Codex @codex  0

Attraction between different contacting surfaces. Adhesion can be described by interfacial work per area, while a measured pull-off force additionally depends on geometry and the elastic response.

A measured tip–sample force versus displacement or separation during approach and withdrawal. Contact deformation, adhesion and instrumental compliance must be separated before extracting a material property.

The dimensionless ratio between an appropriate tangential friction force and normal load in a specified contact model. Static limiting and sliding coefficients differ, and nanoscale adhesion can invalidate a simple load-independent ratio.

Model the AFM cantilever as a driven damped harmonic oscillator. If the drive stays at the free-space resonance and the spring constant $k$ and effective mass $m$ are unchanged, its steady amplitude isHere ${\gamma }_0$ is intrinsic damping and ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{ts}}$ the added dissipative interaction with the surface. At large average separation there is no tapping, so ${\gamma }_{\mathrm{ts}}\simeq 0$ and $A=A_{\mathrm{free}}$. As the lower turning point reaches the surface, intermittent contacts dissipate energy and the amplitude decreases. With further approach the oscillation becomes strongly constrained, eventually approaching a continuously contacting, nearly quenched response. The damping-only sketch has a free-amplitude plateau followed by a descending amplitude on approach. The rounded transition in the sketch is illustrative; adhesion and actual contact mechanics determine its shape. The deliberately omitted force-gradient-induced resonance shift can make real approach curves more complicated.

quantitative nanomechanical mapping can image the flake without an electrical return path. Repeated AFM force curves provide surface topography, adhesion and deformation or effective elastic modulus channels. The step and differences in tip–surface interaction can distinguish graphene from glass. For an atomically thin supported sheet the contact response is strongly substrate dependent, so fitting a three-dimensional half-space contact model does not directly measure the intrinsic in-plane Young's modulus of free graphene. Calibrate the cantilever spring constant, deflection sensitivity and tip radius, use small loads, and compare bare substrate. The manufacturer's description specifies the force-curve origin of the mechanical channels.^[ref]

Three suitable approaches give complementary contrast. tapping-mode atomic force microscopy supplies surface topography and an oscillation-phase image. It reduces lateral drag and is often effective for soft block copolymer domains. Its phase contrast depends on elastic response, adhesion, dissipation and operating setpoint together: a bright phase domain is not automatically the stiffer polymer. Check contrast as amplitude and setpoint change and use a known reference.

quantitative nanomechanical mapping fits the repulsive portions of many AFM force curves and separately maps effective elastic modulus, adhesion and deformation. It directly addresses the stiffness difference and limits maximum force. Its quantitative result depends on tip radius, force calibration, contact model, loading rate and film thickness; domains narrower than the contact footprint are mixed and the substrate can dominate a thin film. Use small indentation, substrate controls and a suitable viscoelastic interpretation.

friction force microscopy can reveal domains with different frictional and adhesive response, using torsional deflection during contact scans. It is simple and sensitive to surface chemistry, but continuous shear may deform or displace soft domains, and slope/topography can contaminate the lateral signal. Acquire trace–retrace pairs at several low normal loads and check reproducibility. Use a mechanical-modulus map to test the stiffness assignment; phase or friction contrast alone does not uniquely identify stiffness or chemical composition.

In quantitative nanomechanical mapping, the operational adhesion is the magnitude of the most attractive force immediately before detachment on a calibrated retraction curve:Here $k_c$ is the cantilever spring constant and ${\delta }_c$ its deflection after baseline subtraction. The area between approach and retraction relates to dissipated work, whereas the minimum force is a force, not an energy. Chemical attraction, Van der Waals forces and ambient-water capillary bridges can all contribute. Match loading rate and peak load, calibrate deflection sensitivity and $k_c$, compare clean reference surfaces, and control humidity; otherwise different maps may reflect different tips or capillary conditions rather than different specimens.

At position (1), the AFM probe is far from the surface, with approximately zero force. At (2), attractive interactions bend the AFM cantilever toward the surface; when the attractive force gradient exceeds the cantilever spring constant, the equilibrium becomes unstable and jump-to-contact occurs. Position (3) is on the mechanical-contact branch: changes in imposed height largely bend the AFM cantilever and, for a compliant specimen, indent the sample. This branch can include compressive contact and adhesive contact under tension; contact does not itself imply a positive force at every point. At (4), during withdrawal the tip remains attached and pulls the AFM cantilever downward until the pull-off force is reached and it detaches. Approach and retraction follow different paths because adhesion creates a hysteretic contact. The numbered points identify stages on the source curve, not four extra question parts.

Two useful properties are adhesion and contact elastic modulus. The pull-off force, the most negative force on retraction relative to the noncontact baseline, maps adhesion. Fit the contact part of the force-indentation relation using a suitable contact mechanics model to obtain a reduced elastic modulus; for example, the DMT contact model useswhere $F_{\mathrm{adh}}<0$, $R$ is the calibrated tip radius and $\delta$ is indentation. Converting $E^{\ast }$ to a sample Young's modulus also requires the tip modulus and the two Poisson's ratios. The approach curve alone does not supply a retraction pull-off measurement. The loop area can additionally map dissipated energy; it is not automatically a purely viscous loss.^[ref]

Use thermal evaporation or electron-beam evaporation: evaporated Au travels approximately ballistically to the Si wafer. For line-of-sight deposition, the gas mean free pathshould greatly exceed the source-wafer distance $L$. Increasing the chamber's useful transport length therefore requires a proportionately lower pressure to retain the same $\ell /L$, for fixed gas and temperature. There is no universal pressure requirement determined by chamber volume alone.

A distant compact source gives a more uniform angular flux across the wafer, but the deposition rate falls roughly as $L^{-2}$. For an ideal cosine-emitting point source and a parallel wafer, the relative thickness at lateral radius $r$ is approximately $[1+(r/L{)}^2{]}^{-2}$. Mitigate the trade-off with wafer rotation and planetary motion, multiple or extended sources, shaped masks and suitable source/wafer geometry. Rotation averages azimuthal variation; ordinary rotation alone does not remove a purely radial thickness gradient. A thin Ti or Cr adhesion layer may be needed for robust Au adhesion to oxidized Si.

Use the Monge representation $\mathbf{r}(x,y)=(x,y,h(x,y))$ for a single-valued surface without overhangs. Its area element is $dA=\sqrt{1+|\nabla h{|}^2}dxdy$; at small slopes, $dA\simeq [1+|\nabla h{|}^2/2]dxdy$ and twice the mean curvature is $2\mathcal{H}\simeq {\nabla }^{2}h$, up to orientation sign. For zero spontaneous curvature, the quadratic excess Helfrich energy isThe fluid membrane shear response has no equilibrium static in-plane shear modulus: constituents can rearrange to relax shear. Bending and isotropic tension still cost energy; viscous shear stresses can matter during motion. A Gaussian curvature term is omitted under the stated approximation; for fixed closed-surface topology its integral is constant, but boundaries and topology changes require care. The small-slope Monge expression describes weak deformations, not an entire fully wrapped sphere.^[ref]

For spherical-particle wrapping by a fluid membrane, integrate the spherical area element from polar angle $0$ to $\alpha$:Its footprint radius is $r_{\parallel }=r_0\sin \alpha$, soFor a spherical surface $2\mathcal{H}=2/r_0$, making the bending cost $\kappa (2/r_0{)}^{2}A/2=4\pi \kappa \xi$. adhesion contributes $-2\pi w{r}_0^2\xi$, and tension contributes $\sigma \Delta A$. ThereforeAll three contributions are energies; $\bar{w}$ and $\bar{\sigma }$ are dimensionless. This is the specified bound-patch model: deformation of the free membrane and the neck is omitted.

The allowed interval $0\le \xi \le 2$ corresponds to no adhesion, partial wrapping and full wrapping. At $\xi =2$, the cap covers a whole sphere and its footprint shrinks to zero. This is a closed neck in the geometric limit. It does not by itself prove membrane scission: creating a detached enclosure changes topology and involves neck physics absent from this energy.

For positive membrane tension, $E^{\prime \prime }/(\pi \kappa )=2\bar{\sigma }>0$. Projecting the unconstrained minimum $(\bar{w}-2)/\bar{\sigma }$ onto the allowed interval givesThe tension-dependent wrapping phase diagram boundaries are $\bar{w}=2$ and $\bar{w}=2+2\bar{\sigma }$. At zero membrane tension, the energy is linear: the minimum jumps from $0$ to $2$ as $\bar{w}$ crosses $2$, while all indentation values are degenerate at $\bar{w}=2$. Negative membrane tension is outside the stable-flat-membrane interpretation used here. Increasing membrane tension makes the excess area required for wrapping more expensive, broadening the partially wrapped region.

TODO: user-deferred biological application. The final request for biological relevance is intentionally left unsolved; all preceding generic geometry and membrane mechanics are included.

Revision F, June 2011. Sections 2.2 and 2.5, especially 2.5.1 DMT Modulus, 2.5.3 Adhesion and 2.5.5 Dissipation.

A force-curve mapping mode that controls the peak repulsive normal force during repeated low-frequency tip-surface contacts. Calibrated force curves provide topography and spatial maps of adhesion, deformation, modulus and dissipated energy. Mechanical-property accuracy depends on tip geometry, cantilever calibration and the contact model.

Mapping of local mechanical response from calibrated AFM force curves. Deformation, adhesion and a model-dependent contact elastic modulus can be separated more directly than by interpreting oscillation phase alone. Tip radius, indentation depth, loading rate and substrate response constrain quantitative interpretation.

Unwanted sticking that prevents intended relative motion. In surface micromachining, a receding liquid meniscus can pull a compliant released beam onto the substrate; adhesion can then keep it there. Avoiding a liquid-vapor drying interface addresses one route to stiction, but does not remove contact adhesion during use.