Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 53 references

A floor and a ceiling for the advancing contact angle

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

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

Pith's one-line read Reported maxima of advancing contact angle scatter, but this paper argues they are confined to a band between 90° and 128.73°.

desk verdict A genuinely new band claim built on known singular angles, backed by an unusually candid compilation; the leap from local wedge to macroscopic apparent angle is asserted rather than derived, but the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05515 v1 pith:FXQLIRIA submitted 2026-08-06 cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn

Yong Sung Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.flu-dyn
keywords advancingcontactanglehingedmotionStokeswedgesingularangleswettingdynamicslinefreesurfaceairentrainment
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 tries to explain the scatter in measured maximum advancing contact angles by showing that the scatter is bounded: while the interface near a moving contact line remains a quasi-steady wedge, the advancing angle cannot rest below 90° and cannot be driven past 128.73°. The lower edge is a free-rotation singularity: at 90° the hinged motion of the free surface generates no wall shear, so a changing wall speed sweeps the angle through 90° without letting it settle below. The upper edge is a resonance: at $\theta_h$, defined by $\tan 2\alpha = 2\alpha$, the local Stokes solution acquires an $r^2 \ln r$ term and the torque needed to rotate the wedge diverges logarithmically. A compilation of 68 liquid–solid systems from nine sources and five configurations is presented as evidence that quasi-steady maxima fall in this band, with exits only when chemistry places the static angle above the band or when the flow leaves the quasi-steady regime. If correct, the same geometric eigenangle explains why ethanol on glass with a static angle of 5° still advances at 87°, and why no quasi-steady advance exceeds the ceiling.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the local Stokes similarity solution for hinged motion of a wedge, $\Psi_{\omega s} = \omega r^2 g(\theta,\alpha)/N(\alpha)$ with $N(\alpha) = (2\alpha - \tan 2\alpha)/\alpha$. The denominator controls both singular angles: $N(\alpha)\to 0$ at $\theta_h$, producing the logarithmic arrest, and the shear prefactor $\tan 2\alpha/(2\alpha - \tan 2\alpha)$ vanishes at 90°, producing free rotation. This single closed-form solution defines the band, and its key property is that the angular factors contain only geometry: the slip length enters through the magnitude of the angular velocity and through the logarithmic argument, but drops out of the angles where the response diverges and vanishes. That is why the band edges carry a material exponent of zero.

What would settle it

Measure a maximum advancing angle for a liquid–solid pair with static angle below 40°, at speeds high enough that the angle has saturated, while verifying with imaging that the interface near the contact line is a flat quasi-steady wedge; if the maximum falls below 90° or above 128.73°, the band is false. Alternatively, sweep liquid viscosity by two orders of magnitude in a fixed geometry: thresholds that track the band edges would move with viscosity-exponent zero, while air-entrainment thresholds would move with an exponent near 1/3 to 1/2.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the maximum advancing contact angle in a quasi-steady wetting flow is governed by the hinged rotation of the free surface about the contact line, and that this rotation has two singular angles that bracket every observed maximum. At 90° the shear prefactor $\tan 2\alpha/(2\alpha - \tan 2\alpha)$ vanishes, so no finite angular velocity balances a change in wall speed and the rotation is free; at $\theta_h = 128.73^\circ$, the root of $\tan 2\alpha = 2\alpha$, the hinged forcing resonates with the $r^2$ eigensolution of the wedge and the rotation is arrested by an $r^2 \ln r$ term. Between these angles the angular-velocity response falls monotonically, so a transient advancing angle is confined to the band $90^\circ \lesssim \alpha \lesssim \theta_h$ as long as the wedge stays quasi-steady and flat. The paper reads the compiled record through this band: systems with static angles below 40° that were not limited by their apparatus reach maxima from 87° to 119° independent of chemistry, and every reported exceedance of $\theta_h$ is attributed either to a static angle already above the band or to non-quasi-steady flow such as the kinematic stage of drop impact. The unsteady waterline record on a vertical wall stays inside the band for its whole advancing phase and shows a local quieting of the contact-angle fluctuations as the angle crosses 90°.

Load-bearing premise

The whole band result rests on the local hinged-wedge Stokes solution — with a flat, quasi-steady free surface and Navier slip — being the right description of the macroscopic maximum advancing angle; if inner-scale processes or interface deformation set in before the hinge singularity, the band could be an artifact of the local model.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Wire-withdrawal angles that were still rising at the apparatus limit should be reported as lower bounds, not as measured maximum advancing angles.
  • A quasi-steady maximum below the floor or above the ceiling would signal either a departure from the flat-wedge assumption or a measurement artifact, since chemistry alone cannot move the band edges.
  • The ceiling is logarithmically soft, so plateaus near 128.7° should scatter by a few degrees as speed or the ratio of outer to inner scales changes.
  • Holding geometry fixed while sweeping liquid viscosity by two orders of magnitude separates the band from air entrainment: the band edges move with viscosity-exponent zero, while entrainment thresholds move with exponent 1/3 to 1/2.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct extension would be to look for the same two singular angles in forced-dewetting or receding-contact-line experiments, although the paper explicitly leaves receding lines to future work; the singular structure there may differ.
  • If the band is as material-independent as claimed, then reporting a single 'maximum advancing angle' without the flow regime and apparatus speed is under-specified: the plateau near either edge shifts by a logarithm with speed, so a few degrees of scatter is expected rather than an error.
  • The band could be tested prospectively by stepping the contact-line speed in a smooth-advance apparatus and checking whether transient angles accumulate near 90° and 128.7°, with the slip length entering only through the logarithmic approach.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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 paper proposes that a transient advancing contact angle is confined to a band between 90° and θ_h = 128.73° while the interface near the contact line remains a quasi-steady wedge. The band is derived from the local Stokes solution for a hinged wedge rotating about its contact line: at 90° the hinged motion produces no wall shear and rotation is free, while at θ_h the denominator N(α) = (2α − tan 2α)/α vanishes, producing an r² ln r resonance that arrests rotation. The paper then compiles 68 liquid–solid systems from nine sources and five configurations and argues that measured maximum advancing angles respect the band, with exits only when chemistry places the static angle above the band or when the flow leaves the quasi-steady regime. It also analyzes an unsteady waterline record from a solitary wave on a vertical wall and reports a quieting of the local contact angle as it crosses 90°. The paper closes with falsifiable predictions, including a material exponent of zero for the band edges versus an exponent of 1/3–1/2 for air entrainment.

Significance. If the band is correct, it would be a notable geometric result: two singular angles of a local Stokes solution would organize a large body of scattered advancing-contact-angle data without any fitted parameters, and the predicted insensitivity of the band edges to viscosity would cleanly distinguish the mechanism from air-entrainment thresholds. The paper is transparent about its compilation, openly provides data and scripts, and frames its claims in falsifiable form. The analytic derivation, although compact, is self-contained and gives closed-form expressions with no free parameters. The main weakness is that the paper asserts rather than derives the leap from the local wedge-angle response to hard bounds on macroscopic apparent contact angles, and the empirical ceiling test is weakened by a post hoc assignment of out-of-band points to regime exits.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (3) and Eq. (4)] The derivation establishes properties of the local wedge angle α in the similarity solution (1) with a flat, quasi-steady free surface and Navier slip. The compilation in Fig. 2 and Table I, however, tests maximum advancing angles θ_max that are apparent angles measured at optical or macroscopic scales in five configurations. No matched-asymptotic or finite-capillary-number calculation connects the local α to these apparent angles; at finite Ca the interface is curved (Cox–Voinov), so the apparent angle can differ from the local angle by an amount depending on Ca and on the ratio of the observation scale to the slip length. Consequently, a bound on the local angle does not by itself bound the measured maxima, and the central claim of Eq. (4) as a constraint on observed θ_max is asserted rather than derived. The paper should either supply the missing asymptotic bridge or explicitly restrict the claim to the local angle and argue why the same bounds survive at the macroscopic scale.
  2. [Section III.D] Equation (3) is a linear-response expression for the initial angular velocity at the onset of a transition between steady states; it is not an evolution equation dα/dt = f(α, ΔU) over finite amplitude changes. The statements that the angle 'cannot rest below 90°' and 'cannot be driven past θ_h' require a sign or stability analysis for finite forcing, including how the quasi-steady wedge assumption fails as α approaches either singular angle. The singular limits of the response show divergence and vanishing, but they do not by themselves prove dynamical confinement to the band. A concrete derivation of the confinement, or of the conditions under which it holds, is needed for the central claim.
  3. [Section III.C] The empirical ceiling test is weakened by the treatment of the only hinge-regime exceedance, water on PFAC8 with θ_s = 120° and θ_max = 131° (Table I). The text states that this point exceeds θ_h by 2.3° against a ±4° uncertainty quoted by its source; if the point is within uncertainty, it cannot be counted as a confirmed exceedance, but it also cannot be cited as evidence that the band holds exactly. If it is instead treated as a genuine exceedance, it is a counterexample to the strict ceiling. The paper needs to state explicitly which interpretation is adopted and to quantify the uncertainty propagation for this decisive point. In the same subsection, the classification of out-of-band points as 'kinematic stage' or 'high Ca' is made after the fact for points that exceed θ_h; an independent, pre-specified criterion for what counts as 'quasi-steady wedge' should be applied uniformly to all compiled points.
  4. [Section III.C] The floor claim relies partly on lower-bound arrows from wire-withdrawal data (28 of 30 series did not saturate). The paper is careful to distinguish these lower bounds from true maxima, and the non-arrow points from Refs. [1, 11] do provide measured maxima near 87–93°. Nevertheless, the statement that low-viscosity systems 'reach 87 to 93°' would be strengthened by reporting which of the floor points are true maxima and which are still rising; as written, the lower-bound points cannot support a sharp floor value of 87° by themselves.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II] The derivation of Eq. (3) is not shown; a short derivation of the angular-velocity prefactor from the shear-stress balance would help the reader verify the sign and the factor 1/2.
  2. [Section II] The text says the 'torque required to rotate the interface through this angle diverges logarithmically' due to the r² ln r term; it would be clearer to state whether the divergent quantity is the stress, the torque, or the effective resistance, and on which length scale the logarithm is cut off.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 2] The caption distinguishes filled symbols, open symbols, half-filled symbols, arrows, and horizontal bars, but the distinction is hard to read in a printed grayscale figure; consider adding a legend with explicit marker examples.
  4. [Section III] The two-block layout of Table I makes it easy to misread row correspondences; a single continuous table with a repeated header would be clearer.
  5. [Section II] The symbol α is used both for the wedge angle and for the exponent λ_ω of the eigensolution; please use distinct notation for these two quantities.
  6. [Section V] The phrase 'an exponent of zero' for the band edges is clear, but the paper could state more explicitly that this prediction refers to the angular positions of the band edges, not to the logarithmic drift of the plateau with speed, which is a separate prediction.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No material circularity: the band constants come from a closed-form Stokes wedge solution with no fitted parameters; the paper's only self-citation is a test dataset, not a premise.

full rationale

The band edges are not fitted to the compiled data. The upper edge θ_h = 128.73° is the first non-trivial root of tan 2α = 2α appearing in the denominator N(α) of the closed-form similarity solution (Eq. 1), and the lower edge 90° is the limit where tan 2α → 0 in the shear-balance relation (Eq. 3). Both results derive from the local Stokes wedge solution cited to Moffatt (1964) and Gelderblom et al. (2012), with no adjustable parameters. The 68-system compilation and the waterline record are used as tests, not as inputs: the paper explicitly treats the wire-withdrawal lower bounds as arrows pointing at the floor rather than as measurements, and the exceedances of θ_h are attributed to independently identified regimes (kinematic drop spreading, high Ca, static angle above the band). The only self-citation, Ref. [16], is the author's own experimental record used for an unsteady check; the argument does not reduce to that citation, and the predicted quieting at 90° is a new analysis of the data. Regime labels in Table I are assigned from source descriptions rather than from whether points fall inside the band, so the two exits are not defined circularly. The paper also states its domain of validity explicitly (two-dimensional wedge, flat quasi-steady free surface, Navier slip), so exceptions are scope conditions, not ad hoc rescues. No fitted-input-called-prediction, imported-uniqueness, or ansatz-by-citation pattern is present. The score of 1 reflects only the minor presence of a self-citation in the test set, which is not load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No parameters are fitted to data; the band edges are fixed by the closed-form solution. The central claim rests on the hinged-wedge local solution from prior work and on regime labels assigned to compiled measurements.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The local Stokes similarity solution for hinged motion, Eq. (1), is valid and complete for the wedge near the contact line.
    Taken from Refs. [2,7]; not rederived in this paper.
  • domain assumption The solid boundary obeys Navier slip with slip length ell; the free surface is flat, impermeable, and shear-free.
    Stated in Sec. II; the flat quasi-steady wedge is the regime in which the band is claimed to hold.
  • domain assumption The angular-velocity response (3) from the local solution controls the macroscopic maximum advancing angle, so the singularities at 90 degrees and theta_h become bounds on measured maxima.
    This is the load-bearing interpretive step from local flow to global record; it is not derived from the Stokes equations alone.
  • domain assumption The compiled points can be reliably classified into hinge, kinematic, and high-Ca regimes from the original sources.
    Used in Sec. III.D to explain all points above theta_h; the labels come from the cited papers and are not independently verified here.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A floor and a ceiling for the advancing contact angle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FXQLIRIA

@misc{pith2026260805515,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A floor and a ceiling for the advancing contact angle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FXQLIRIA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05515}
}
abstract

Reported maxima of the advancing contact angle scatter from $87^\circ$ to $147^\circ$ in a single systematic study, and liquids on surfaces with static angles as low as $5^\circ$ reach dynamic maxima near $90^\circ$. We show that both observations follow from the hinged motion of the free surface near a moving contact line. The local Stokes solution for a wedge rotating about its contact line has two singular angles of opposite character: at $90^\circ$ the hinged motion generates no wall shear and the rotation is free, and at $\theta_h = 128.73^\circ$, where $\tan 2\alpha = 2\alpha$, a resonance with the $r^2$ eigensolution arrests the rotation through an $r^2 \ln r$ term. Between the two angles lies a band that a transient advancing angle cannot leave while the interface near the contact line remains a quasi-steady wedge. A compilation of 68 liquid-solid systems from nine sources and five configurations confirms the band and its two exits: systems not limited by the apparatus, with $\theta_s \le 40^\circ$, reach $87^\circ$ to $119^\circ$ regardless of chemistry, and every exceedance of $\theta_h$ occurs either where chemistry places the static angle above the band or where the flow leaves the quasi-steady regime. The record of a waterline on a vertical wall exhibits the band within a single unsteady experiment, together with a distinct quieting of the local contact angle at the crossing of $90^\circ$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05515 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The two singular angles of the hinged motion. (a) The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Maximum advancing angle against static contact an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. A waterline advancing and receding on a vertical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    water / glass 0 93 hinge FF [18] distilled water / hydrophobic Si 90 114 hinge TT

    work page

  2. [2]

    ethanol / glass / Glaco 5 98 hinge FF [13] water / smooth paraffin wax 111 112 hinge TT

    work page

  3. [3]

    ethanol / glass / Glaco 5 87 hinge FF [19] water, CTAB, CTAB+NaCl / sealant 78 110 hinge TF

    work page

  4. [4]

    glycerol / mica 11 119.4 hinge FF [9]α-bromonaphth

    aq. glycerol / mica 11 119.4 hinge FF [9]α-bromonaphth. / nylon 16≥83 hinge TT

    work page

  5. [5]

    water / mica 11 109 hinge FF [9] n-octane / Teflon 26≥80 hinge TT

    work page

  6. [6]

    glycerol / cast acrylic 31 118.3 hinge FF [9] methylene iodide / nylon 41≥90 hinge TT

    aq. glycerol / cast acrylic 31 118.3 hinge FF [9] methylene iodide / nylon 41≥90 hinge TT

    work page

  7. [7]

    water / cast acrylic 31 107.1 hinge FF [9] DEHS / Teflon 61≥84 hinge TT

    work page

  8. [8]

    ethanol / cast acrylic 36 96 hinge FF [9] water / nylon 70≥87 hinge TT

    work page

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    ethanol / PMMA-like 55 99.8 hinge FF [8] absolute alcohol / nylon 0≥79 hinge TT

  2. [10]

    steel 0≥80 hinge TT

    water / PMMA-like 56 105.1 hinge FF [8] absolute alcohol / st. steel 0≥80 hinge TT

  3. [11]

    glycerol / PMMA-like 56 123.3 hinge FF [8] absolute alcohol / titanium 0≥81 hinge TT

    aq. glycerol / PMMA-like 56 123.3 hinge FF [8] absolute alcohol / titanium 0≥81 hinge TT

  4. [12]

    glycerol / Teflon 93 127.3 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / PMMA 0≥76 hinge TT

    aq. glycerol / Teflon 93 127.3 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / PMMA 0≥76 hinge TT

  5. [13]

    water / Teflon 93 113 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / aluminum 0 81 hinge TT

  6. [14]

    water / O 2-plasma Glaco 111 122 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / nylon 0≥82 hinge TT

  7. [15]

    glycerol / O 2-plasma Glaco 111 119.6 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / st

    aq. glycerol / O 2-plasma Glaco 111 119.6 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / st. steel 0≥80 hinge TT

  8. [16]

    glycerol / PF AC 6/PF AC8 120 126.3 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / titanium 0≥78 hinge TT 7 Ref

    aq. glycerol / PF AC 6/PF AC8 120 126.3 hinge FF [8] hexadecane / titanium 0≥78 hinge TT 7 Ref. Systemθ s θmax Reg. Gr. Ref. Systemθ s θmax Reg. Gr

  9. [17]

    water / PF AC 6/PF AC8 120 131 hinge FF [8] freon TF / nylon 0≥79 hinge TT

  10. [18]

    steel 0≥75 hinge TT

    water / Glaco 145 147 hinge TT [8] freon TF / st. steel 0≥75 hinge TT

  11. [19]

    glycerol / Glaco 145 147 hinge TT [8] freon TF / titanium 0≥72 hinge TT

    aq. glycerol / Glaco 145 147 hinge TT [8] freon TF / titanium 0≥72 hinge TT

  12. [20]

    water / wettable 20 91.7 hinge TF [8] hexane / PMMA 0≥67 hinge TT

  13. [21]

    TF [8] hexane / aluminum 0≥71 hinge TT

    water / wettable 20 111 kin. TF [8] hexane / aluminum 0≥71 hinge TT

  14. [22]

    wettable 73–93 147.5 kin

    water / part. wettable 73–93 147.5 kin. FF [8] hexane / nylon 0≥70 hinge TT

  15. [23]

    wettable 73–93 148.9 kin

    water / part. wettable 73–93 148.9 kin. FF [8] hexane / st. steel 0≥67 hinge TT

  16. [24]

    wettable 73–93 152 kin

    water / part. wettable 73–93 152 kin. FF [8] iso-propanol / nylon 0≥69 hinge TT

  17. [25]

    wettable 73–93 132.7 kin

    water / part. wettable 73–93 132.7 kin. FF [8] iso-propanol / st. steel 0≥74 hinge TT

  18. [26]

    wettable 73 150.3 kin

    water / part. wettable 73 150.3 kin. TF [8] iso-propanol / titanium 0≥71 hinge TT

  19. [27]

    wettable 73 123.6 hinge TF [8] benzyl alcohol / PMMA 0≥74 hinge TT

    water / part. wettable 73 123.6 hinge TF [8] benzyl alcohol / PMMA 0≥74 hinge TT

  20. [28]

    wettable 73 126.1 kin

    water / part. wettable 73 126.1 kin. TF [8] benzyl alcohol / aluminum 0≥71 hinge TT

  21. [29]

    wettable 73 112.7 hinge TF [8] benzyl alcohol / nylon 0≥77 hinge TT

    water / part. wettable 73 112.7 hinge TF [8] benzyl alcohol / nylon 0≥77 hinge TT

  22. [30]

    steel 0 79 hinge TT

    water / non-wettable 164 154.6 hinge TF [8] benzyl alcohol / st. steel 0 79 hinge TT

  23. [31]

    TF [8] diethyl phthalate / aluminum 0≥75 hinge TT

    water / non-wettable 164 149.8 kin. TF [8] diethyl phthalate / aluminum 0≥75 hinge TT

  24. [32]

    steel 0≥85 hinge TT

    PEO / smooth PTFE 98 150CaTT [8] diethyl phthalate / st. steel 0≥85 hinge TT

  25. [33]

    glycerin / SH PTFE 151 152 hinge TF [8] diethyl phthalate / titanium 0≥84 hinge TT

  26. [34]

    PEO + glycerin / SH paint 159 160 hinge TT [16] tap water / glass wall≤85 121.6 hinge TT

  27. [35]

    M. A. Quetzeri-Santiago, A. A. Castrej´ on-Pita, and J. R. Castrej´ on-Pita, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 228001 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Gelderblom, O

    H. Gelderblom, O. Bloemen, and J. H. Snoeijer, J. Fluid Mech.709, 69 (2012)

    2012

  29. [37]

    O. V. Voinov, Fluid Dyn.11, 714 (1976)

    1976

  30. [38]

    R. G. Cox, J. Fluid Mech.168, 169 (1986)

    1986

  31. [39]

    T. D. Blake, J. Colloid Interface Sci.299, 1 (2006)

    2006

  32. [40]

    Marchand, T

    A. Marchand, T. S. Chan, J. H. Snoeijer, and B. An- dreotti, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 204501 (2012)

    2012

  33. [41]

    H. K. Moffatt, J. Fluid Mech.18, 1 (1964)

    1964

  34. [42]

    A. H. Ellison and S. B. Tejada, NASA CR-72441 (1969)

    1969

  35. [43]

    A. M. Schwartz and S. B. Tejada, NASA CR-72728 (1970)

    1970

  36. [44]

    J. Kim, H. P. Kavehpour, and J. P. Rothstein, Phys. Fluids27, 032107 (2015)

    2015

  37. [45]

    I. S. Bayer and C. M. Megaridis, J. Fluid Mech.558, 415 (2006)

    2006

  38. [46]

    Zhang and K

    P. Zhang and K. Mohseni, Phys. Rev. Fluids4, 084004 (2019)

    2019

  39. [47]

    T. A. Elliott and D. M. Ford, J. Chem. Soc., Faraday Trans. 168, 1814 (1972)

    1972

  40. [48]

    Fern´ andez-Toledano, T

    J.-C. Fern´ andez-Toledano, T. D. Blake, J. De Coninck, and M. Kanduˇ c, Phys. Rev. Fluids5, 104004 (2020)

    2020

  41. [49]

    Gupta, A

    C. Gupta, A. Choudhury, L. D. Chandrala, and H. N. Dixit, J. Fluid Mech.1000, A45 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Y. S. Park, P. L.-F. Liu, and I.-C. Chan, J. Fluid Mech. 707, 307 (2012)

    2012

  43. [51]

    A floor and a ceiling for the advancing contact angle

    Y. S. Park,Data and code for “A floor and a ceiling for the advancing contact angle”, Version 1.0, [Dataset and Software], Zenodo, 2026,https://doi.org/10.5281/ zenodo.21815877

    2026

  44. [52]

    Yokoi, D

    K. Yokoi, D. Vadillo, J. Hinch, and I. Hutchings, Phys. Fluids21, 072102 (2009)

    2009

  45. [53]

    D. Fell, G. Auernhammer, E. Bonaccurso, C. Liu, R. Sokuler, and H.-J. Butt, Langmuir27, 2112 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.