavsky, J., Martel, A., Hinrichs, S., Meyer, A., Pedersen, J. S., Sokolova, A. V. & Svergun, D. I. (2021). Nat. Rev. Methods Primers , 1,

    work page 2016

Pith tools

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