Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Cross section of a micropassage containing thin liquid films

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Schematic used for derivation of disjoining pressure

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: MD simulation domain

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Argon liquid film mass density profile: Tr=0.57, 100 collection bins, and 400,000 time steps

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Simulated argon vapor pressure values from the hybrid MD simulation of the wall-affected film compared to results for a simulated thick liquid film, the NPT plus test particle method, and ASHRAE recommended values. Simulations were run for 400,000 time steps for this study.

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Calculated local pressure profile for argon on a metallic solid surface using MD and hydrostatic analyses; external conditions match saturation data for argon at 1atm. Simulation featured 300,000 time steps, 50 collection bins, and approximately 1980 molecules.

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Mass density profile for argon film on solid surface, Tr=0.6. Film thickness was calculated as 2.6nm. Simulation was run with lateral dimensions of 10.0σLJ×10.0σLJ and 500,000 time steps.

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Comparison of MD results with conventional theory

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Wall layer model

Date of download: 11/11/2017 Copyright © ASME. All rights reserved. From: Disjoining Pressure Effects in Ultra-Thin Liquid Films in Micropassages—Comparison of Thermodynamic Theory With Predictions of Molecular Dynamics Simulations J. Heat Transfer. 2006;128(12):1276-1284. doi:10.1115/1.2349504 Figure Legend: Comparison of MD simulation results with predictions of conventional theory and the wall layer model