Contact Resistance of Anisotropic Conductive Adhesives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyze the electrical resistance of an anisotropic conductive film (ACF) sandwiched between two conducting plates as a function of applied load by extending a published model of Shi et al [1]. In this analysis we also calculate the plate separation as a function of applied pressure when a collection of particles are trapped between two plates. The case of conducting particles with a general size distribution shows two new important results: (a) we find that the resistance of a bond or a contact is independent of the number of conducting particles under the contact pad when the particle size distribution is Gaussian, which is very much in contrast to the case of uniform sized particles; (b) also, only a very small fraction of conducting particles participate in the electrical conduction of ACF products where the actual particle size distribution can be described as a Gaussian. We show that the experimental data supports the validity of this analysis. While this analysis confirms some of our basic notions of ACF, the surprising result of constant resistance forces us to reevaluate our long-held concept of attaching much importance to the total number of particles in a bond.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".