Difference between revisions of "Theory of incompatible substructure problem"
From IridiaWiki
Jump to navigationJump to searchm (Awinslow moved page Theory of incompatible substrucutre problem to Theory of incompatible substructure problem: Typo in title.) |
|
(No difference)
|
Revision as of 23:01, 27 November 2014
Schedule
- 19th December, 2014 : Submit final draft of incompatible substructure paper to Marco
- 30th November, 2014 : Finish results, create plots
Todo
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 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 targets for increasing number of components
- Physical experiments
- Probability of the formation of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 targets for increasing number of components
Particulars of simulation experiments (10000 trials each)
- Probability of the formation of 1 target structure in experiments with increasing number of components from 8 - 40
- Probability of the formation of 2 target structure in experiments with increasing number of components from 16 - 40
- Probability of the formation of 3 target structure in experiments with increasing number of components from 24 - 40
- Probability of the formation of 4 target structure in experiments with increasing number of components from 32 - 40
- Probability of the formation of 5 target structure in experiments with 40 components
Particulars of physical experiments (10 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 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 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
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 experiemnt 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 and 5 target structures as well.