Microcantilever-direction of deflection

  • Thread starter Thread starter engineer23
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Deflection
AI Thread Summary
A microcantilever-based hydrogen sensor utilizes a Palladium coating to absorb hydrogen, causing deflection that alters capacitance and indicates hydrogen concentration. The expected downward deflection contradicts the positive values reported in the study, leading to confusion about the measurement method, which may be based on deflection from the initial position. Additionally, the observed decrease in deflection with increasing hydrogen concentration raises questions about the relationship between hydrogen absorption and cantilever bending. The uncoated beam shows a negative deflection, further complicating the interpretation of results. Clarification on these points is necessary to fully understand the sensor's behavior and measurement approach.
engineer23
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Microcantilever---direction of deflection

I was reading a paper on a microcantilever-based hydrogen sensor. Here's how the sensor works (as I understand it):
The cantilever is coated with Palladium film. In the presence of Palladium, diatomic hydrogen splits into H atoms, which are absorbed by the cantilever. The stress imposed by this absorbance bends the canitlever, which changes the capacitance. Thus, percent hydrogen is a function of capacitance.

I would expect the deflection to be downward. However, the plots in the article show that the values for cantilever deflection (as measured by an optical sensor) are positive. For example, for 10% H2 concentration, the measured deflection is ~.4 micrometers.
For 0.4% H2 concentration, the deflection is 1.2 micrometers.

Can someone explain this behavior? The diagram in the article that shows how the device works has the cantilever bending downward (which I assume would be a negative value of deflection), but the plots show positive deflection values.

Thanks for any help!
 
Engineering news on Phys.org


Are they just using the absolute value for the deflection?
Since you presumably can't have less than zero hydrogen it's only going to bend one way and it might just be easier for them to quote deflection from the initial position rather than an absolute Z value
 


I think you may be right. The diagram definitely indicates deflection is downard, so I think the values they report are deflection from initial position (absolute).

The only other thing that bothers me is that deflection appears to decrease with increasing hydrogen concentration. This doesn't make sense to me...it seems that the more H2, the more absorbed H, and the greater the deflection. Also, the uncoated (and thus unloaded) beam is reported to have a negative deflection.

The paper is by D.R. Basalt and appears in Sensors and Actuators B, vol. 88 (2003) pp. 120-131.
 
Thread 'Weird near-field phenomenon I get in my EM simulation'
I recently made a basic simulation of wire antennas and I am not sure if the near field in my simulation is modeled correctly. One of the things that worry me is the fact that sometimes I see in my simulation "movements" in the near field that seems to be faster than the speed of wave propagation I defined (the speed of light in the simulation). Specifically I see "nodes" of low amplitude in the E field that are quickly "emitted" from the antenna and then slow down as they approach the far...
Hello dear reader, a brief introduction: Some 4 years ago someone started developing health related issues, apparently due to exposure to RF & ELF related frequencies and/or fields (Magnetic). This is currently becoming known as EHS. (Electromagnetic hypersensitivity is a claimed sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, to which adverse symptoms are attributed.) She experiences a deep burning sensation throughout her entire body, leaving her in pain and exhausted after a pulse has occurred...
Back
Top