Influence of electrostatic force and the van der Waals attraction on the pull-in instability of the CNT-based probe–actuator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, carbon nanotubes (CNTs) have attracted great attention in the fabrication of probe tips and actuators for scanning microscopes. Herein, the pull-in instability of CNT-based probe is investigated using a nanoscale continuum model. The Euler–Bernoulli beam theory is applied to model the elastic response of the CNT. The van der Waals attraction is computed from the simplified Lennard-Jones potential. Two analytical methods (i.e., Homotopy perturbation method and Adomian decomposition method) are applied to solve the nonlinear governing equation of the system. Furthermore, the obtained results are validated by comparing with experimental results in the literature as well as numerical solutions of the finite difference method. The pull-in parameters are determined and effect of van der Waals force and a geometrical parameter effect on the instability behavior of the CNT is discussed. Moreover, the detachment length and minimum initial gap of the freestanding CNT probe are determined.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".