Two floating camphor particles interacting through lateral capillary force

Hiroyuki Kitahata; Mamoru Okamoto; Masaharu Nagayama; Yuhei Hirose; Yuki Koyano; Yusuke Yasugahira; Yutaka Sumino

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Two floating camphor particles interacting through lateral capillary force

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that two floating camphor particles, with dissipative repulsion from their own chemical field and conservative attraction from lateral capillary force, exhibit six motion modes whose transitions follow from pitchfork and…

desk verdict Solid numerical phase diagram for camphor pairs with capillary attraction, but the linear-stability crossover claimed in Section IV doesn't follow from the printed eigenvalues. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.00545 v2 pith:RMTTFJI5 submitted 2019-09-02 nlin.PS cond-mat.soft

Yuhei Hirose , Yusuke Yasugahira , Mamoru Okamoto , Yuki Koyano , Hiroyuki Kitahata , Masaharu Nagayama , Yutaka Sumino This is my paper · ORCID

classification nlin.PScond-mat.soft MSC 37G1037N2035K57

keywords camphorparticleslateralcapillaryforceactivematterself-propelledreaction-diffusionmodelpitchforkbifurcationHopfinchwormmotion

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 two floating camphor particles on a water surface, driven by a self-generated chemical concentration field and pulled together by lateral capillary force, behave like a minimal active-matter system with two competing interactions: dissipative repulsion and conservative attraction. By simulating the one-dimensional reaction-diffusion model, the authors find six stable modes of motion—isolated translation, clustered translation, inchworm motion, head-on collision, standing oscillation, and standing cluster—with several parameter regions where two modes are bistable. The paper's central theoretical claim is that these mode transitions can be captured by a three-variable reduction of the full model: assuming the concentration field relaxes quickly, the system becomes ODEs for the two velocities and the separation, and linear stability analysis of the standing cluster yields a pitchfork boundary $\sigma_1=0$ and a Hopf boundary $\sigma_2=0$ that cross at $\xi_c\simeq0.818$. Accordingly, for strong capillary attraction the standing cluster gives way to clustered translation, while for weak attraction it gives way to standing oscillation. This matters because it shows how a small, chemically driven pair with long-range attraction can switch between qualitatively different collective motions through ordinary bifurcations.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the reduced three-variable system (Eqs. 27–29) for the particle velocities $v_1,v_2$ and separation $l$, derived by treating the concentration field as quasi-static around particles moving at constant speed and using the moving-frame profile $C(X,v_c)$. Linearizing this system around the standing cluster gives eigenvalues $\sigma_1$ and $\sigma_2 \pm i\omega_2$; the curves $\sigma_1=0$ and $\sigma_2=0$ are the pitchfork and Hopf boundaries, and their intersection fixes the crossover $(\eta_c,\xi_c)$ with $\xi_c\simeq0.818$. The same reduced system, linearized around the clustered translational state, yields the Hopf bifurcation to inchworm motion.

What would settle it

A direct scan of the original PDE-ODE model on a sufficiently large domain (or an experiment with two camphor disks) should reproduce the predicted boundary: standing cluster to standing oscillation for $\xi<\xi_c$ and to clustered translation for $\xi>\xi_c$. If the transition to oscillation persists well above $\xi_c\simeq0.818$, or if the inchworm Hopf line fails to match the reduced system's complex eigenvalue crossing, the quasi-static reduction is the point of failure.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a bifurcation-based account of mode selection in a two-particle camphor system. The authors newly include the lateral capillary force, making the particles attract each other conservatively while the concentration field repels them dissipatively, and they find that the competition between these two forces organizes the dynamics into six modes. The key result is that the standing cluster is destabilized along two different routes: a pitchfork bifurcation when the capillary coefficient satisfies $\xi>\xi_c\simeq0.818$, leading to clustered translational motion, and a Hopf bifurcation when $\xi<\xi_c$, leading to standing oscillation. Linear stability analysis of the clustered translational state then shows a Hopf bifurcation to the newly found inchworm motion, in which the separation oscillates while the pair's center of mass drifts. The paper thus claims that most of the numerically observed mode transitions are low-dimensional bifurcations of a three-variable reduced system, with the finite-size modes (isolated translation and head-on collision) appearing only because of the periodic boundary.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the camphor concentration field relaxes much faster than the particle velocities change, so the field can be treated as if each particle moves at a constant speed on the field's timescale.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For capillary intensities greater than $\xi_c\simeq0.818$, the standing cluster should destabilize monotonically into clustered translation; below it, destabilization should be oscillatory, giving standing oscillation.
The inchworm mode, in which the distance between particles oscillates while the pair translates, should appear through a Hopf bifurcation of the clustered translational state, so its onset can be located by the reduced system's complex eigenvalues.
Isolated translational motion and head-on collision are consequences of the finite periodic domain; in large or open domains they should disappear, leaving the four infinite-system modes.
Bistability near the bifurcation curves implies that hysteresis should be observable when $\eta$ or $\xi$ is slowly ramped up and down.
Within the inchworm mode, period-doubling bifurcations at intermediate $\eta$ should generate increasingly complex oscillations, consistent with the long oscillation periods seen near the mode's upper boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

If the quasi-static reduction holds beyond the two-particle case, similar pitchfork–Hopf competition should organize clustering and oscillation in multi-particle Marangoni-driven systems, making the two-particle phase diagram a building block for larger active aggregates.
Because the two interactions act over different length scales—the diffusion length for concentration repulsion and the capillary length for attraction—the relative range $q$ should control the crossover value $\xi_c$; varying $q$ experimentally would be a direct test of the predicted phase boundary.
Read as a chemotaxis model with long-range attraction, the same mode sequence could appear in synthetic chemically communicating colloids, where an attractive potential is added to the chemical repulsion.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: the paper is worth a referee's time, but the central theoretical claim—a pitchfork-Hopf crossover at ξc≈0.818—is not supported by the equations as written. The numerical work stands on its own.

What's new: adding the lateral capillary force to the standard camphor concentration-field model, a clean six-mode classification in 1D, and a newly observed inchworm motion with period-doubling hints. The order parameters and phase diagrams are carefully done; the numerical exploration looks reproducible from the description.

The analytical reduction to a 3-variable ODE is a reasonable strategy, and the single-particle concentration profile is standard. But the eigenvalue formulas (33) and (34) have a sign-definite combination: σ1 − 2σ2 = 2G e^{-l0}(r−1−l0) sinh 2r with G > 0. For r=0.3 and any l0>0, this is strictly negative, so σ1=0 and σ2=0 can never both hold. That means the claimed intersection at (ηc,ξc) does not exist for the parameters used in the paper's own numerics, and the pitchfork-vs-Hopf crossover argument collapses. It's possible there's a typo in the definitions of σ1/σ2, but as printed it's a load-bearing flaw.

One caveat: the stress-test also says Eq. (30) is wrong because the concentration difference gives sinh^2 r, not sinh 2r. If Eq. (30) is indeed sinh^2 r (as the rest of the derivation suggests), that concern evaporates. I'm flagging it only so you don't pass along both objections.

The quasi-static assumption is a genuine soft spot—the timescale separation is asserted, not validated for the scanned parameters. But that's a minor issue compared to the eigenvalue intersection problem.

Bottom line: the numerics are valuable and the inchworm mode is worth reporting. The theory section needs careful fixing before this can be accepted. I'd send it to review, with a request that the authors redo the stability calculation and either locate a true codim-2 point or revise the crossover discussion.

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper considers a one-dimensional model of two camphor particles floating on water, interacting through a repulsive Marangoni/concentration field and an attractive lateral capillary force. The authors numerically integrate the coupled PDE-ODE model and identify six modes of motion (isolated translation, clustered translation, inchworm motion, head-on collision, standing oscillation, and standing cluster). They define order parameters and present a phase diagram in the (η, ξ) plane. Analytically, they reduce the model to a three-variable ODE system by assuming that the concentration field relaxes faster than the particle velocities, then perform a linear stability analysis of the standing cluster. This yields explicit eigenvalues and two bifurcation curves, σ1 = 0 and σ2 = 0, whose crossing at ξc ≈ 0.818 separates a pitchfork-dominated from a Hopf-dominated destabilization. The stability of the clustered translational state is analyzed by numerically evaluating the eigenvalues of the linearized system, which reproduces the transition to inchworm motion. I have examined the concern that the σ1 and σ2 curves cannot intersect: that concern arises from reading 'sinh2r' in Eqs. (33)–(34) as sinh(2r) everywhere; the expressions in the manuscript use sinh^2 r in the second term, and with that reading the crossing at ξc ≈ 0.818 is consistent with the stated parameter values.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper provides a useful contribution to active-matter physics by introducing a conservative attractive interaction into a well-studied Marangoni-driven camphor system and showing that the competition between dissipative repulsion and conservative attraction yields a rich set of dynamical states, including a previously unreported inchworm mode with period-doubling. The numerical phase diagram is clearly presented and the order parameters are well chosen. The analytical treatment is genuinely parameter-free in the sense that no parameters are fitted to force agreement: the eigenvalue formulas follow from the stated dimensionless model, and the predicted pitchfork-Hopf crossover is a falsifiable quantitative prediction. The paper also benefits from explicit, reproducible model equations and a transparent numerical scheme. The main weakness is that the central analytical reduction rests on a quasi-static assumption that is not validated against the full PDE-ODE model in the parameter regimes used for the numerics.

major comments (1)

[Section IV, Eqs. (27)–(29)] The quasi-static reduction assumes that the relaxation of the concentration field is much faster than the acceleration and deceleration of the particles. With the dimensionless parameters used in the numerics (D = 1, α = 1, η ≈ 0.3–0.6), the concentration relaxation time is O(1) while the velocity relaxation time is O(1/η) ≈ 2–3, so the timescale separation is marginal at best. The authors do not provide a quantitative justification or a direct test of this reduction. Since all subsequent analytical phase boundaries, including the pitchfork and Hopf curves σ1 = 0 and σ2 = 0 in Fig. 6(a), rest on this assumption, the paper should validate it by comparing the reduced three-variable ODE with the full PDE-ODE model for the parameters of Fig. 2, for instance by measuring the actual stability thresholds in direct simulations and comparing them with the analytically predicted bifurcation points. Without such a check, the theoretical explanation of the observed mode transitions is not fully supported.

minor comments (5)

[Eqs. (30), (33), (34)] The notation 'sinh2r' is ambiguous and should be typeset as \sinh^2 r (or \sinh^2(r)) to distinguish it from \sinh(2r). This distinction is essential because the sign of the e^{-l0}(r sinh 2r − (1+l0) sinh^2 r) term controls the existence of the pitchfork-Hopf crossing.
[Section III, after Eq. (18)] The statement that 'the values of the other parameters w, ε, L, and r do not affect the bifurcation structure' is too strong, because r appears explicitly in the eigenvalue formulas (33)–(34) and ε controls the short-range repulsion for l ≤ 2r. Please qualify this statement to the parameter regimes actually studied.
[Fig. 5] The reported period-doubling bifurcations occur in narrow intervals (0.434 < η < 0.436 and 0.456 < η < 0.458). The authors should state the criterion used to identify these bifurcation points and indicate whether they are supercritical or subcritical.
[Section IV, after Eq. (37)] The sentence stating that the values of (v, l1) are continuously connected to (v, l0) on the curve σ1 = 0, 'which means the pitchfork bifurcation at σ1 = 0 is supercritical', is not a proof of supercriticality by itself. Either provide the sign of the relevant cubic coefficient or soften the claim to 'consistent with a supercritical pitchfork bifurcation'.
[Section V] There is a typo in 'Maranogoni-driven'; it should read 'Marangoni-driven'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the bifurcation analysis is derived from the stated model equations, with no fitted parameters or circular self-citation chains.

full rationale

The analytical section solves the stated model (Eqs. (19)-(23)) directly: the standing-cluster solution (Eq. (30)) is obtained by solving F1=F2=F3=0, and the eigenvalue formulas (Eqs. (33)-(36)) follow from linearizing around that solution. The moving-frame concentration profile (Eq. (26)) is attributed to [49], but it is an elementary solution of the linear ODE (Eq. (25)) and does not encode the bifurcation results; the self-citation is therefore not load-bearing in a circular sense. The theoretical phase diagram is compared with the numerical phase diagram of the same model, so the agreement is an internal-consistency check rather than a fit. No parameter is tuned to reproduce the numerical modes, and the reported crossover xi_c is a derived quantity, not an input. The paper also explicitly acknowledges qualitative discrepancies between theory and numerics due to the finite system size, which is inconsistent with a narrative in which the theory was constructed to match the numerics. Whether Eqs. (30), (33), and (34) are algebraically correct is a separate correctness question; even if the displayed crossing point were miscomputed, that would be an error in the derivation, not circular reasoning. No self-definition, fitted-input-as-prediction, uniqueness-imported-from-authors, ansatz-smuggled-via-citation, or renaming-of-known-result pattern is present in the claimed derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the assumed form of two interaction channels (repulsive concentration coupling and attractive capillary force) and on a fast-relaxation approximation for the concentration field. The dimensionless parameters are hand-set, not fitted to experiments. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (8)

friction coefficient eta = scanned 0.20 to 0.70
Control parameter varied to change the dissipative force; the phase diagram is mapped against it.
capillary force intensity xi = scanned 0 to 1.0
Control parameter varied to change the conservative attractive lateral capillary force.
inverse capillary length q = 0.4
Fixed in dimensionless units; chosen so that q<1 to enable competition between interactions.
particle radius r = 0.3
Fixed in dimensionless units; small compared to system size.
concentration coupling Gamma = 5.0
Fixed; the paper states the ratio between eta and Gamma matters, so Gamma sets the force scale.
short-range repulsion steepness epsilon = 0.001
Fixed small parameter controlling the hard-core-like repulsion when particles overlap.
system size L = 40.0
Periodic box length; chosen large compared to the diffusion length, but modes i and iv depend on this finite size.
particle width w = 1.0
Dimensionality-compensating length in the one-dimensional model; fixed to unity.

assumptions (7)

domain assumption The camphor concentration evolves by a linear reaction-diffusion equation with sublimation (Eq. 11).
Standard model for camphor-water systems, cited from prior work.
domain assumption Surface tension depends linearly on camphor concentration, gamma=gamma0-Gamma c (Eq. 4).
Linear equation of state; assumed to hold for small Gamma.
domain assumption The lateral capillary force between two identical menisci is Fint=xi exp(-q l) for l>2r (Eq. 10).
Taken from Kralchevsky and Nagayama, assuming small meniscus slopes and identical contact angles.
ad hoc to paper The concentration modulation Gamma is small enough that it does not affect the capillary force.
Stated in Section II as an assumption to decouple the two interaction channels.
domain assumption The concentration field relaxes much faster than particle acceleration, and velocities are constant over the concentration timescale.
Stated at the start of Section IV; this quasi-static reduction is required for the three-variable dynamical system.
ad hoc to paper For l<=2r, the force is a linear short-range repulsion continuous with the exponential form (Eq. 10).
Added to model excluded volume; the specific linear form and small epsilon are not derived from physics.
standard math Linear stability analysis and bifurcation theorems apply to the reduced three-variable system.
Routine eigenvalue analysis around stationary solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Two floating camphor particles interacting through lateral capillary force." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RMTTFJI5

@misc{pith2026190900545,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Two floating camphor particles interacting through lateral capillary force},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RMTTFJI5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.00545}
}

read the original abstract

We consider a mathematical model for a two-particle system driven by the spatial gradient of a concentration field of chemicals with conservative attractive interactions in one dimension. This setup corresponds to an experimental system with floating camphor particles at a water surface. Repulsive interaction is introduced, as well as self-propelling force, through the concentration field of camphor molecules at the water surface. Here we newly adopt the attractive lateral capillary force due to the deformation of the water surface. The particles experience competing dissipative repulsion and conservative attraction. We numerically investigated the mathematical model, and found six different modes of motion. The theoretical approach revealed that some of such mode transitions can be understood in terms of bifurcation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.00545 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Phase diagram for stable modes numerically ob [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Order parameters depending on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Plots of peak values (=Local maximum dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Phase diagram obtained from the theoretical anal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

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

ActiveCheerios: 3D-Printed Marangoni-Driven Active Particles at an Interface
cond-mat.soft 2024-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

3D-printed ethanol-powered particles move on water via the Marangoni effect and cluster via the Cheerios effect, with designs that translate, spin, and link into programmable assemblies.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

S. J. Ebbens and J. R. Howse, Soft Matter 6, 726 (2010)

work page 2010
[2]

C. C. Maass, C. Krger, S. Herminghaus, and C. Bahr, Annual Rev. Condens. Mat. Phys. 7, 171 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liv- erpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1143 (2013)

work page 2013
[4]

Vicsek and A

T. Vicsek and A. Zafeiris, Phys. Rep. 517, 71 (2012)

2012
[5]

M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Annu. Rev. Condens. Mat. Phys. 6, 219 (2015)

work page 2015
[6]

Y. L. Klimontovich, Phys.-Uspekhi 37, 737 (1994)

work page 1994
[7]

Schweitzer, W

F. Schweitzer, W. Ebeling, and B. Tilch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5044 (1998)

work page 1998
[8]

Fily and M

Y. Fily and M. C. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 235702 (2012). 9

work page 2012

Show all 50 references

[9]

Stenhammar, A

J. Stenhammar, A. Tiribocchi, R. J. Allen, D. Maren- duzzo, and M. E. Cates, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 145702 (2013)

2013
[10]

D. A. Brown and H. C. Berg, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 71, 1388 (1974)

1974
[11]

J. M. Mato, A. Losada, V. Nanjundiah, and T. M. Konijn, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA72, 4991 (1975)

1975
[12]

M. J. Caterina and P. N. Devreotes, FASEB J. 5, 3078 (1991)

1991
[13]

E. O. Budrene and H. C. Berg, Nature 349, 630 (1991)

1991
[14]

E. O. Budrene and H. C. Berg, Nature 376, 49 (1995)

1995
[15]

Itoh, J.-i

H. Itoh, J.-i. Wakita, T. Matsuyama, and M. Matsushita, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 68, 1436 (1999)

1999
[16]

Nakahara, Y

A. Nakahara, Y. Shimada, J.-i. Wakita, M. Matsushita, and T. Matsuyama, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 65, 2700 (1996)

1996
[17]

Nakata, Y

S. Nakata, Y. Iguchi, S. Ose, M. Kuboyama, T. Ishii, and K. Yoshikawa, Langmuir 13, 4454 (1997)

1997
[18]

Nakata, M

S. Nakata, M. Nagayama, H. Kitahata, N. J. Suematsu, and T. Hasegawa, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 17, 10326 (2015)

2015
[19]

Nakata, V

S. Nakata, V. Pimienta, I. Lagzi, H. Kitahata, and N. J. Suematsu, Self-organized Motion (R. Soc. Chem., Cambridge, 2019)

2019
[20]

Hayashima, M

Y. Hayashima, M. Nagayama, and S. Nakata, J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 5353 (2001)

2001
[21]

Nagayama, S

M. Nagayama, S. Nakata, Y. Doi, and Y. Hayashima, Physica D 194, 151 (2004)

2004
[22]

Koyano, T

Y. Koyano, T. Sakurai, and H. Kitahata, Phys. Rev. E 94, 042215 (2016)

2016
[23]

Koyano, N

Y. Koyano, N. J. Suematsu, and H. Kitahata, Phys. Rev. E 99, 022211 (2019)

2019
[24]

Boniface, C

D. Boniface, C. Cottin-Bizonne, R. Kervil, C. Ybert, and F. Detcheverry, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062605 (2019)

2019
[25]

Koyano, M

Y. Koyano, M. Gryciuk, P. Skrobanska, M. Malecki, Y. Sumino, H. Kitahata, and J. Gorecki, Phys. Rev. E 96, 012609 (2017)

2017
[26]

Bekki, M

S. Bekki, M. Vignes-Adler, E. Nakache, and P. Adler, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 140 492 (1990)

1990
[27]

Bekki, M

S. Bekki, M. Vignes-Adler, and E. Nakache, J. Colloid Interface Sci. 152, 314 (1992)

1992
[28]

Nagai, Y

K. Nagai, Y. Sumino, H. Kitahata, and K. Yoshikawa, Phys. Rev. E 71, 065301 (2005)

2005
[29]

Sumino, N

Y. Sumino, N. Magome, T. Hamada, and K. Yoshikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 94, 068301 (2005)

2005
[30]

A. S. Mikhailov and V. Calenbuhr, From Cells to Soci- eties (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2002)

2002
[31]

M. I. Kohira, Y. Hayashima, M. Nagayama, and S. Nakata, Langmuir 17, 7124 (2001)

2001
[32]

Schulz and M

O. Schulz and M. Markus, J. Phys. Chem. B 111, 8175 (2007)

2007
[33]

S. Soh, K. J. M. Bishop, and B. A. Grzybowski, J. Phys. Chem. B 112, 10848 (2008)

2008
[34]

S. Soh, M. Branicki, and B. A. Grzybowski, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 2, 770 (2011)

2011
[35]

S.-I. Ei, H. Kitahata, Y. Koyano, and M. Nagayama, Physica D 366, 10 (2018)

2018
[36]

Sharma, I

J. Sharma, I. Tiwari, D. Das, P. Parmananda, V. S. Akella, and V. Pimienta, Phys. Rev. E 99, 012204 (2019)

2019
[37]

Ikeda, S.-I

K. Ikeda, S.-I. Ei, M. Nagayama, M. Okamoto, and A. Tomoeda, Phys. Rev. E 99, 062208 (2019)

2019
[38]

Morohashi, M

H. Morohashi, M. Imai, and T. Toyota, Chem. Phys. Lett. 721, 104 (2019)

2019
[39]

L. E. Scriven and C. V. Sternling, Nature 187, 186 (1960)

1960
[40]

Kitahata and N

H. Kitahata and N. Yoshinaga, J. Chem. Phys. 148, 134906 (2018)

2018
[41]

N. J. Suematsu, T. Sasaki, S. Nakata, and H. Kitahata, Langmuir 30, 8101 (2014)

2014
[42]

Nishimori, N

H. Nishimori, N. J. Suematsu, and S. Nakata, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 101012 (2017)

2017
[43]

Y. S. Ikura, E. Heisler, A. Awazu, H. Nishimori, and S. Nakata, Phys. Rev. E 88, 012911 (2013)

2013
[44]

Nishi, K

K. Nishi, K. Wakai, T. Ueda, M. Yoshii, Y. S. Ikura, H. Nishimori, S. Nakata, and M. Nagayama, Phys. Rev. E 92, 022910 (2015)

2015
[45]

N. J. Suematsu, K. Tateno, S. Nakata, and H. Nishimori, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 84, 034802 (2015)

2015
[46]

P. A. Kralchevsky and K. Nagayama, Adv. Colloid In- terface Sci. 85, 145 (2000)

2000
[47]

P. A. Kralchevsky and N. D. Denkov, Curr. Opin. Colloid Interface Sci. 6, 383 (2001)

2001
[48]

de Gennes, F

P.-G. de Gennes, F. Brochard-Wyart, D. Qu´ er´ e, A. Reisinger, and B. Widom, Phys. Today 57, 66 (2004)

2004
[49]

Shimokawa, M

M. Shimokawa, M. Oho, K. Tokuda, and H. Kitahata, Phys. Rev. E 98, 022606 (2018)

2018
[50]

Tanaka, S

S. Tanaka, S. Nakata, and T. Kano, J. Phys. Soc. Jpn. 86, 101004 (2017)

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

S. J. Ebbens and J. R. Howse, Soft Matter 6, 726 (2010)

work page 2010

[2] [2]

C. C. Maass, C. Krger, S. Herminghaus, and C. Bahr, Annual Rev. Condens. Mat. Phys. 7, 171 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

M. C. Marchetti, J. F. Joanny, S. Ramaswamy, T. B. Liv- erpool, J. Prost, M. Rao, and R. A. Simha, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 1143 (2013)

work page 2013

[4] [4]

Vicsek and A

T. Vicsek and A. Zafeiris, Phys. Rep. 517, 71 (2012)

2012

[5] [5]

M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Annu. Rev. Condens. Mat. Phys. 6, 219 (2015)

work page 2015

[6] [6]

Y. L. Klimontovich, Phys.-Uspekhi 37, 737 (1994)

work page 1994

[7] [7]

Schweitzer, W

F. Schweitzer, W. Ebeling, and B. Tilch, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5044 (1998)

work page 1998

[8] [8]

Fily and M

Y. Fily and M. C. Marchetti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 235702 (2012). 9

work page 2012