Surface Effects Considerations for the Design of Casimir Actuated Nanoswitches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New techniques that can control Casimir forces in nanosacle structures may soon ensure the physical realization of switchable Casimir-force devices. In order to provide useful insights into the behaviour of this class of switches, the idea of Casimir-force actuation window has been proposed here to assist in the design of such switches. The influence of surface effects including residual surface stress and surface elasticity on the pull-in parameters of Casimir actuated switches has been demonstrated. These effects, together with other currently known difficulties due to uncertainties such as surface roughness and trapped electric charge may hinder the realization of this class of devices. An Euler-Bernoulli beam model has been employed to demonstrate surface effects in a nanocantilever switch, and numerical solutions employing a finite difference approach have been obtained for the static bending of this switch. The results demonstrate that surface effects play a significant role in the selection of basic design parameters of Casimir actuated switches, such as static deflection and detachment length. Threshold value of residual surface stress is also studied for these switches. The predictions reveal that exclusion of surface effects in Casimir-force actuation window may result in non-functional switch designs.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".