User talk:Pranav Rathi/Notebook/OT/2010/11/10/Small Bead DOG: Difference between revisions
From OpenWetWare
Jump to navigationJump to search
(New page: ~~~~: These look like really great studies! It's a bit tough to see some of the slides but I think I got the point. I wonder if the extra noise in the DOG curves is due to bumping the ta...) |
Pranav Rathi (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
User:Steven J. Koch|Steve Koch]] 11:48, 11 November 2010 (EST): These look like really great studies! It's a bit tough to see some of the slides but I think I got the point. I wonder if the extra noise in the DOG curves is due to bumping the table or some other human-cause? I am a little suprised by the low stiffness factors. It is what it is, we ought to be able to do unzipping with small beads. And with big beads overstretching. Is that 1 Watt before the objective, right? So we can get something in the 30 pN's for 2 Watt? | |||
<!--I will invesigate the bumping today. I guess it is 1W before the objective in the stiffness calculation sheet, right? So it is around 30pN for full power. Today if have time just comeby... --> | |||
Revision as of 09:59, 11 November 2010
User:Steven J. Koch|Steve Koch]] 11:48, 11 November 2010 (EST): These look like really great studies! It's a bit tough to see some of the slides but I think I got the point. I wonder if the extra noise in the DOG curves is due to bumping the table or some other human-cause? I am a little suprised by the low stiffness factors. It is what it is, we ought to be able to do unzipping with small beads. And with big beads overstretching. Is that 1 Watt before the objective, right? So we can get something in the 30 pN's for 2 Watt?
