Theory of incompatible substructure problem

From IridiaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Schedule

  • SWARM2015 paper: camera ready version submitted on 1st September, 2015.
  • Submit extended version by December 2015.

Todo

  • Increase number of trials to 40.

Parameters

  • Components
    • Radius of each component: 25 mm
    • Thickness of each component: 8 mm
    • Radius of magnet: 1.5 mm
    • Strength of magnet: N48
    • Polyamide
  • Container
    • Radius of container: 125 mm
    • Depth of container: 9 mm
    • Material: Acrylic
  • Shaker
    • Mode: Orbital shaking
    • Speed: 300 rpm
    • Duration for shaking: until stable structures are formed

Variable(s)

  • Number of components used in each experiment

Experiments

  • Simulated experiments
    • Probability of the formation of all substructures, and all target structures for increasing number of components
  • Physical experiments
    • Probability of the formation of all substructures, and all target structures for increasing number of components

Particulars of simulation experiments (10000 trials each)

  • Probability of the formation of all target structures and substructures in experiments with increasing number of components from 8 - 40

Particulars of physical experiments (40 trials each)

  • Photos of initial condition and final condition
  • Assembly of one target structure
    • Data to be collected: number of targets and number of incompatible substructures, time for steady state
  • Assembly of two target structures
    • Data to be collected: number of targets and number of incompatible substructures, time for steady state
  • Assembly of three target structures
    • Data to be collected: number of targets and number of incompatible substructures, time for steady state
  • Assembly of four target structures
    • Data to be collected: number of targets and number of incompatible substructures, time for steady state
  • Assembly of five target structures
    • Data to be collected: number of targets and number of incompatible substructures, time for steady state
  • Results to show
    • The simulated probability of the formation of all substructures and target structures in self-assembly experiments
    • Comparison of simulated probability vs. probability achieved in physical experiments
    • Reasons for similarities and/or differences between simulated probability vs. probability of physical experiments

Open problems

Using the model of Hosokawa 1995. The system starts as a set of n components. Then the following step is repeated until no longer possible: pick a random pair of structures with total size at most the size of a target structure. Combine them. The process stops when no such pair exists, i.e. when the two smallest structures have total size more than the size of a target structure.

Consider a system of n components that form target structures of size k. Let f(n, k, i) be the probability that i target substructures form.

  • Probabilities of yields.
    • f(n, k, 1) + f(n, k, 2) + ...: What is the probability that at least one target structure forms?
    • f(n, k, floor(n/k)): What is the probability that the maximum number of target substructures form?
    • f(n, k, 1) * 1 + f(n, k, 2) * 2 + ...: What is the average number of target substructures that form?
    • General closed form for f(n, k, i): what is the probability that i substructures form for some fixed i?
  • Unexpected behavior.
    • Prove that f(n, k, m) is non-increasing as a function of n.

What to include in the extended version of the paper

  • More (40) trials
  • Details of the model
  • Geometry calculations
  • Master equation
  • More pictures
  • Video in multimedia section
  • Geometry of the parts

Meeting points

  • In the case of the experiment where 24 components are used, if 2 target structures are formed (16 components consumed), then the third target structure will always form. This means that if the experiment is continued till the system reaches a steady state, then in the experiment with 24 components, there will never be a case where 2 target structures are formed.
    • Doesn't this skew the probability graph? Also, how would this be reflected in the analysis?
    • Obviously, this applies to the cases of 2, 4, 5 target structures (16, 32, 40 components) as well.
Personal tools