Microgripper design based on the photothermal bending effect of optical fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A micromanipulator based on the photo-thermal bending effect experienced by a beveled optical fiber is described in this paper. The micromanipulator design incorporates four fingers, two bendable fibers for actively grasping small objects and two stationary fibers to provide structural support while holding the object. Each finger is a 1mm diameter acrylic optic fiber with a 25mm beveled edge near the tip. The beveled edge is coated with a thin layer of black paint where the thickness has a measurable impact on the amount of tip deflection. A light beam, from a 150W halogen illuminator, is directed into the fixed end of the sculpted optic fiber causing the tip at the free end to deflect by approximately 50 microns. Several experiments are conducted to demonstrate that this simple microgripper is able to grasp, hold, and release a variety of small metal screws and ball bearings. Finite element analysis is used to further investigate the physical properties of the optical actuator. The theoretical deflections are slightly greater than the experimentally observed values. The FEM analysis is also used to estimate the maximum force (~ 0.7mN) generated at the actuator tip during deflection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".