ViewVC Help
View File | Revision Log | Show Annotations | View Changeset | Root Listing
root/group/trunk/mattDisertation/RSA.tex
(Generate patch)

Comparing trunk/mattDisertation/RSA.tex (file contents):
Revision 1107 by mmeineke, Tue Apr 13 21:37:00 2004 UTC vs.
Revision 1115 by mmeineke, Thu Apr 15 19:19:06 2004 UTC

# Line 103 | Line 103 | increasing particle anisotropy once the length-to-brea
103   (4\%) initial rise in $\theta_{J}$ as a function of particle
104   anisotropy.  However, the jamming limit {\it decreases} with
105   increasing particle anisotropy once the length-to-breadth ratio rises
106 < above 2. I.e. ellipsoids landing randomly on a surface will, in
106 > above 2, \emph{i.e.}~ellipsoids landing randomly on a surface will, in
107   general, cover a smaller surface area than disks. Randomly thrown thin
108   lines cover an even smaller area.\cite{Viot1992b}
109  
110   How, then, can one explain a near-monolayer coverage by the umbrella
111 < molecules?  There are really two approaches, one static and one
112 < dynamic.  In this paper, we present a static RSA model with {\em
111 > molecules? In this paper, we present a static RSA model with {\em
112   tilted} disks that allows near-monolayer coverage and which can
113   explain the differences in coverage between the octopus and umbrella.
114   In section \ref{rsaSec:model} we outline the model for the two adsorbing
# Line 219 | Line 218 | intersection along the line were checked to insure seq
218   was then checked for intersection with both of the umbrella tops.  If
219   the line did indeed intersect the tops, then the points of
220   intersection along the line were checked to insure sequential
221 < intersection of the two tops. ie. The line most enter then leave the
221 > intersection of the two tops. ie. The line must enter then leave the
222   first top before it can enter and leave the second top.  These series
223   of tests were demanding of computational resources, and were therefore
224   only attempted if the original handle - projection overlap test had
# Line 232 | Line 231 | plane was used to pick an attachment point from the un
231  
232   For the on-lattice simulations, the initially chosen location on the
233   plane was used to pick an attachment point from the underlying
234 < lattice.  I.e. if the initial position and orientation placed one of
234 > lattice. Meaning, if the initial position and orientation placed one of
235   the thiol legs within a small distance ($\epsilon = 0.1 \mbox{\AA}$)
236   of one of the interstitial attachment points, the lander was moved so
237   that the thiol leg was directly over the lattice point before checking
# Line 274 | Line 273 | Once the system is constrained by the underlying latti
273   larger gold surface.
274  
275   Once the system is constrained by the underlying lattice, $\theta_{J}$
276 < drops to 0.5378, showing that the lattice has an almost
276 > drops to 0.5378, showing that the lattice has an
277   inconsequential effect on the jamming limit.  If the spacing between
278   the interstitial sites were closer to the radius of the landing
279   particles, we would expect a larger effect, but in this case, the
# Line 379 | Line 378 | Table \ref{rsaTab:coverage}.
378   Table \ref{rsaTab:coverage}.
379  
380   \begin{table}
381 < \caption[RSA experimental comparison]{RATIO OF MONOLAYER SULFUR ATOMS TO GOLD SURFACE ATOMS}
381 > \caption{RATIO OF MONOLAYER SULFUR ATOMS TO GOLD SURFACE ATOMS}
382   \label{rsaTab:coverage}
383   \begin{center}
384   \begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}

Diff Legend

– Removed lines
+ Added lines
< Changed lines
> Changed lines