Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

A lattice Boltzmann study of particle settling in a fluctuating multicomponent fluid under confinement

T0 review · 2 major / 4 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 A fluctuating lattice Boltzmann simulation matches, with no free parameters, the Langevin prediction for a confined settling particle's velocity fluctuations.

desk verdict Solid validation of FLBM against the Langevin/equipartition prediction for a confined settling particle, but Eq. (15) is dimensionally wrong as printed and must be fixed before this is citable. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.01092 v3 pith:W4HLPBMT submitted 2019-08-25 cond-mat.soft physics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn

Xiao Xue , Luca Biferale , Mauro Sbragaglia , Federico Toschi This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.comp-phphysics.flu-dyn PACS 47.61.-k05.40.-a05.40.Jc05.10.Gg
keywords FluctuatinglatticeBoltzmannmethodBinaryfluidmixturesBrownianmotionConfinedsedimentationVelocityfluctuationsLangevinequationParticlewettabilityMicrochannelflow
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 aims to show that a fluctuating lattice Boltzmann method for a binary fluid mixture, coupled to a finite-size spherical particle with tunable wettability, quantitatively reproduces the motion of a particle settling under a constant body force in a confined channel. The central quantitative claim is a parameter-free match to a Langevin prediction for the steady-state velocity fluctuations, $\Delta U_{\rm conf} = \sqrt{6/(\pi \rho_p L^3)} (k_B T)^{1/2} (d/L)^{-3/2}$, across changes in particle size, thermal energy, driving force, and wettability. A sympathetic reader would care because the same mesoscale method, once validated against the no-fluctuation drift velocity data, becomes a tool to predict when thermal noise dominates a confined settling trajectory. The paper also establishes that confinement increases the ratio of velocity fluctuations to mean settling velocity by up to an order of magnitude compared with the unconfined Stokes baseline, purely through the reduction of the mean velocity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the coupling of the fluctuating lattice Boltzmann method (FLBM) for a multicomponent mixture — a D3Q19 lattice with Shan-Chen interactions and a stochastic stress and diffusion noise obeying the fluctuation-dissipation theorem — to a finite-size particle model with bounce-back boundary conditions, mass correction for cover and uncover nodes, and a virtual fluid layer that tunes wettability. The argument is carried by the Langevin equation (Eq. 11), whose confined friction $\gamma_{\rm conf}$ is taken from the measured no-fluctuation drag ratio $c_m$, and whose noise amplitude $2\gamma_{\rm conf} k_B T$ follows from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem. This yields the parameter-free identity Eq. (14) for the variance, $\Delta U_{\rm conf} = \sqrt{6/(\pi \rho_p L^3)} (k_B T)^{1/2} (d/L)^{-3/2}$, and the companion expression Eq. (15) for the relative fluctuation level.

What would settle it

Measure the particle's velocity variance as a function of its distance from the end walls in the same geometry: if the variance changes when the particle enters the wall-affected region, or if the variance measured in the middle of the channel differs from the average over the whole trajectory, the homogeneous-window assumption fails and the parameter-free match to Eq. (14) is not universal.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central discovery is that a simplified Langevin equation with Gaussian white noise and an effective confinement-modified friction $\gamma_{\rm conf}$ captures the full statistical steady state of a settling particle in the fluctuating multicomponent lattice Boltzmann simulation. The velocity distribution is Gaussian with variance $k_B T / m_p$, independent of the driving force and of the friction, and the measured variance obeys Eq. (14) exactly, including the prefactor $\sqrt{6/(\pi \rho_p L^3)}$, with no adjustable parameters. Because the confinement factor $c_m$ suppresses the mean settling velocity while leaving the variance untouched, the relative fluctuation level $\Delta U_{\rm conf}/\langle U_{\rm conf}\rangle$ is enhanced by a factor up to about ten compared with the unconfined Stokes prediction, an effect the authors demonstrate for both small and large driving forces and thermal energies. The match is nontrivial because the coarse-grained hydrodynamic interpretation of the FLBM could in principle be violated by mesoscale fields that do not vary smoothly in space and time.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the closed channel offers a statistically steady, translationally homogeneous stretch of particle motion in which the settling particle never approaches the end walls closely enough to change its friction or its fluctuation statistics.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In a confined channel, the particle's velocity variance is set by $k_B T / m_p$, so it neither depends on the driving force nor on the modified friction; only the mean velocity feels the confinement.
  • The ratio of velocity fluctuations to mean settling velocity scales as $(d/L)^{-7/2} g^{-1}$ multiplied by the confinement factor, so confinement can push relative fluctuations an order of magnitude above the unconfined Stokes baseline.
  • The numerical method reproduces the confined drift velocity data of earlier experiments and numerics without fluctuations, validating the friction model before the noise is switched on.
  • Wettability of the particle surface has almost no effect on either the mean drift velocity or the velocity fluctuations in the range of parameters studied.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the result generalizes beyond the simulated range, the variance's independence from friction makes the relative fluctuation level $\Delta U/\langle U\rangle$ a friction-free probe of thermal energy in confined suspensions.
  • A direct experimental test would be to measure the velocity variance of a settling colloid in a microchannel: Eq. (14) predicts it with no free parameters, provided the measurement window avoids end walls.
  • The sharp $(d/L)^{-7/2}$ growth of relative fluctuations with decreasing particle size at fixed confinement suggests either a practical noise floor for size-based sorting or a usable signal for sensing.
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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper couples a fluctuating lattice Boltzmann method for multicomponent fluids with a finite-size, wettability-tunable particle model, and uses this tool to simulate a sphere settling under a constant body force in a closed channel of square cross-section. After validating the deterministic drag against previous numerical and experimental data, the authors study the steady-state statistics of the particle velocity under thermal fluctuations. They report that the velocity variance matches, with no fitted parameters, the equipartition-based prediction of Eq. (14), and they quantify the ratio of velocity fluctuations to mean settling velocity, arguing that confinement enhances this ratio by up to an order of magnitude relative to the unconfined Stokes prediction. The central quantitative comparison for this enhancement is Eq. (15), which is claimed to follow from Eqs. (10) and (14).

Significance. If the results hold, this is a valuable validation of FLBM as a quantitative tool for confined colloidal dynamics: the parameter-free agreement with Eq. (14) across thermal energy, driving force, and particle size is a strong, non-tautological test, and the deterministic validation against external data in Fig. 2 provides independent support for the numerical setup. The paper also makes a concrete falsifiable prediction about the confinement-induced amplification of velocity fluctuations. However, the printed form of Eq. (15), the expression that anchors the central confinement-enhancement claim, is dimensionally inconsistent and cannot be the formula actually used to generate Fig. 7; this must be corrected before the main claim is fully supported.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (15)] Equation (15) is dimensionally inconsistent and does not follow from Eqs. (10) and (14). Using Fp = (pi/6)d^3(rho_p - rho_tot)g, rho_p = 2 rho_tot, gamma_unconf = 3 pi eta d, and U_conf = c_m Fp/gamma_unconf, one obtains Delta U_conf/U_conf = 18 sqrt(6) eta (k_BT)^{1/2} / [sqrt(pi rho_p) rho_tot g L^{7/2} c_m] (d/L)^{-7/2}. The printed expression instead contains an extra factor of eta, an extra factor of rho_tot, an extra rho_p, an extra pi, and L^7 rather than L^{7/2}, and it has units of M^{-1/2}/T. For the Fig. 7(a) parameters, the printed formula gives about 10^{-7}, whereas the corrected expression gives a ratio of order 10. Therefore the theory curves in Fig. 7 cannot have been generated with the printed Eq. (15). The authors must correct Eq. (15) and confirm that the curves in Fig. 7 use the corrected formula; if the figure used the corrected formula, the text needs a straightforward revision, but if the printed formula was used, the data-theory comparison in Fig. 7 is unsupported as stated.
  2. [Section III and IV, measurement protocol] The paper does not document where in the Lz = 900 lbu channel the particle is during the statistically steady averaging window. The authors state that after the particle reaches a stationary state the data are split into five equal time intervals, but they do not specify how the analysis window avoids the closed z-end walls, the transient after release, or any drift in the particle's axial position. This matters because both the friction coefficient and the fluctuation statistics could vary near the end walls, and the comparison with Eqs. (10)--(15) assumes a translationally homogeneous, statistically steady window. Please specify the spatial and temporal window used for the averages, the maximum particle displacement during the measurement, and the distance maintained from the end walls, or otherwise justify that end-wall effects are negligible.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption states that panel (b) corresponds to d/L = 0.47, while the panel label in the figure itself reads d/L = 0.67; this inconsistency should be resolved.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (7)] The stochastic term in Eq. (11) is called xi(t) in the text but written as zeta(t) in the fluctuation-dissipation relation; please make the notation consistent.
  3. [Section IV, Fig. 7] The 'confined theory' curve in Fig. 7 uses c_m measured from the same simulations; this is not a fully parameter-free prediction, although c_m was separately validated against external data in Fig. 2. The text should state explicitly that the confined curve in Fig. 7 uses the simulated c_m, so that readers do not mistake it for an ab initio prediction.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'This newly coupled methodologies' in the abstract is grammatically incorrect; it should be 'These newly coupled methodologies'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Confined fluctuation ratio in Eq. (15) uses simulation-measured cm, so the Fig. 7 'theory' is partly built from the data; core Eq. (14) is parameter-free.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eq. (15); Eq. (10); Fig. 7]
    "Based on Eqs. (10) and (14) and U (z) unconf = Fp/γunconf, γunconf = 3πηd, we obtain [Eq. (15)] where we have related the particle’s velocity to the unconfined velocity via the ratio cm (cfr. Eq. (10)). ... cm(d/L) = U (z) conf / U (z) unconf."

    The confined 'theoretical prediction' in Eq. (15) is not parameter-free: it inserts cm, defined in Eq. (10) as the ratio of the confined drift velocity measured in these simulations to the Stokes value U_unconf. Hence the theory curve labeled 'Eq. (15)' in Fig. 7 has as its denominator the same simulation data it is compared with, so agreement of the confined ratio is partly guaranteed by construction. Only the cm=1 (unconfined) curve in Eq. (15) is an independent prediction. This circularity is limited to the ratio plot; Eq. (14), the velocity-variance prediction, is tested independently and parameter-free in Figs. 4–6.

full rationale

The central parameter-free result is Eq. (14), derived directly from the Langevin steady-state variance sigma^2 = kBT/m_p with m_p = pi d^3 rho_p/6; it contains no simulation-fitted parameters and is checked against FLBM data in Figs. 4–6, including the prefactor. The FLBM noise is implemented via fluctuation-dissipation in Ref. [28] (same research group), but that is a methodological citation with independent derivations, not a load-bearing uniqueness theorem. The confined ratio in Eq. (15), however, is built from the simulation-measured confinement factor cm (Eq. (10)), so Fig. 7's 'confined theory' is semi-empirical rather than a first-principles prediction; agreement there is partly by construction. Separately, Eq. (15) as printed is dimensionally inconsistent and appears to contain algebra errors; that is a correctness concern, not a circularity. Overall, the main fluctuation prediction is self-contained, with one mild circular use of measured cm in the ratio analysis.

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

The central claim depends on the fidelity of the FLBM noise, the particle-fluid coupling, and the steady-state measurement protocol. Model parameters such as G, ρA, ρB, D, η, ρp/ρtot, and the contact-angle corrections are chosen inputs, not fitted to the fluctuation result; they shape the effective mass, viscosity, and wetting, which enter the predicted variances.

free parameters (5)
  • Shan-Chen interaction strength G = 1.5 lbu
    Sets the non-ideal interaction strength so the binary mixture phase-separates; chosen by the authors, not fitted to the fluctuation result.
  • Bulk fluid densities ρA, ρB = ρA=2.21 lbu, ρB=0.09 lbu
    Sets a majority/minority composition in the bulk; chosen by the authors.
  • Fluid transport coefficients D, η = D=1/6 lbu, η=0.383 lbu
    Fixed via the MRT relaxation times; standard model inputs.
  • Particle density ratio ρp/ρtot = 2
    Sets the particle's mass and therefore the equipartition variance kBT/mp; chosen by the authors.
  • Wettability parameter Δρ (virtual fluid layer) = Produces contact angles 120.5°, 90°, 55.0°
    Tuned to model hydrophobic, neutral, and hydrophilic particles; nearly no effect on the reported statistics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The FLBM stochastic source implements the fluctuation-dissipation theorem for the fluid.
    Adopted from Belardinelli et al. (2015); the paper tests but does not re-derive this.
  • domain assumption The bounce-back particle method with virtual fluid layer preserves momentum and yields the correct hydrodynamic friction.
    Adopted from Ladd (1994), Aidun et al. (1998), Jansen and Harting (2011).
  • standard math A single scalar Langevin equation with constant friction γ_conf describes the particle's steady-state velocity statistics in confinement.
    Standard statistical mechanics; the paper checks the resulting Gaussianity and variance.
  • ad hoc to paper The finite channel length Lz=900 and closed end walls do not affect the measurement window.
    No analysis or discussion is provided for how the averaging window avoids end effects, yet the steady-state statistics depend on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The particle's wettability does not alter the fluctuation-dissipation balance.
    Only three contact angles are tested; no separate validation of noise properties per wettability is provided.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A lattice Boltzmann study of particle settling in a fluctuating multicomponent fluid under confinement." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W4HLPBMT

@misc{pith2026190901092,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A lattice Boltzmann study of particle settling in a fluctuating multicomponent fluid under confinement},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W4HLPBMT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.01092}
}
read the original abstract

We present mesoscale numerical simulations based on the coupling of the fluctuating lattice Boltzmann method (FLBM) for multicomponent systems with a wetted finite-size particle model. This newly coupled methodologies are used to study the motion of a spherical particle driven by a constant body force in a confined channel with a fixed square cross-section. The channel is filled with a mixture of two liquids under the effect of thermal fluctuations. After some validations steps in absence of fluctuations, we study the fluctuations in the particle's velocity at changing thermal energy, applied force, particle size, and particle wettability. The importance of fluctuations with respect to the mean settling velocity is quantitatively assessed, especially in comparison to unconfined situations. Results show that the expected effects of confinement are very well captured by the numerical simulations, wherein the confinement strongly enhances the importance of velocity fluctuations, which can be one order of magnitude larger than what expected in unconfined domains. The observed findings underscore the versatility of the proposed methodology in highlighting the effects of confinement on the motion of particles in presence of thermal fluctuations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.01092 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Sketch of the setup for the particle settling numerical simulations. The computational box is a rectangular [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: We report the ratio, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Panel (a): Standardized PDFs of particle’s drift velocity at fixed volume force g = 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Particle’s velocity fluctuations ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Particle’s velocity fluctuations as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Particle’s velocity fluctuations as a function of the thermal energy k [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Particle’s velocity fluctuations normalized to the average velocity in both confined (conf) and unconfined [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 50 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Landau, E.M

    L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Course of theoretical physics (Elsevier, 2013)

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    L.E. Reichl. A modern course in statistical physics (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    Toschi, E

    F. Toschi, E. Bodenschatz, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 41, 375 (2009)

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    A. Ladd, R. Verberg, J. Stat. Phys. 104(5-6), 1191 (2001)

    work page 2001

  5. [5]

    Lamb, Hydrodynamics (Cambridge university press, 1993)

    H. Lamb, Hydrodynamics (Cambridge university press, 1993)

    work page 1993

  6. [6]

    Milne-Thomson, Theoretical hydrodynamics (Courier Corporation, 1996)

    L.M. Milne-Thomson, Theoretical hydrodynamics (Courier Corporation, 1996)

    work page 1996

  7. [7]

    Landau, E.M

    L.D. Landau, E.M. Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics (Pergamon, 1959)

    work page 1959

  8. [8]

    De Zarate, J.V

    J.M.O. De Zarate, J.V. Sengers, Hydrodynamic fluctuations in fluids and fluid mixtures (Elsevier, 2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Succi, The lattice Boltzmann equation: for fluid dynamics and beyond (Oxford university press, 2001)

    S. Succi, The lattice Boltzmann equation: for fluid dynamics and beyond (Oxford university press, 2001)

    2001

  2. [10]

    J. Wu, C.K. Aidun, Int. J. Numer. Meth. Fluids. 62(7), 765 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Nguyen, A.J.C

    N.Q. Nguyen, A.J.C. Ladd, Phys. Rev. E 66(4), 046708 (2002)

    2002

  4. [12]

    X. He, S. Chen, R. Zhang, J. Comput. Phys. 152(2), 642 (1999)

    1999

  5. [13]

    Liu, A.J

    H. Liu, A.J. Valocchi, Q. Kang, Phys. Rev. E 85(4), 046309 (2012)

    2012

  6. [14]

    T. Reis, T. Phillips, J. Phys. A 40(14), 4033 (2007)

    2007

  7. [15]

    Chiappini, M

    D. Chiappini, M. Sbragaglia, X. Xue, G. Falcucci, Phys. Rev. E 99, 053305 (2019)

    2019

  8. [16]

    Chiappini, X

    D. Chiappini, X. Xue, G. Falcucci, M. Sbragaglia, AIP Conf. Proc. 1978(1), 420003 (2018)

    2018

  9. [17]

    Milan, M

    F. Milan, M. Sbragaglia, L. Biferale, F. Toschi, Eur. Physc. J. E 41(1), 6 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Ahlrichs, B

    P. Ahlrichs, B. D¨ unweg, J. Chem. Phys.111(17), 8225 (1999)

    1999

  11. [19]

    Ahlrichs, B

    P. Ahlrichs, B. D¨ unweg, Int. J. Mod. Phys. C9(08), 1429 (1998)

    1998

  12. [20]

    Berk Usta, A.J

    O. Berk Usta, A.J. Ladd, J.E. Butler, J. Chem. Phys. 122(9), 094902 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    de Graaf, H

    J. de Graaf, H. Menke, A.J. Mathijssen, M. Fabritius, C. Holm, T.N. Shendruk, J. Chem. Phys. 144(13), 134106 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Gross, M.E

    M. Gross, M.E. Cates, F. Varnik, R. Adhikari, J. Stat. Mech.: Theory and Exp. 3, P03030 (2011)

    2011

  15. [23]

    A. Ladd, J. Fluid Mech. 271, 285 (1994)

    1994

  16. [24]

    Adhikari, K

    R. Adhikari, K. Stratford, M.E. Cates, A.J. Wagner, Europhys. Lett. 71, 473 (2005)

    2005

  17. [25]

    D¨ unweg, U.D

    B. D¨ unweg, U.D. Schiller, A.J.C. Ladd, Phys. Rev. E76, 036704 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Gross, R

    M. Gross, R. Adhikari, M.E. Cates, F. Varnik, Phys. Rev. E 82, 056714 (2010)

    2010

  19. [27]

    Kaehler, A.J

    G. Kaehler, A.J. Wagner, Phys. Rev. E 87, 063310 (2013)

    2013

  20. [28]

    Belardinelli, M

    D. Belardinelli, M. Sbragaglia, L. Biferale, M. Gross, F. Varnik, Phys. Rev. E 91, 023313 (2015)

    2015

  21. [29]

    Belardinelli, M

    D. Belardinelli, M. Sbragaglia, R. Benzi, S. Ciliberto, Phys. Rev. E 99, 063302 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    X. Xue, M. Sbragaglia, L. Biferale, F. Toschi, Phys. Rev. E 98(1), 012802 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    A.J. Ladd, J. Fluid Mech. 271, 285 (1994)

    1994

  24. [32]

    Aidun, Y

    C.K. Aidun, Y. Lu, E.J. Ding, J. Fluid Mech. 373, 287 (1998) 12

    1998

  25. [33]

    Jansen, J

    F. Jansen, J. Harting, Phys. Rev. E 83(4), 046707 (2011)

    2011

  26. [34]

    Kr¨ uger, H

    T. Kr¨ uger, H. Kusumaatmaja, A. Kuzmin, O. Shardt, G. Silva, E.M. Viggen, Springer International Publishing 10, 978 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    d’Humi` eres, I

    D. d’Humi` eres, I. Ginzburg, M. Krafczyk, P. Lallemand, L.S. Luo, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. London, Ser. A 360, 437 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Schiller, Thermal fluctuations and boundary conditions in the lattice boltzmann method

    U.D. Schiller, Thermal fluctuations and boundary conditions in the lattice boltzmann method. Ph.D. thesis, Johannes Gutenberg-Universit¨ at, Mainz (2008)

    2008

  29. [37]

    X. Shan, H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 47, 1815 (1993)

    1993

  30. [38]

    X. Shan, H. Chen, Phys. Rev. E 49, 2941 (1994)

    1994

  31. [39]

    Zhang, Microfluid

    J. Zhang, Microfluid. Nanofluid. 10, 1 (2011)

    2011

  32. [40]

    Sbragaglia, D

    M. Sbragaglia, D. Belardinelli, Phys. Rev. E 88, 013306 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    M. Sega, M. Sbragaglia, S.S. Kantorovich, A.O. Ivanovd, Soft Matter 9, 10092 (2013)

    2013

  34. [42]

    Allen, D.J

    M.P. Allen, D.J. Tildesley, Computer simulation of liquids (Oxford university press, 2017)

    2017

  35. [43]

    Happel, H

    J. Happel, H. Brenner, Low Reynolds number hydrodynamics: with special applications to particulate media, vol. 1 (Springer Science & Business Media, 2012)

    2012

  36. [44]

    Ganatos, R

    P. Ganatos, R. Pfeffer, S. Weinbaum, J. Fluid Mech. 99(4), 755 (1980)

    1980

  37. [45]

    Ganatos, S

    P. Ganatos, S. Weinbaum, R. Pfeffer, J. Fluid Mech. 99(4), 739 (1980)

    1980

  38. [46]

    Keh, P.Y

    H.J. Keh, P.Y. Chen, Chem. Eng. Sci. 56(24), 6863 (2001)

    2001

  39. [47]

    Miyamura, S

    A. Miyamura, S. Iwasaki, T. Ishii, Int. J. Multiphase Flow 7(1), 41 (1981)

    1981

  40. [48]

    Risken, in The Fokker-Planck Equation (Springer, 1996), pp

    H. Risken, in The Fokker-Planck Equation (Springer, 1996), pp. 63–95

    1996

  41. [49]

    Kubo, Rep

    R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 29(1), 255 (1966)

    1966

  42. [50]

    Boniello, C

    G. Boniello, C. Blanc, D. Fedorenko, M. Medfai, N.B. Mbarek, M. In, M. Gross, A. Stocco, M. Nobili, Nat. Mater. 14(9), 908 (2015)

    2015

Pith tools

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