Biomedical Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
1.4
Sample: L
eff
= 20 mm
and W = 5 mm
Cation: Li
+
1V step @ 1/2 Hz
1.2
Conventional IPMC
Physically loaded
IPMC
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1
2
3
Time (sec)
1.4
Sample: L
eff
= 20 mm and
W= 5 mm
Cation: Li
+
1.5 V step @ 1/2 Hz
1.2
1.0
Conventional IPMC
Physically loaded IPMC
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
1
2
3
Time (sec)
FIGURE 3.56
Force response characteristics of the IPMNC made by the physically loaded
technique (top: 1-V responses and bottom: 1.5-V responses, respectively). The blocking force,
F
b
, was measured at the tip of the cantilever configuration with slightly preloaded conditions
of 0.27 and 0.32 g, respectively.
developed technique was gauged by measuring the blocking force,
F
b
, in a cantilever
configuration under a certain voltage across the IPMNC strip.
In figure 3.56, representative data are provided for the cases of step voltage of
1 and 1.5 V at 0.5 Hz, respectively.
In general, the performance of the physically loaded IPMNC shows slightly less
force generation than the conventional IPMNC, and it still produces a fairly good
output force. However, one can note that the response sensitivity is not as good as
with the conventional IPMNC. This could be attributed to the Ag electrode that has
a larger water leakage than the conventional IPMNC (Shahinpoor and Kim, 2001e).
In other words, the Ag electrode made by this new technique is fairly porous and
permeable to water. Currently, this issue is being investigated. Table 3.9 compares
the physically loaded IPMNC and the current state-of-the-art IPMNCs.
It has been estimated that the cost reduction is due primarily to lower platinum
loading and secondarily to the significant reduction in labor.
