Thirty prioritized research candidates

These are bounded proposals selected from the Desktop `300` folder. They are prioritized for interpretable experiments, accessible observables, and useful controls. They are not ranked by a calibrated probability of being true, and none is certified novel.

A deeper pass used 60 targeted queries across 30 initial candidates, followed by additional source checks and replacement searches. Fifty-nine primary-publication, original-research, or repository records are assessed in the bibliography. Most access was to indexed abstracts and article sections; some sources were available in fuller form, and a few remain title-level leads. Each assessment states its access level. This is deeper feasibility and prior-art research, not an exhaustive systematic review.

Three initial candidates were replaced: H0270 had contrary background evidence in a related clay system; H0193 lacked a defined reconstruction error and close relevant support; H0295 substantially overlapped existing sensor-placement research. The replacement record preserves these findings. H0097, H0130, and H0199 were selected from the existing 300, not newly invented to fill the count.

`P` means a relatively direct pilot after apparatus validation. `C` means a preliminary material, confound, or model-identifiability check is essential. A conditional candidate can still be worth testing cheaply; the label does not predict success. Near-neighbor ranks are judgment calls. Availability of an actual equipment inventory may change the order.

Findings that matter

- Many broad mechanisms are established. The possible contribution is usually a narrower controlled comparison or parameter regime, not a new law of nature.
- Some references provide contrary evidence or only analogies. Those limits are retained rather than discarded.
- The H0199 numerical study supports only a conditional layout advantage. Distributed references had no meaningful average advantage for the predefined simple linear field. Model results do not establish a physical effect.
- No physical experiments were performed. Published numerical benchmarks, public-dataset links, model outputs, and blank measurement templates are kept separate.

01. H0003 — Humidity cycling could set a repeatable salt deposit spacing

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Repeated partial dissolution and drying of a thin salt film on a grooved surface will select a narrower crystal-spacing distribution than one continuous drying step with equal cumulative water removal.

Primary outcome: Coefficient of variation of nearest-neighbor crystal spacing per independently prepared slide; record mean spacing separately.

Why this candidate: Low-cost material system with direct imaging and a measurable distributional prediction. It can fail cleanly without ambiguous functional performance claims.

Prior-art distinction: Humidity-dependent salt morphology is already studied. The possible contribution is cycle-induced narrowing of spacing on grooves at matched mass loss, not the humidity effect itself.

Comparison: Constant humidity versus cyclic partial dissolution/drying; include an unpatterned slide and several groove pitches.

Controls: Initial NaCl mass, surface chemistry, groove geometry, final water loss, temperature, and crystal size. Separate salt dissolution from crystal movement.

Pilot: First establish repeatable imaging and a humidity schedule that partly dissolves crystals without washing salt away. Register crystal centers using blinded images, then compare slide-level spacing distributions.

Stop or revise: Do not proceed if cycling changes salt loading or the control cannot reach comparable dryness. A precisely estimated absence of narrowing rejects the selected schedule.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/01 - H0003 - Humidity cycling could set a repeatable salt deposit spacing.md

02. H0183 — Patterned adhesion and dust shedding angle

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: An array of low-adhesion paths connecting to an edge will shed inert dust at a lower tilt angle than isolated low-adhesion islands of equal area.

Primary outcome: Tilt angle at which a predefined fraction of deposited inert particles leaves the surface.

Why this candidate: Low-energy tilt tests yield a clear threshold and can distinguish routing from a generic lower-adhesion coating.

Prior-art distinction: Patterned surfaces and gravity-driven dust removal already exist. Connectivity to an exit edge at matched area and charge is the particular question to verify.

Comparison: Connected low-adhesion paths leading to an edge versus isolated islands with the same treated area; include a uniform treatment.

Controls: Particle size and mass, humidity, charge, surface roughness, path width, treatment chemistry, tilt rate, and edge geometry.

Pilot: Use contained inert particles, not uncontrolled environmental dust. Calibrate tilt and deposited mass, neutralize or measure static effects, and record particle paths with blinded surface labels.

Stop or revise: Stop if connected paths also change roughness or charge uncontrollably. Reject the routing mechanism if removal improves without preferential travel along paths.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/02 - H0183 - Patterned adhesion and dust shedding angle.md

03. H0394 — Grain surface patchiness

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Patchy friction will produce more intermittent hopper flow than uniform friction at equal mean coefficient.

Primary outcome: Temporal intermittency of discharge, defined in advance as zero-flow fraction or a registered velocity-distribution statistic.

Why this candidate: Tabletop hopper measurements are direct and repeated video can quantify the prediction without advanced material characterization.

Prior-art distinction: Hopper intermittency and mean-friction effects are established. The distinct variable is friction patchiness at matched mean friction and morphology.

Comparison: Patchy-friction grains versus uniformly coated grains with matched mean friction; include two patch scales.

Controls: Grain size, density, mean friction, roughness, coating mass, outlet width, wall friction, and fill height.

Pilot: Calibrate friction distributions before hopper trials. Record long enough to measure rare clogs, retain all interrupted runs, and use independently prepared grain batches.

Stop or revise: Stop if patches change mean friction or geometry. Reject patchiness as the cause if a uniform-friction control reproduces the full intermittency distribution.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/03 - H0394 - Grain surface patchiness.md

04. H0439 — Condensate track junction angles

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Acute track junctions will retain less liquid than right-angle junctions at equal wettability.

Primary outcome: Residual liquid volume at a track junction after a fixed drainage interval.

Why this candidate: Open-track geometry is easy to observe and provides a simple measurable retention endpoint.

Prior-art distinction: Capillary transport at junctions is established. The proposed comparison concerns residual open-track condensate, not generic enclosed-channel sorting.

Comparison: Acute-angle and right-angle open wetting-track junctions of matched width and treated area.

Controls: Contact-angle hysteresis, track width, slope, substrate roughness, initial liquid volume, evaporation, and junction curvature.

Pilot: Begin at a readily imaged millimeter scale. Calibrate volume from side-view shape or direct weighing. Reverse flow direction and test a uniform wetting control.

Stop or revise: Reject an angle-specific interpretation if different corner radii or hysteresis explain retention. Precisely equal residual volumes contradict the chosen geometry claim.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/04 - H0439 - Condensate track junction angles.md

05. H0836 — Wall compliance surge buffer — rounded sand water suspension

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For rounded sand water suspension, a compliant inlet wall will reduce short-surge particle breakthrough.

Primary outcome: Effluent particle mass during the first standardized inlet surge.

Why this candidate: Both passive compliant flow stabilization and transient particle mobilization have direct experimental support, giving a clear combined test.

Prior-art distinction: The two underlying principles are known. Any contribution would be quantified coupling to particle breakthrough with matched residence time and energy.

Comparison: Compliant inlet buffer versus a rigid equal-volume buffer and rigid no-buffer channel.

Controls: Mean residence time, initial sediment bed, input surge energy, pressure, flow, wall chemistry, and chamber volume.

Pilot: Use benign water and inert sand. Calibrate pressure attenuation without particles first, then test whether reduced surge amplitude reduces particle release.

Stop or revise: Do not claim improvement from merely storing more water. Reject the proposed coupling if pressure is attenuated without reduced particle release.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/05 - H0836 - Wall compliance surge buffer  rounded sand water suspension.md

06. H0803 — Pulsed drain timing — glass-bead water suspension

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For glass-bead water suspension, draining settled particles during low-flow intervals will reduce losses relative to draining during high flow.

Primary outcome: Effluent particle loss per mass intentionally recovered during a drain event.

Why this candidate: The mass balance is straightforward and a useful operational contrast can be tested with a small flow loop.

Prior-art distinction: Resuspension and withdrawal transients are established. The exact phase-of-drainage comparison requires checking against sedimentation and clarifier operations literature.

Comparison: Equal-volume bottom drainage during low-flow versus high-flow intervals, plus no-drain control.

Controls: Bed height, particle size, drain opening profile, withdrawn volume, inlet pulse, chamber level, and total operation duration.

Pilot: Use clean inert glass beads rather than wastewater. Capture and weigh both intended discharge and escaped solids. Begin with gentle low-pressure operation and include restart transients.

Stop or revise: Reject a useful timing advantage if reduced carryover is offset by lower recovered mass or increased restart losses. No mass balance means no interpretable result.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/06 - H0803 - Pulsed drain timing  glass-bead water suspension.md

07. H0602 — End-face sealing pattern — balsa wood

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For balsa wood, discontinuous end-face seals will produce larger local moisture gradients than a continuous partial-area seal.

Primary outcome: Spatial moisture-gradient variance at a fixed total water uptake.

Why this candidate: Benign wood coupons and humidity exposure support a practical pilot, and coating studies explain how to isolate boundary transport.

Prior-art distinction: Wood sealing and moisture gradients are known. Connectivity of partial sealing at matched coverage and permeability is the precise unresolved comparison.

Comparison: Discontinuous end-face seals versus a continuous equal-area seal, with unsealed and fully sealed references.

Controls: Wood grain, density, seal permeability, sealed area, coating intrusion, temperature, initial moisture, and specimen dimensions.

Pilot: Cut adjacent samples from the same board but treat boards as independent batches. Use gravimetry plus calibrated local moisture measurements or destructive sectioning on separate specimens.

Stop or revise: Stop if seal chemistry penetrates different depths. A difference only in total uptake does not demonstrate a larger gradient at matched moisture.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/07 - H0602 - End-face sealing pattern  balsa wood.md

08. H0290 — Evaporative salt recovery geometry

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: A removable porous insert placed above a brine reservoir will localize crystallization more effectively when its cross-section narrows upward than when it is uniform.

Primary outcome: Fraction of recovered crystallized salt located in a predefined removable upper region.

Why this candidate: Visible salt location and mass recovery make a low-temperature proof-of-concept possible; geometry can be varied without inventing a new chemical material.

Prior-art distinction: Geometry-based salt localization and harvesting have strong prior art. Verify that taper alone, with measured supply and evaporation, adds information beyond known capillary transport.

Comparison: Upward-tapered porous insert versus uniform insert and reversed taper; compare equal salt inventory and evaporation rate.

Controls: Pore size, wettability, total insert volume, exposed area, capillary supply, temperature, and salt concentration.

Pilot: Begin with NaCl and a compatible unheated wick under controlled evaporation. Map crystal position and weigh recovered salt. Measure uptake conductance before and after deposition.

Stop or revise: Stop if the taper simply dries out sooner or changes total evaporation. Reject better localization if equal-rate controls recover the same upper-region fraction.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/08 - H0290 - Evaporative salt recovery geometry.md

09. H0333 — Joint taper and creep

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: A gradual adhesive-thickness taper will reduce concentrated creep strain at lap-joint ends.

Primary outcome: Maximum local adhesive creep strain at a predefined loading time and safe constant load.

Why this candidate: Static loading and time-lapse imaging permit a direct mechanical comparison; established methods show how to resolve local strain.

Prior-art distinction: Bondline thickness, tapering, and adhesive strain mapping are known. Novelty would lie in a particular taper profile reducing creep peaks independently of overall joint stiffness and defects.

Comparison: Gradually tapered bondline versus uniform bondline with matched average thickness and bonded area.

Controls: Adhesive chemistry, cure conversion, adherend stiffness, voids, temperature, applied load, alignment, and optical strain calibration.

Pilot: Use a compatible room-temperature adhesive and mechanically safe coupons. Validate image-based strain against known displacement. Include sham tapered fixtures to detect grip-induced strain.

Stop or revise: Reject the interpretation if changes come from lower load, different cure, or unmeasured voids. Equal peak creep strain with a narrow interval counts against the claim.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/09 - H0333 - Joint taper and creep.md

10. H0070 — Moss canopy spacing could alter rehydration efficiency

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: An intermediate spacing between moss shoots will maximize retained water after a short mist pulse by balancing interception and drainage.

Primary outcome: Water retained after a fixed drainage interval per dry biomass; retain water per projected area as a separate outcome.

Why this candidate: The response can be measured gravimetrically and biological growth need not be studied to test the immediate physical retention claim.

Prior-art distinction: Density-dependent moss growth and hydration history have prior art. The narrower target is short-mist retention versus spacing with explicit interception and drainage controls.

Comparison: At least several shoot spacings using comparable shoots from one nonhuman moss species; add inert geometric replicas.

Controls: Shoot dimensions, species, prior hydration, mist size and dose, airflow, biomass, exposed area, and drainage time.

Pilot: First check repeatable weighing without evaporation dominating the measurement. Use independent shoot arrays and randomized exposure positions. Test whether an interior spacing maximum persists under both normalizations.

Stop or revise: Do not claim an optimum if only two spacings were tested or if it disappears after correcting for exposed area. Reject an interior maximum when a precise monotonic trend is found.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/10 - H0070 - Moss canopy spacing could alter rehydration efficiency.md

11. H0199 — Blank substrate mosaics and deposition inference

Pilot class: P. Resources: equipped laboratory or instrumented workshop.

Prediction: Interleaving chemically inert witness patches among reactive patches will estimate spatial deposition bias more accurately than placing all blanks at the sample edge.

Primary outcome: Error in estimated reactive uptake after correcting a spatial deposition field; validate against an independent ground truth.

Why this candidate: A computational pilot can expose failure conditions cheaply, followed by a controlled deposition test using known spatial ground truth.

Prior-art distinction: Witness plates and spatial deposition mapping are established. The narrow question is reference layout under a defined field model at equal witness count, including negative controls.

Comparison: Equal numbers and areas of inert witness patches distributed among reactive regions versus placed only along the edge.

Controls: Witness chemistry, local deposition perturbation, deposition smoothness, spatial correlation length, calibration model, noise, and total witnessed area.

Pilot: Run the supplied explicitly labeled mathematical sensitivity study first. For physical work, use a benign deposition analogue and independent full-field mass or thickness measurement. Freeze interpolation and validation positions in advance.

Stop or revise: Drop any universal superiority claim: edge samples can suffice for simple gradients and may win for edge-localized structure. Confirm only the preregistered regime with independent physical data.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/11 - H0199 - Blank substrate mosaics and deposition inference.md

12. H0012 — Graded pores could stabilize compression recovery

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: A foam with a smooth pore-size gradient will retain more recoverable thickness after repeated compression than a uniform foam with the same density and polymer chemistry.

Primary outcome: Recovered thickness fraction after a predefined rest following a fixed number of compression cycles.

Why this candidate: Compression and dimensional recovery are direct measurements; established foam studies supply useful apparatus and artifact controls.

Prior-art distinction: Graded foams and cyclic recovery both have close prior art. A new result needs a matched-density pore-gradient comparison and evidence that recovery is not simply lower local loading.

Comparison: Uniform foam versus a smooth pore gradient of the same polymer, mean density, thickness, and total void fraction; reverse the gradient orientation.

Controls: Local strain, density, cell openness, foam chemistry, loading work, rest time, and any adhesive joining layers.

Pilot: Use existing characterized foams or facility-made samples. Measure density and pore profiles before loading. Record complete force-displacement loops and local strain, then compare recovery across independent samples.

Stop or revise: Stop if matching mean density requires unmatched chemistry or bonded layers dominate the result. Reject the directional prediction if recovery is equal at matched strain histories.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/12 - H0012 - Graded pores could stabilize compression recovery.md

13. H0020 — Particle shape mixtures could reduce granular settling

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Adding a small fraction of mildly elongated grains to spherical grains will reduce vibration-induced bed compaction by forming transient interlocking structures.

Primary outcome: Change in bed packing fraction after a prescribed weak-vibration dose.

Why this candidate: An enclosed granular bed provides a cheap, repeatable physical system; packing change is measurable without specialist chemistry.

Prior-art distinction: Cylinder-sphere vibrated mixtures are already studied. The claim must stay restricted to a small elongated-grain fraction and reduced compaction from transient interlocking.

Comparison: Spheres alone versus several small fractions of mildly elongated grains; include matched-friction shape controls.

Controls: Initial packing, grain volume and density, friction, aspect ratio, acceleration waveform, container size, and vibration work.

Pilot: Calibrate bed volume from images and grain mass. Measure acceleration on the container. Test a small composition sweep before choosing one fraction for independent confirmation.

Stop or revise: Abandon the interlocking explanation if the difference is fully attributable to higher initial packing or different friction. A reversed compaction effect is a useful negative result.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/13 - H0020 - Particle shape mixtures could reduce granular settling.md

14. H0072 — Grain angularity could control salt-crust cracking

Pilot class: P. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: More angular mineral grains will produce finer salt-crust crack spacing during evaporation than rounded grains with the same size distribution and porosity.

Primary outcome: Median crack spacing in the final crust, measured per independent grain bed; crack coverage is secondary.

Why this candidate: Benign salts and inert grain beds make a direct imaging pilot plausible, and close literature identifies the strongest confounders.

Prior-art distinction: Angularity already changes precipitation and crust thickness. A distinct contribution requires a crack-spacing difference beyond thickness and evaporation effects.

Comparison: Angular and rounded silica grains with matched size distributions and closely matched porosity.

Controls: Grain mineralogy, pore-size distribution, salt concentration, salt mass, evaporation rate, crust thickness, and support restraint.

Pilot: Image growth and cracking throughout drying rather than only at the endpoint. Measure mass loss and crust thickness. Compare crack spacing after matching drying stage and thickness.

Stop or revise: Stop the independent-angularity claim if pore structure or crust thickness cannot be characterized. Reject it if matched-thickness crusts show no spacing difference with adequate precision.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/14 - H0072 - Grain angularity could control salt-crust cracking.md

15. H0346 — Hydrogel skin perforation

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Sparse skin perforations will reduce swelling delay more than expected from their fractional open area.

Primary outcome: Time to half of equilibrium swelling, with the same final swelling ratio.

Why this candidate: If a skin exists, its transport bottleneck is directly testable. Mass uptake offers an independent check on optical swelling.

Prior-art distinction: Poroelastic swelling kinetics are established. The narrower contribution would be a gain exceeding an area-only transport model without damaging the network.

Comparison: Dense-skin gel with sparse holes versus intact skin and a uniformly thinned skin with comparable transport area.

Controls: Actual open area, hole damage, skin thickness, bulk network, sample size, final uptake, and mechanical restraint.

Pilot: Confirm a genuine transport-limiting synthetic skin before perforation. Measure time-dependent mass and dimensions. Compare with a simple diffusion model using measured geometry.

Stop or revise: Stop if there is no measurable skin resistance or holes introduce cracks. Reject the disproportionate-gain claim when an area-only model explains the result.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/15 - H0346 - Hydrogel skin perforation.md

16. H0350 — Hydrogel particle contacts

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Flat-faced gel particles will form a stronger compressed packing than spherical particles at equal swelling and solid fraction.

Primary outcome: Small-strain packing modulus at a predefined solid fraction; recovery after unloading is secondary.

Why this candidate: Public nonhuman data provide a measurement benchmark, and packing stiffness is a well-defined mechanical response.

Prior-art distinction: Soft-particle compaction and shape effects are known. A new claim requires shape effects independent of friction, particle modulus, and density.

Comparison: Flat-faced hydrogel particles versus spheres with matched single-particle modulus, swelling, and volume.

Controls: Particle friction, size spread, confinement, solid fraction, fluid viscosity, temperature, and relaxation time.

Pilot: First validate the force-imaging analysis on published spherical-packing data. Independently measure single-particle mechanics before comparing shaped packings.

Stop or revise: Stop if molding changes gel chemistry or friction. Reject a shape-specific strengthening claim if the modulus difference vanishes under matched conditions.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/16 - H0350 - Hydrogel particle contacts.md

17. H0174 — Emulsion size order and drainage

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: A vertical emulsion with small droplets above large droplets will drain at a different rate from the reversed arrangement at equal total dispersed volume.

Primary outcome: Drainage rate and vertical liquid-fraction profile after equal initial settling time.

Why this candidate: A transparent chamber permits direct comparison, but the prerequisite is a stable controlled size gradient rather than a visually similar emulsion.

Prior-art distinction: Creaming and size-dependent drainage are known. The proposed gap is reversal of size order at identical total composition and initial liquid profile.

Comparison: Small droplets over large droplets versus reversed ordering, plus a homogeneously mixed size control.

Controls: Oil fraction, density contrast, stabilizer coverage, viscosity, initial vertical liquid profile, droplet size distribution, and coalescence.

Pilot: First demonstrate that the imposed size layers persist long enough for measurement. Use a benign compatible oil-water system. Record droplet size and layer concentration as well as drained liquid.

Stop or revise: Drop this candidate if size layers mix immediately or coalescence differs between arms. A result explained by density stratification alone does not support the intended mechanism.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/17 - H0174 - Emulsion size order and drainage.md

18. H0280 — Foam drainage and wall curvature

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: A gently concave wall will retain a thicker draining foam layer than a convex wall of equal curvature magnitude at matched wettability.

Primary outcome: Retained foam-layer thickness and local liquid fraction after a predefined drainage time.

Why this candidate: Geometry changes are easy to fabricate and imaging can directly reveal the proposed retention difference.

Prior-art distinction: Container shape, diameter, and wettability are established foam-drainage variables. Only the strictly matched curvature-sign comparison could add a narrower result.

Comparison: Concave and convex walls of equal curvature magnitude, plus a flat wall.

Controls: Wettability, wall material, foam liquid fraction, bubble-size distribution, wall area, preparation age, and temperature.

Pilot: Prepare one foam batch and allocate randomized portions to matched transparent fixtures. Track wall films and bulk drainage separately. Check repeatability with a second foam preparation.

Stop or revise: If the effect follows changed wetting or contact area, reject curvature as the independent explanation. A confidently equal retention contradicts the prediction.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/18 - H0280 - Foam drainage and wall curvature.md

19. H0432 — Evaporator edge insulation

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Insulating only an evaporator edge will reduce salt accumulation there at equal total evaporation.

Primary outcome: Salt-deposit fraction within a predefined edge band after a fixed evaporated-water mass.

Why this candidate: Low-temperature evaporators can be imaged and weighed, and edge location is an explicit outcome.

Prior-art distinction: Heat localization and salt-resistant evaporators have extensive prior art. The target is edge thermal control independently of changed overall evaporation or liquid supply.

Comparison: Edge-only thermal insulation versus equal insulation away from the edge and a no-insulation control.

Controls: Total evaporation, salt inventory, temperature field, wettability, inlet geometry, exposed area, and capillary supply.

Pilot: Map temperatures and weigh water loss continuously. Compare deposition at equal cumulative evaporation, not equal clock time. Measure any insulation-induced flow obstruction.

Stop or revise: Stop if insulation changes wettability or blocks supply. Equal deposition after matching evaporation rejects the selected insulation geometry.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/19 - H0432 - Evaporator edge insulation.md

20. H0437 — Evaporative surface rotation

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Slow periodic orientation changes will reduce persistent dry patches in a wick.

Primary outcome: Time-integrated dry-area fraction under a predefined evaporation load.

Why this candidate: Time-lapse imaging and mass tracking can resolve dry patches, while reversal offers a direct mechanical intervention.

Prior-art distinction: Gravity effects and wick dry-out are well studied. A potential contribution must exceed the prediction from changing instantaneous hydrostatic head.

Comparison: Periodically reoriented wick versus stationary wick; add a stationary control with the same time-averaged hydrostatic head.

Controls: Instantaneous head, liquid supply, motion-induced airflow, wick porosity, input heat, exposed area, and evaporation.

Pilot: Image a moisture-sensitive but nonreactive marker only after proving it does not change wetting. Record rotation, inlet height, and total water loss. Separate rewetting from added convection.

Stop or revise: Drop the novelty claim if a quasi-static head model predicts the full gain. Stop if rotation simply supplies extra mixing or cooling energy.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/20 - H0437 - Evaporative surface rotation.md

21. H0603 — Compression during rewetting — balsa wood

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For balsa wood, mild compression during rewetting will increase retained shape change compared with compression after equilibration.

Primary outcome: Retained compression set after unloading and complete return to the same moisture content.

Why this candidate: The expected coupling has direct mechanical precedent, so a bounded replication and timing extension are experimentally plausible.

Prior-art distinction: Mechano-sorptive deformation under changing moisture is already reported. Novelty is low for the broad effect; only a rigorously matched timing or balsa-specific quantitative model might add value.

Comparison: Compression during rewetting versus compression after equilibration at matched peak stress and moisture.

Controls: Grain direction, density, moisture profile, dwell time, viscoelastic creep, damage, and final moisture.

Pilot: First separate reversible swelling from permanent set using unloaded humidity controls. Track load and strain continuously and assess microscopic crushing.

Stop or revise: Do not call ordinary mechano-sorptive creep a new mechanism. Stop if residual set is explained by crushing or unmatched final moisture.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/21 - H0603 - Compression during rewetting  balsa wood.md

22. H0610 — Surface densification depth — balsa wood

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For balsa wood, intermediate surface densification will minimize wetting-induced roughness without strongly slowing drying.

Primary outcome: Increase in surface roughness after a matched wet-dry cycle, together with drying half-time.

Why this candidate: Roughness and water loss are observable, and existing densification studies provide direct context.

Prior-art distinction: Densification reducing roughness and grain raising are already known. The particular depth optimum balancing roughness and drying remains an unverified extension.

Comparison: Several surface densification depths in balsa, plus untreated and uniformly compressed controls.

Controls: Surface chemistry, temperature history, grain orientation, density, initial roughness, water uptake, and springback.

Pilot: Prefer mechanically characterized existing material or trained facility preparation. Measure density depth profile and roughness before wetting. Record drying to test whether improved finish sacrifices transport.

Stop or revise: Drop a depth-only explanation if heat chemistry differs. Stop if every roughness gain simply results from a proportionate drying penalty.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/22 - H0610 - Surface densification depth  balsa wood.md

23. H0733 — Substrate tension — starch-coated paper chromatography

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For starch-coated paper chromatography, mild uniform tension will reduce lateral band wandering by stabilizing pore alignment.

Primary outcome: Lateral variance of a tracer-band centerline at a fixed migration distance.

Why this candidate: A direct image-based measurement can reveal whether simple mechanical stabilization improves separation reproducibility.

Prior-art distinction: Paper supports and band nonuniformity are known. No close strain-controlled chromatographic comparison was verified; that absence is an evidence gap, not confirmation of novelty.

Comparison: Unstressed versus mildly tensioned starch-coated chromatography paper, with tension perpendicular and parallel to migration.

Controls: Paper batch, coating uniformity, actual strain, thickness, pore changes, loaded mass, solvent front speed, humidity, and temperature.

Pilot: Validate benign tracer separation and non-damaging tension first. Measure pore alignment and front shape. Normalize band wandering separately from band width and migration rate.

Stop or revise: Deprioritize if tension cracks the coating or changes mean flow enough to explain wandering. Equal wandering after speed matching rejects the prediction.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/23 - H0733 - Substrate tension  starch-coated paper chromatography.md

24. H0802 — Baffle gap sequence — glass-bead water suspension

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For glass-bead water suspension, progressively widening baffle gaps will reduce resuspension during flow increases.

Primary outcome: Integrated downstream particle mass during a standardized flow surge.

Why this candidate: Existing baffle experiments support the apparatus and the importance of circulation; the ordering comparison is mechanically simple.

Prior-art distinction: Baffle position and sedimentation performance are studied. A possible new result is ordering of multiple gaps under matched transient forcing, not baffle effectiveness generally.

Comparison: Progressively widening baffle gaps versus reversed and uniform gaps with equal initial hydraulic resistance.

Controls: Glass-bead distribution, initial bed, residence time, inlet pulse, mean flow, settling area, and pumping work.

Pilot: Use a transparent water chamber and inert beads. Map circulation before adding particles. Measure baseline capture and surge carryover independently.

Stop or revise: Stop if widening gaps change residence time or work uncontrollably. Reject the sequence claim if reversed arrangements perform equivalently.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/24 - H0802 - Baffle gap sequence  glass-bead water suspension.md

25. H0125 — Flexible pore mouths and clog release

Pilot class: C. Resources: equipped laboratory or instrumented workshop.

Prediction: A compliant pore entrance will shed soft-particle clogs at lower reverse pressure than a rigid entrance of equal open diameter.

Primary outcome: Reverse pressure at first reproducible unclogging without pore damage.

Why this candidate: Particle softness and constriction clogging have primary experimental precedent. Reverse-pressure release is a sharply defined endpoint.

Prior-art distinction: Soft-particle clogging is known. The potential addition is entrance compliance independently of loaded aperture and particle deformation. The 2018 hopper paper has an indexed 2026 erratum; consult it before numerical reuse.

Comparison: Compliant versus rigid pore entrances with matched unloaded diameter, using the same soft model particles.

Controls: Actual loaded pore diameter, particle modulus and swelling, adhesion, roughness, pressure ramp, fluid viscosity, and clog age.

Pilot: Begin with a macroscopic transparent elastic constriction if microfabrication is unavailable. Image particle and pore deformation simultaneously; calibrate pressure and verify repeated pore recovery.

Stop or revise: Stop if the compliant pore is simply wider under load or ruptures. Equal release pressures after matching loaded geometry contradict the claimed benefit.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/25 - H0125 - Flexible pore mouths and clog release.md

26. H0097 — Randomized pulse intervals could distinguish sensor memory

Pilot class: C. Resources: equipped laboratory or instrumented workshop.

Prediction: Randomizing intervals between identical analyte pulses will separate sensor recovery kinetics from slowly drifting baseline more reliably than regular intervals over the same total duration.

Primary outcome: Error in estimated sensor recovery time constant on a separate validation pulse sequence.

Why this candidate: This can start with low-cost model-based checks, and published sensor work shows why recovery and drift must be separated.

Prior-art distinction: Transient processing and drift compensation are established. The unverified question is whether randomized timing improves recovery-parameter estimation under equal information and duration.

Comparison: Equal-interval versus randomized-interval identical pulses, with identical pulse count, duration, total analyte dose, and total observation time.

Controls: Drift process, sampling, sensor temperature, input delivery, signal-to-noise, fitting model, and parameter bounds.

Pilot: First use a transparent kinetic model with known parameters to test identifiability. Then use a calibrated nonhuman benchtop sensor and a separately measured input. Freeze the fitting method before blinded validation.

Stop or revise: Drop the claim if improvements depend on changing the drift model after seeing results, extra measurement time, or unbalanced input doses.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/26 - H0097 - Randomized pulse intervals could distinguish sensor memory.md

27. H0130 — Competitive adsorption and regeneration order

Pilot class: C. Resources: equipped laboratory or instrumented workshop.

Prediction: Removing a weakly bound solute before changing conditions to release a strongly bound solute will recover more adsorbent capacity than releasing both together.

Primary outcome: Recovered adsorption capacity in a fresh standard challenge after regeneration.

Why this candidate: Primary adsorption studies provide testable mass-balance methods and show that desorption efficiency alone does not establish reusable capacity.

Prior-art distinction: Adsorption, chemical regeneration, and repeated cycles are known. The potential gap is competitive two-solute release order at matched resources and measured retained capacity.

Comparison: Weak-solute-first staged release versus simultaneous release and reversed-stage order, using the same regeneration resources.

Controls: Initial loading of each solute, solvent volume and composition, pH, temperature, energy, adsorbent mass loss, and final rinse state.

Pilot: First find a compatible benign pair with spectrally separable signals and reversible binding. Close both solute mass balances. Measure fresh challenge capacity rather than inferring regeneration from released color.

Stop or revise: Stop if either solute degrades, cannot be independently quantified, or requires unsuitable handling conditions. Reject improvement if it disappears after adsorbent loss and solvent dose are matched.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/27 - H0130 - Competitive adsorption and regeneration order.md

28. H0341 — Gel deswelling fronts

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: A lateral stiffness gradient will curve a deswelling front in a hydrogel strip.

Primary outcome: Signed curvature of a deswelling front at a fixed mean solvent content.

Why this candidate: The moving-front geometry gives a specific observable and reversing the gradient supplies a strong directional control.

Prior-art distinction: Gradient gels and coupled swelling-flow models are established. A possible gap is front curvature after permeability and osmotic driving forces are independently accounted for.

Comparison: Lateral modulus gradient, reversed gradient, and uniform-modulus gel with the same mean stiffness.

Controls: Polymer chemistry, permeability, water uptake, thickness, boundary restraint, temperature, and solute diffusion.

Pilot: First map both modulus and permeability: stiffness alone is not transport. Image a compatible solvent-exchange front with a nonbinding tracer and compare with a poroelastic model.

Stop or revise: Drop the stiffness-only claim if stiffness and permeability cannot be separated. A front that does not reverse curvature with the gradient weakens the mechanism.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/28 - H0341 - Gel deswelling fronts.md

29. H0393 — Granular vibration polarization

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: Elliptically polarized vibration will generate stronger shape-dependent segregation than linear vibration at equal energy.

Primary outcome: Species separation index after a fixed measured vibration-energy dose.

Why this candidate: An enclosed bed is practical, but matching forcing is essential; existing segregation experiments identify inertia and convection as alternatives.

Prior-art distinction: Vibration-induced separation is old. The specific polarization advantage must survive matching energy and disentangling convection from shape-dependent transport.

Comparison: Linear versus elliptical container motion using matched particle mixtures and measured acceleration histories.

Controls: Component masses, grain size and shape, frequency, peak acceleration, delivered work, wall friction, bed depth, and convection.

Pilot: Use an accelerometer on the bed container rather than nominal motor settings. Map both segregation and bulk circulation. Repeat with reversed ellipse rotation.

Stop or revise: Do not attribute a gain to polarization if it follows unequal vertical acceleration or convection. No difference under matched forcing rejects the chosen regime.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/29 - H0393 - Granular vibration polarization.md

30. H0834 — Sloped floor microtexture — rounded sand water suspension

Pilot class: C. Resources: modest bench or workshop; calibration still required.

Prediction: For rounded sand water suspension, shallow downstream grooves will reduce retained solids after a gravity-only discharge.

Primary outcome: Dry solid mass remaining after a standardized gravity discharge and rinse-free waiting period.

Why this candidate: Coupons and tilt fixtures make a small pilot accessible; the failure modes can be directly observed.

Prior-art distinction: Sand-surface friction and roughness effects are established. The chosen drainage-groove benefit has weak direct support and is retained only as a small, inexpensive conditional pilot.

Comparison: Downstream floor grooves versus smooth floor and transverse grooves of equal roughness amplitude.

Controls: Grain moisture, floor material and friction, slope, groove dimensions, particle loading, liquid-film thickness, and discharge head.

Pilot: First test whether grains roll, slide, or jam in the grooves. Record particle trajectories and residual mass, and include a matched static-friction test.

Stop or revise: Stop if grooves trap grains or raise static friction. A reversed effect should remove this candidate from later investment.

Dossier with replication plan and sources: dossiers/30 - H0834 - Sloped floor microtexture  rounded sand water suspension.md

