scholarly journals Critical point in the strong-field magnetoresistance of a normal conductor/perfect insulator/perfect conductor composite with a random columnar microstructure

2000 ◽  
Vol 62 (21) ◽  
pp. 13820-13823 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Bergman
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Borja Mercadal ◽  
Ricardo Salvador ◽  
Maria Chiara Biagi ◽  
Fabrice Bartolomei ◽  
Fabrice Wendling ◽  
...  

AbstractBackgroundMetal implants impact the dosimetry assessment in electrical stimulation techniques. Therefore, they need to be included in numerical models. While currents in the body are ionic, metals only allow electron transport. In fact, charge transfer between tissues and metals requires electric fields to drive the electrochemical reactions at the interface. Thus, metal implants may act as insulators or as conductors depending on the scenario.Objective/HypothesisThe aim of this paper is to provide a theoretical argument that guides the choice of the correct representation of metal implants using purely electrical models but considering the electrochemical nature of the problem in the technology of interest.MethodsWe built a simple model of a metal implant exposed to a homogeneous electric field of various magnitudes to represent both weak (e.g., tDCS), medium (TMS) or strong field stimulation. The same geometry was solved using two different models: a purely electric one (with different conductivities for the implant), and an electrochemical one. As an example of application, we also modeled a transcranial electrical stimulation (tES) treatment in a realistic head model with a skull plate using a high and low conductivity value for the plate.ResultsMetal implants generally act as electric insulators when exposed to electric fields up to around 100 V/m (tES and TMS range) and they only resemble a perfect conductor for fields in the order of 1000 V/m and above. The results are independent of the implant’s metal, but they depend on its geometry.Conclusion(s)Metal implants can be accurately represented by a simple electrical model of constant conductivity, but an incorrect model choice can lead to large errors in the dosimetry assessment. In particular, tES modeling with implants incorrectly treated as conductors can lead to errors of 50% in induced fields or more. Our results can be used as a guide to select the correct model in each scenario.


Author(s):  
Charles TurnbiLL ◽  
Delbert E. Philpott

The advent of the scanning electron microscope (SCEM) has renewed interest in preparing specimens by avoiding the forces of surface tension. The present method of freeze drying by Boyde and Barger (1969) and Small and Marszalek (1969) does prevent surface tension but ice crystal formation and time required for pumping out the specimen to dryness has discouraged us. We believe an attractive alternative to freeze drying is the critical point method originated by Anderson (1951; for electron microscopy. He avoided surface tension effects during drying by first exchanging the specimen water with alcohol, amy L acetate and then with carbon dioxide. He then selected a specific temperature (36.5°C) and pressure (72 Atm.) at which carbon dioxide would pass from the liquid to the gaseous phase without the effect of surface tension This combination of temperature and, pressure is known as the "critical point" of the Liquid.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document