On Design and Analysis of Electrostatic Arch Micro-Tweezers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article provides criteria for the design of electrostatic arch micro-tweezers. The tweezers can be operated in two modes: a traditional quasi-static mode where a direct current voltage commands the tweezers arms along a trajectory to manipulate objects and dynamic mode where a harmonic signal commands release or characterization of objects. While the arms are rigid and move in tandem in the static mode, this is not guaranteed in the dynamic mode. To satisfy this, we carried out modal analysis of the tweezers using a finite element model (FEM) and a reduced-order model (ROM). The results show that the arms kinetic and potential energies divide the beam span into a middle sub-span between the arms and two outer sub-spans and result in significant changes in the relative compliance of the sub-spans. The changes in the platform compliance place limitation on the tweezers dynamic operation, such that only the first symmetrical mode shape of the tweezers satisfies the design criteria. We also investigate the adequacy of an ROM using straight unbuckled beam mode shapes as basis functions to represent the tweezers response by comparing its results with those of FEM. A five-mode ROM is found adequate to represent small motions in the vicinity of the tweezers initial curvature. It is inadequate for larger motions involving snap-though motions between the initial and counter curvatures. To capture larger motions, ROM should be improved by incorporating higher order straight beam modes or using the actual tweezers modes.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".