Investigation of low-pressure adhesion performance of mushroom shaped biomimetic dry adhesives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of biomimetic dry adhesives at different ambient pressures was investigated. Biomimetic dry adhesives have great potential for space applications but there have been few studies on how these adhesives perform in low-pressure environments. The best performing geometry for dry adhesives with respect to normal adhesion has previously been determined to be mushroom shaped fibers, but the pressure sensitivity of these designs has been unclear – with some groups reporting pressure dependent adhesion, and others claiming no effect. We have compared the microscale adhesion of mushroom shaped polymer fibers at different ambient pressures and have determined that suction cup effects are negligible for fibers with caps less than 16.4 μm in diameter. Further investigation in this work showed that a simple suction cup model provided estimates for the geometry requirements for a non-negligible suction cup effect and determined that the minimum cap radius for the 10 μm pillar diameter used in this study should be over 26 μm – past the dimension that can be successfully fabricated using this technology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it