Motion Control, Planning and Manipulation of Nanowires Under Electric-Fields in Fluid Suspension
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
Automated manipulation of nanowires and nanotubes would enable the scalable manufacturing of nanodevices for a variety of applications, including nanoelectronics and biological applications. In this paper, we present an electric-field-based method for motion control, planning, and manipulation of nanowires in liquid suspension with a simple, generic set of electrodes. We first present a dynamic model and a vision-based motion control of the nanowire motion in dilute suspension with a set of <formula formulatype="inline" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><tex Notation="TeX">$N\times N$</tex> </formula> controllable electrodes. Since the motion planning of a nanowire from one position to the target location is NP-hard, two heuristic algorithms are presented to generate near-optimal motion trajectories. We compare the heuristic motion planning algorithms with other existing algorithms such as the rapidly exploring random tree (RRT) and <formula formulatype="inline" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"> <tex Notation="TeX">$A^{\ast}$</tex></formula> algorithms. The comparisons show that the proposed heuristic algorithms obtain near-optimal minimum time trajectories. Finally, we demonstrate a single, integrated process to position, orient, and deposit multiple nanowires onto the substrate. Extensive experimental and numerical results are presented to confirm the motion control and planning algorithms.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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