Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

A Micromechanical Model for Light-interactive Molecular Crystals

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A continuum model that takes measured lattice geometries as its primary inputs reproduces the observed light-driven bending, twisting, and shearing of molecular crystals and maps the conditions under which each mode appears.

desk verdict A genuinely integrative continuum model for photomechanical crystals that reproduces the main deformation modes of salicylideneamine, but the headline mechanistic claim about the photoexcited keto state is never tested by ablation, and several calibration and unit issues need fixing. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.14975 v1 pith:DORHSRPX submitted 2025-01-24 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Devesh Tiwari , Ananya Renuka Balakrishna This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci MSC 74N0574B20
keywords molecularcrystalsphotomechanicaldeformationCauchy-Bornrulephasetransformationsalicylideneaminemulti-wellenergylandscapephotoreactionkineticscontinuummodel
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that the diverse ways molecular crystals respond to light—bending, twisting, shearing—can be predicted from the atomic-scale lattice geometries of the two phases involved in the transformation, without prescribing any deformation mode or interface condition in advance. It builds a continuum model for the salicylideneamine crystal whose inputs are the measured triclinic and monoclinic lattice parameters, a fitted multi-well free energy that includes the photoexcited keto state, and photoreaction kinetics with light attenuation through the crystal depth. The model reproduces the experimental sequence in which a slender crystal first bends and then twists during the temporary two-phase state, while a thick platelet shears, and it maps which aspect ratios favor twisting versus shearing. If the model is right, it offers a computational design tool for engineering reversible, controllable photomechanical actuation in molecular crystals.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the Cauchy-Born rule, the assumption that a crystal lattice follows the macroscopic deformation of the body: the deformation gradient $A$ mapping the reference triclinic lattice to the transformed monoclinic lattice, computed from the measured unit-cell parameters, is taken to describe the continuum deformation, and coherent phase boundaries are oriented by the Hadamard jump condition $A - I = a \otimes \hat{n}$. Around this sits a multi-well free energy in two order parameters, $\eta$ for the $\beta/\gamma$ structural phase and $c$ for the enol/keto photoisomerization, containing a double-well thermodynamic term fitted to calorimetry, a photoexcited keto well that lowers the transformation barrier, elastic energy penalizing deviations from the stress-free states, and a mechanical-load term from the keto layer's misfit strain. The multi-lattice shift vector, the offset between the two interpenetrating molecular sublattices, is slaved to the deformation through a linear interpolation $\zeta(\eta)$ and minimized out of the energy. Kinetic equations—variational relaxation plus photoisomerization and domino-cascade driving terms, with light decaying by the Beer-Lambert law—evolve the order parameters while mechanical equilibrium holds at every step. The machinery's output is a pair of stresses: $\sigma_{22}$ from the keto layer drives bending, and $\sigma_{31}$ or $\sigma_{12}$ from phase-boundary mismatch drives twisting or shearing.

What would settle it

Grow slender salicylideneamine crystals with a range of width-to-depth ratios $w/d$ and measure the twist angle at half transformation; the model's phase-boundary shear stress must reproduce the torsion-formula dependence $\theta = \tau_{\max} k_2 l / (k_1 G d)$ that the paper calibrates for its reference geometry (computed $19.41^\circ$ versus $22.91^\circ$). A systematic deviation in this sweep would show the predicted boundary stresses are wrong, and time-resolved diffraction during the light pulse could then check directly whether the sublattice shift departs from the assumed linear path $\zeta(\eta)$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the photoexcited keto state is not a side effect but a load-bearing ingredient of photomechanical deformation: a local energy well that exists only under illumination lowers the barrier for the $\beta \to \gamma$ phase transformation and selects the energy-minimizing pathway the crystal follows. Through the Cauchy-Born rule, the model maps the measured change in lattice geometry, a triclinic-to-monoclinic distortion encoded in a single deformation gradient $A$, onto continuum strains, and a multi-well free energy in the structural order parameter $\eta$ and the photoisomerization order parameter $c$ supplies the thermodynamic, gradient, and elastic terms. Minimizing the total energy under photoreaction kinetics generates two competing stress sources—in-plane compression from the keto surface layer and shear from lattice mismatch at the $\beta/\gamma$ phase boundary—whose interplay with crystal geometry yields the observed stepwise bending and twisting in slender crystals (a computed twist angle of $19.41^\circ$ at half transformation, against $22.91^\circ$ from a torsion formula) and shearing in thick platelets. The same model predicts that complete transformation requires a minimum light intensity and identifies geometric regimes of twisting versus shearing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the offset between the two interpenetrating molecular sublattices relaxes instantly along a prescribed linear path as the crystal transforms, so it can be eliminated from the free energy; if the shifts lag behind the fast light-driven deformation, the predicted phase-boundary stresses and deformation modes change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Aspect ratio alone selects the deformation mode: slender crystals with length-to-thickness ratio $l/d \gg 10$ twist, while thicker platelets with $l/d < 10$ shear, giving a geometric map experiments could use directly.
  • A minimum light intensity exists for complete transformation: below roughly 20 mW/cm^2 the $\beta \to \gamma$ transformation stalls near half completion, while at 40 mW/cm^2 and above it completes, with kinetics scaling linearly with intensity.
  • Twist handedness is fixed by the crystal structure: the triclinic-to-monoclinic transformation generates only a single lattice variant, so the twist is consistently clockwise and reversible on turning the light off.
  • The bending and twisting sequence is reproducible in repeated cycles, since the slow $\gamma \to \beta$ back-transformation retraces the same two-phase microstructures when illumination stops.
  • The framework is transferable: any molecular crystal undergoing a light-triggered solid-to-solid phase change can be modeled from the lattice geometries of its two phases, without case-specific deformation assumptions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An implication the paper leaves implicit: the depth of the photoexcited keto layer, set by the absorption coefficient, tunes the relative strength of the bending stress versus the phase-boundary shear stress, so controlling penetration depth could dial between bending-dominated and twisting-dominated motion.
  • Because the model is formally a martensite-microstructure theory with an added photoexcited well, the same machinery should describe thermally or chemically driven shape changes in organic ferroelastic crystals, not only light-driven ones.
  • A quantitative test not reported in the paper: vary the width-to-depth ratio of slender crystals and compare measured twist angles against the torsion-formula dependence the model's internal shear stress must satisfy.
  • The single-variant argument implies that any observation of a twinned second variant in transformed salicylideneamine, for instance under oblique illumination, would scramble the predicted twist handedness.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper develops a finite-deformation continuum model for light-driven phase transformations in molecular crystals, using the salicylideneamine crystal as a representative case. The free energy combines a multi-well thermodynamic landscape in a structural order parameter η and a photoisomerization order parameter c, an isotropic elastic energy, gradient terms, and a surface keto-misfit stress. The lattice deformation gradient A for the β→γ transformation is computed from crystallographic data via the Cauchy-Born rule, and the model is solved with phase-field kinetics and mechanical equilibrium in a finite-element framework. The authors report that the model reproduces the experimentally observed sequence of bending and twisting in slender tape-like crystals and shearing in thick platelet-like crystals, and they identify geometric regimes for these modes. The central mechanistic claim is that the photoexcited keto state and the associated multi-well energy landscape are crucial to the bending and twisting deformations.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper provides a useful framework for connecting unit-cell-level lattice geometry to macroscopic photomechanical response, a step beyond simple bimorph or Euler-Bernoulli descriptions. The independently computed interface normals in Table 2, obtained directly from crystallographic lattice data via the Hadamard jump condition, are a concrete strength of the paper: they give a calibration-free check of the Cauchy-Born assumption against four experimental systems. The qualitative reproduction of deformation-mode changes with aspect ratio and the analytical torsion estimate in Section 3.1 are also informative. The significance is limited by the fact that no ablation or alternative simulation isolates the role of the photoexcited well, and by the partly circular calibration of the kinetic coefficients against the same data used for validation. The paper does not include reproducibility artifacts such as code or simulation input files, but the parameter tables and appendices are sufficiently detailed to reconstruct the model.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.5; Fig. 12] The paper's headline claim that the photoexcited keto state and the multi-well landscape are 'crucial' to bending and twisting is not demonstrated by any ablation. In Eq. 16, the c-field enters through the isomerization well A3[c^2(1-c)^2] + A4(1-η^2)c^2, through the surface stress σ0(c) = c C[δ e2⊗e2], and through the kinetic source in Eq. 19. The bending response is already driven by the surface stress term, and the twisting mode is attributed to the off-diagonal components of A in Eq. 14 and the associated interfacial shear. No simulation is reported with A3 = A4 = 0, nor with c prescribed as a photostationary profile instead of a relaxational field. As written, 'crucial' is an interpretation rather than a tested prediction. Please add a sensitivity or ablation study that removes or weakens the keto well, and separately report the deformation obtained with only the surface-stress and eigenstrain contributions.
  2. [Sec. 2.5; Fig. 12] The temporal transformation profiles in Fig. 12(a) are partly circular. The text states that the mobility M2 is calibrated using thermal relaxation times from Ref. [11] and that the kinetic coefficient χ is calibrated based on experimentally observed transformation kinetics from the same reference, and Fig. 12 then compares the predicted ⟨η⟩ versus time curves with the experimental data in Fig. 12(b). A quantitative agreement in these curves is therefore not an independent validation of the kinetics. Please either re-fit the kinetic coefficients on a subset of the intensity data and validate on the remainder, or present a sensitivity analysis showing that the predicted deformation modes and temporal trends are robust over a plausible range of M2 and χ. The qualitative sequence of bending and twisting is less affected by this issue, but the kinetic claims in Fig. 12 need to be reframed.
  3. [Sec. 2.4; Table 3] There is an apparent inconsistency in the reported thermodynamic energy barrier. The text says the DSC-measured β↔γ barrier is 0.20 kJ mol−1 ≈ 5.48 kJ m−3, but the polynomial in Eq. 16 with A1 = 2.5×10^6 J m−3 and A2/A1 = 1.2 has a barrier of roughly 0.16 A1 ≈ 4×10^5 J m−3 = 400 kJ m−3 at its maximum, which is two orders of magnitude larger than 5.48 kJ m−3. The stated conversion also requires an implausible molar volume of about 36.5 L mol−1. Please reconcile the conversion, the value of A1, and the barrier used in the simulations; as written, a reader cannot determine whether the energy landscape and the fitted kinetic coefficients correspond to the same thermodynamic input.
  4. [Appendix C; Eq. 36] The model relies on minimizing the shift vector out of the free energy through the assumed linear interpolation ζ(η) in Eq. 36, and the Discussion acknowledges that this may fail under non-equilibrium conditions. Since the predicted interfacial shear stresses, and hence the twisting and shearing modes, are central conclusions, this assumption is load-bearing rather than merely a caveat. Please add a concrete assessment of its validity for the light-driven transformation, for example by comparing the relaxed-shift prediction of phase-boundary stress with an explicit-shift calculation for a few representative states, or by discussing the expected error bound in the context of the measured transformation time scales.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. 6] The matrix entry of A in Eq. 6 is printed as '0 0 .996'; please format it as 0.996 and double-check the remaining entries against the lattice parameters in Table 1.
  2. [Table 3; Sec. 2.5] The kinetic parameters M1, M2, χ0, and Υ are referenced in the text but are not listed in Table 3. Please add their values and units so that the simulations are reproducible from the paper alone.
  3. [Eq. 21; Sec. 3] The normalization of the kinetic coefficient χ = χ0(1 + 0.05 I/I0) uses I0 = 20 mW cm−2, but the simulations in Fig. 6 use 60 mW cm−2 and those in Fig. 9 use 80 mW cm−2; please clarify whether I0 is a reference intensity or the incident intensity for each case.
  4. [Introduction] The phrase 'distances105 − 106 their size' should read '10^5 to 10^6 times their size', and the figure caption 'perimission' should be corrected to 'permission'.
  5. [Sec. 3.1] The analytical twist-angle estimate θ = 22.91° is obtained by substituting the maximum shear stress from the same finite-element computation into the prismatic-beam formula, so it is an internal consistency check rather than an independent validation; this should be stated more explicitly.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fig. 12 kinetics are calibrated to the same Taniguchi et al. data they are then said to match, but the central bending/twisting/shearing predictions rest on independent lattice-geometry input and energy minimization.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 2.5 (Eq. 21) and Sec. 3.3 (Fig. 12)]
    "M2 is the mobility constant, which we calibrate using the thermal relaxation times of the salicylideneamine crystal [11]. ... We calibrate the kinetic coefficient χ based on experimentally observed transformation kinetics and as a function of the light intensity [11]. ... The phase transformation kinetics scales linearly with increasing light intensities and matches the experimentally observed transformation completion times reported in Taniguchi et al. [11], see Figs 12(a-b)."

    Equation 21 contains the mobility M2 and the kinetic coefficient χ, and both are explicitly calibrated to the experimental transformation kinetics and thermal relaxation times of Ref. [11]. The same Ref. [11] supplies the experimental curves in Fig. 12(b) that the model's temporal profiles in Fig. 12(a) are claimed to match, including the completion times and the linear scaling with intensity. The kinetic prediction is therefore not independent: the fitted parameters already encode the experimentally observed transformation kinetics that are then reported as agreement. This circularity is confined to the kinetic validation, since the bending/twisting/shearing modes are generated from the measured lattice geometries of Table 1, the energy landscape of Eq.

full rationale

The paper's core continuum derivation is largely self-contained. The deformation gradient A (Eq. 6) is computed from the measured lattice parameters of the beta and gamma phases in Table 1, and the resulting coherent-interface orientations in Table 2 are checked against four independent experimental measurements with angular errors below 7 degrees, giving an external benchmark for the Cauchy-Born input. The free-energy landscape of Eq. 16 combines thermodynamic coefficients fitted to calorimetry, elastic constants taken from experiments, and a photoinduced surface stress; these are ordinary parameter calibrations rather than circular predictions. The bending, twisting, and shearing modes emerge from minimizing Eq. 16 with the lattice eigenstrain F0(eta) and the surface stress sigma0(c), so the central deformation-mode claims do not reduce to the experimental outputs they are compared with. The one genuine reduction is in Sec. 3.3/Fig. 12: the kinetic coefficients in Eq. 21 are calibrated to the transformation kinetics and relaxation times of Ref. [11], and the same Ref. [11] data are then presented as the matched experimental target. That makes the temporal profiles partly circular, although the qualitative features such as threshold intensity and saturation also depend on the energy landscape. The paper's own acknowledged limitation about shift-vector slaving under non-equilibrium conditions (Appendix C and Discussion) is a modeling assumption, not a circular step. The keto-well claim is asserted without an ablation test, but a missing ablation is an evidence gap rather than a definitional or fitting circularity. Overall the central mechanistic predictions have independent content, with partial circularity only in the kinetic comparison.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model's central outputs require several fitted energy and kinetic coefficients plus modeling assumptions: an isotropic elastic energy, a hand-set photoexcited well, a linearized reaction term, and an optimized-out shift vector. The lattice deformation gradient A is computed from published crystallographic data, which is the cleanest input. No new physical entities are introduced; the keto state is experimentally known.

free parameters (8)
  • A1: thermodynamic energy scale (beta-gamma) = 2.5e6 J/m3
    Fitted to the DSC enthalpy change reported in [11]; sets the depth of the beta-gamma wells in Eq 16.
  • A2/A1 = 1.2
    Fitted, together with A1, to reproduce the calorimetric beta-gamma energy barrier in [11]; controls the barrier height in Eq 16.
  • A3/A1 and A4/A1 (enol-keto and coupling coefficients) = 10 and 1
    No independent measurement is cited; these set the photoexcited keto well and its coupling to the structural order parameter, which the paper identifies as crucial.
  • Gradient energy coefficient sqrt(K/A1) = 1e-6 m
    Chosen by hand to set the phase-interface width; not measured or derived.
  • Mobility constants M1, M2 and kinetic prefactor chi0 = M2 << M1; chi0 = 0.025
    Calibrated to thermal relaxation times and experimentally observed transformation kinetics in [11]; numeric M1 and M2 values are not reported.
  • Photoreaction coefficient Upsilon = not reported
    Eq 19 uses Upsilon calibrated from absorbance and quantum yield; the value is not listed, making the kinetics non-reproducible from the text.
  • Surface keto misfit strain delta = -0.025 (in-plane; 1.5 MPa stress)
    Input from the keto layer observed in [11]; drives the surface bending but is taken from the same experimental system used for validation.
  • Shift-vector interpolation zeta(eta) = 0 at eta=0; 0.05 at eta=1
    Appendix C Eq 36 introduces a linear interpolation enforcing the Cauchy-Born rule for shifts; this is a modeling choice rather than an independently measured function.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Cauchy-Born rule maps lattice deformation A to continuum deformation F (Eq 5, Sec 2.3).
    Standard in martensite continuum theory, but its applicability to light-driven molecular crystals is a modeling assumption; the paper supports it with interface orientation comparisons in Table 2.
  • domain assumption Shift vectors adjust locally to minimize energy and can be eliminated from the free energy (Sec 2.3, Appendix C).
    The paper assumes quasi-static equilibrium so shifts are slaved to F through zeta(eta); the Discussion notes shifts could matter under non-equilibrium conditions, so this is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption Isotropic elasticity with constant elastic moduli G and nu from [19] during phase transformation (Eq 17).
    Molecular crystals are generally anisotropic; twisting and shearing predictions depend on shear moduli, so isotropy may affect quantitative results.
  • ad hoc to paper Free energy landscape is a multi-well function with a photoexcited keto minimum parametrized by A3 and A4 (Eq 16).
    The local minimum representing keto molecules is not derived from molecular calculations; its well depths are assigned in Table 3 without independent measurement.
  • ad hoc to paper Linearized 'domino cascade' transformation kinetics with chi = chi0(1 + 0.05 I/I0) (Eq 21).
    This kinetic term is postulated to match experimental phase-front behavior and is calibrated to [11]; it is an input, not a derived result.
  • domain assumption Mechanical equilibrium at each time step (Eq 22, Sec 2.5).
    Reasonable for quasi-static photoisomerization over 0.1 to 1 second time scales, but it excludes inertial effects such as jumping.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Micromechanical Model for Light-interactive Molecular Crystals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DORHSRPX

@misc{pith2026250114975,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Micromechanical Model for Light-interactive Molecular Crystals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DORHSRPX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.14975}
}
read the original abstract

Molecular crystals respond to a light stimulus by bending, twisting, rolling, jumping, or other kinematic behaviors. These behaviors are known to be affected by, among others, the intensity of the incident light, the aspect ratios of crystal geometries, and the volume changes accompanying phase transformation. While these factors, individually, explain the increase in internal energy of the system and its subsequent minimization through macroscopic deformation, they do not fully explain the diversity of deformations observed in molecular crystals. Here, we propose a micromechanical model based on the Cauchy-Born rule and photoreaction theory to predict the macroscopic response in molecular crystals. By accounting for lattice geometry changes and microstructural patterns that emerge during phase transformation, we predict a range of deformations in a representative molecular crystal (salicylideneamine). Doing so, we find that the interplay between photoexcited states and the energy minimization pathways, across a multi-well energy landscape, is crucial to the bending and twisting deformations. We use our model to analyze the role of particle geometries and the intensity of incident light on macroscopic deformation, and identify geometric regimes for shearing and twisting deformations in salicylideneamine crystals. Our micromechanical model is general and can be adapted to predict photomechanical deformation in other molecular crystals undergoing a solid-to-solid phase change and has potential as a computational design tool to engineer reversible and controllable actuation in molecular crystals.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.14975 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Molecular crystals, such as the salicylideneamine, undergo a bending and twisting deformation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. (a) In a salicylideneamine crystal, the molecules are periodically arranged at specific lattice [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) A schematic illustration of a partially transformed molecular crystal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) A schematic illustration of the molecular crystal in its initial reference configuration [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: (a) The intensity of the applied UV light decays exponentially through the thickness of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a,b) Theoretical predictions of the photomechanical deformation of a slender salicylideneamine [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: A schematic illustration depicting the twisting deformation of a slender prismatic beam, fixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (a-b) Axial and shear stress components in a partially transformed salicylideneamine crystal at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: (a-b) A salicylideneamine crystal with a thick platelet-like geometry undergoes shearing defor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: (a-b) The microstructural state and shear stress distribution ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: A thick platelet-like salicylideneamine crystal of dimensions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: (a-d) Phase transformation microstructures in salicylideneamine crystals with varying particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: (a) Temporal profiles showing the extent of phase transformation in a thick, platelet-like sal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: (a) Crystallographic data of the Salicylideneamine crystal ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Lattice Compatibility and Energy Barriers in Intercalation Compounds

    cond-mat.mtrl-sci 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A continuum model predicts that Li2Mn2O4-like electrodes satisfying the lambda2=1 lattice compatibility condition have lower elastic energy barriers, smaller driving forces, and narrower voltage hysteresis than ordina...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    Taniguchi, H

    T. Taniguchi, H. Sato, Y. Hagiwara, T. Asahi, H. Koshima, Photo-triggered phase transition of a crystal, Communications Chemistry 2 (1) (2019) 19

    work page 2019

  2. [1]

    Naumov, D

    P. Naumov, D. P. Karothu, E. Ahmed, L. Catalano, P. Commins, J. Mahmoud Halabi, M. B. Al- Handawi, L. Li, The rise of the dynamic crystals, Journal of the American Chemical Society 142 (31) (2020) 13256–13272

    work page 2020

  3. [2]

    Koshima, S

    H. Koshima, S. Hasebe, Y. Hagiwara, T. Asahi, Mechanically responsive organic crystals by light, Israel Journal of Chemistry 61 (11-12) (2021) 683–696

    work page 2021

  4. [3]

    Naumov, S

    P. Naumov, S. Chizhik, M. K. Panda, N. K. Nath, E. Boldyreva, Mechanically responsive molecular crystals, Chemical Reviews 115 (22) (2015) 12440–12490

    work page 2015

  5. [4]

    Kitagawa, H

    D. Kitagawa, H. Nishi, S. Kobatake, Photoinduced twisting of a photochromic diarylethene crystal, Angewandte Chemie 125 (35) (2013) 9490–9492

    work page 2013

  6. [5]

    T. Kim, M. K. Al-Muhanna, S. D. Al-Suwaidan, R. O. Al-Kaysi, C. J. Bardeen, Photoinduced curling of organic molecular crystal nanowires, Angewandte Chemie 125 (27) (2013) 7027–7031

    work page 2013

  7. [6]

    Medishetty, S

    R. Medishetty, S. C. Sahoo, C. E. Mulijanto, P. Naumov, J. J. Vittal, Photosalient behavior of photore- active crystals, Chemistry of Materials 27 (5) (2015) 1821–1829

    work page 2015

  8. [7]

    Naumov, S

    P. Naumov, S. C. Sahoo, B. A. Zakharov, E. V. Boldyreva, Dynamic single crystals: kinematic analysis of photoinduced crystal jumping (the photosalient effect), Angewandte Chemie 125 (38) (2013) 10174– 10179

    work page 2013

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Uchida, R

    E. Uchida, R. Azumi, Y. Norikane, Light-induced crawling of crystals on a glass surface, Nature Com- munications 6 (1) (2015) 7310

    2015

  2. [9]

    Huang, R

    C. Huang, R. Huang, S. Zhang, H. Sun, H. Wang, B. Du, Y. Xiao, T. Yu, W. Huang, Recent development of photodeformable crystals: from materials to mechanisms, Research (2021)

    2021

  3. [10]

    W. M. Awad, D. W. Davies, D. Kitagawa, J. Mahmoud Halabi, M. B. Al-Handawi, I. Tahir, F. Tong, G. Campillo-Alvarado, A. G. Shtukenberg, T. Alkhidir, Y. Hagiwara, M. Almehairbi, L. Lan, S. Hasebe, D. P. Karothu, S. Mohamed, H. Koshima, S. Kobatake, Y. Diao, R. Chandrasekar, H. ...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Koshima, K

    H. Koshima, K. Takechi, H. Uchimoto, M. Shiro, D. Hashizume, Photomechanical bending of salicyli- deneaniline crystals, Chemical Communications 47 (41) (2011) 11423–11425

    2011

  5. [13]

    G. Vogt, G. Krampert, P. Niklaus, P. Nuernberger, G. Gerber, Optimal control of photoisomerization, Physical Review Letters 94 (6) (2005) 068305

    2005

  6. [14]

    Sanchez-Galvez, P

    A. Sanchez-Galvez, P. Hunt, M. A. Robb, M. Olivucci, T. Vreven, H. B. Schlegel, Ultrafast radiationless deactivation of organic dyes: evidence for a two-state two-mode pathway in polymethine cyanines, Journal of the American Chemical Society 122 (12) (2000) 2911–2924. 29

    2000

  7. [15]

    Yartsev, J.-L

    A. Yartsev, J.-L. Alvarez, U. Åberg, V. Sundström, Overdamped wavepacket motion along a barrierless potential energy surface in excited state isomerization, Chemical Physics Letters 243 (3-4) (1995) 281– 289

    1995

  8. [16]

    D. H. Waldeck, Photoisomerization dynamics of stilbenes, Chemical Reviews 91 (3) (1991) 415–436

    1991

  9. [17]

    Hagiwara, A

    Y. Hagiwara, A. Takanabe, T. Asahi, H. Koshima, Photo-triggered phase transition of crystals and photoactuation, Chemistry–A European Journal (2024) e202401590

    2024

  10. [18]

    N. A. Simeth, S. Crespi, M. Fagnoni, B. König, Tuning the thermal isomerization of phenylazoindole photoswitches from days to nanoseconds, Journal of the American Chemical Society 140 (8) (2018) 2940–2946

    2018

  11. [19]

    Taniguchi, K

    T. Taniguchi, K. Ishizaki, D. Takagi, K. Nishimura, H. Shigemune, M. Kuramochi, Y. C. Sasaki, H. Koshima, T. Asahi, Superelasticity of a photo-actuating chiral salicylideneamine crystal, Communi- cations Chemistry 5 (1) (2022) 4

    2022

  12. [20]

    Wang, X.-G

    Z.-X. Wang, X.-G. Chen, X.-J. Song, Y.-L. Zeng, P.-F. Li, Y.-Y. Tang, W.-Q. Liao, R.-G. Xiong, Domain memory effect in the organic ferroics, Nature Communications 13 (1) (2022) 2379

    2022

  13. [21]

    Chizhik, A

    S. Chizhik, A. Sidelnikov, B. Zakharov, P. Naumov, E. Boldyreva, Quantification of photoinduced bending of dynamic molecular crystals: from macroscopic strain to kinetic constants and activation energies, Chemical Science 9 (8) (2018) 2319–2335

    2018

  14. [22]

    N. K. Nath, L. Pejov, S. M. Nichols, C. Hu, N. Saleh, B. Kahr, P. Naumov, Model for photoinduced bending of slender molecular crystals, Journal of the American Chemical Society 136 (7) (2014) 2757– 2766

    2014

  15. [23]

    T. Kim, L. Zhu, L. J. Mueller, C. J. Bardeen, Mechanism of photoinduced bending and twisting in crystalline microneedles and microribbons composed of 9-methylanthracene, Journal of the American Chemical Society 136 (18) (2014) 6617–6625

    2014

  16. [24]

    Kitagawa, S

    D. Kitagawa, S. Kobatake, Crystal thickness dependence of photoinduced crystal bending of 1, 2-Bis (2- methyl-5-(4-(1-naphthoyloxymethyl) phenyl)-3-thienyl) perfluorocyclopentene, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 117 (40) (2013) 20887–20892

    2013

  17. [25]

    Hirano, T

    A. Hirano, T. Hashimoto, D. Kitagawa, K. Kono, S. Kobatake, Dependence of photoinduced bending behavior of diarylethene crystals on ultraviolet irradiation power, Crystal Growth & Design 17 (9) (2017) 4819–4825

    2017

  18. [26]

    T. Kim, L. Zhu, L. J. Mueller, C. J. Bardeen, Dependence of the solid-state photomechanical response of 4-chlorocinnamic acid on crystal shape and size, CrystEngComm 14 (22) (2012) 7792–7799

    2012

  19. [27]

    L. Zhu, R. O. Al-Kaysi, C. J. Bardeen, Reversible photoinduced twisting of molecular crystal microrib- bons, Journal of the American Chemical Society 133 (32) (2011) 12569–12575

    2011

  20. [28]

    Maghsoodi, K

    A. Maghsoodi, K. Bhattacharya, Light-induced swirling and locomotion, Proceedings of the Royal Society A 478 (2267) (2022) 20220545

    2022

  21. [29]

    Maghsoodi, K

    N. Maghsoodi, K. Bhattacharya, Optical penetration depth and periodic motion of a photomechanical strip, Extreme Mechanics Letters 73 (2024) 102244. 30

    2024

  22. [30]

    Corbett, C

    D. Corbett, C. Xuan, M. Warner, Deep optical penetration dynamics in photobending, Physical Review E 92 (1) (2015) 013206

    2015

  23. [31]

    Corbett, M

    D. Corbett, M. Warner, Nonlinear photoresponse of disordered elastomers, Physical Review Letters 96 (23) (2006) 237802

    2006

  24. [32]

    L. A. Mihai, A. Goriely, Instabilities in liquid crystal elastomers, MRS Bulletin 46 (9) (2021) 784–794

    2021

  25. [33]

    V. Lee, A. Wihardja, K. Bhattacharya, A macroscopic constitutive relation for isotropic-genesis, poly- domain liquid crystal elastomers, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 179 (2023) 105369

    2023

  26. [34]

    R. Bai, Y. S. Teh, K. Bhattacharya, Collective behavior in the kinetics and equilibrium of solid-state photoreaction, Extreme Mechanics Letters 43 (2021) 101160

    2021

  27. [35]

    R. Bai, K. Bhattacharya, Photomechanical coupling in photoactive nematic elastomers, Journal of the Mechanics and Physics of Solids 144 (2020) 104115

    2020

  28. [36]

    Bhattacharya, Microstructure of martensite: why it forms and how it gives rise to the shape-memory effect, Vol

    K. Bhattacharya, Microstructure of martensite: why it forms and how it gives rise to the shape-memory effect, Vol. 2, Oxford University Press, 2003

    2003

  29. [37]

    Zhang, A

    D. Zhang, A. R. Balakrishna, Designing shape-memory-like microstructures in intercalation materials, Acta Materialia 252 (2023) 118879

    2023

  30. [38]

    J. L. Ericksen, The Cauchy and Born hypotheses for crystals, in Phase Transformations and Material Instabilities in Solids, (M. Gurtin, Edition), Academic Press (1984) 61–78

    1984

  31. [39]

    S. K. Park, H. Sun, H. Chung, B. B. Patel, F. Zhang, D. W. Davies, T. J. Woods, K. Zhao, Y. Diao, Super-and ferroelastic organic semiconductors for ultraflexible single-crystal electronics, Angewandte Chemie 132 (31) (2020) 13104–13112

    2020

  32. [40]

    S. H. Mir, Y. Takasaki, E. R. Engel, S. Takamizawa, Ferroelasticity in an organic crystal: a macroscopic and molecular level study, Angewandte Chemie International Edition 56 (50) (2017) 15882–15885

    2017

  33. [41]

    M. K. Panda, T. Runčevski, S. Chandra Sahoo, A. A. Belik, N. K. Nath, R. E. Dinnebier, P. Nau- mov, Colossal positive and negative thermal expansion and thermosalient effect in a pentamorphic organometallic martensite, Nature Communications 5 (1) (2014) 4811

    2014

  34. [42]

    R. D. James, The stability and metastability of quartz, in Metastability and Incompletely Posed Prob- lems, IMA, Vol. 3, (S. Antman, J.L. Ericksen, D. Kinderlehrer, I. Müller, Edition), Springer Verlag (1987) 147–176

    1987

  35. [43]

    Bhattacharya, R

    K. Bhattacharya, R. D. James, P. J. Swart, Relaxation in shape-memory alloys–Part I. Mechanical model, Acta Materialia 45 (11) (1997) 4547–4560

    1997

  36. [44]

    P. C. Hohenberg, B. I. Halperin, Theory of dynamic critical phenomena, Reviews of Modern Physics 49 (3) (1977) 435

    1977

  37. [45]

    Morimoto, D

    K. Morimoto, D. Kitagawa, C. J. Bardeen, S. Kobatake, Cooperative photochemical reaction kinetics in organic molecular crystals, Chemistry–A European Journal 29 (14) (2023) e202203291

    2023

  38. [46]

    K. J. Laidler, Chemical kinetics, 3rd Edition, Harper & Row New York, 1987. 31

    1987

  39. [47]

    D. F. Swinehart, The Beer-Lambert law, Journal of Chemical Education 39 (7) (1962) 333

    1962

  40. [48]

    A. C. Ugural, S. K. Fenster, Advanced strength and applied elasticity, 4th Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2003

    2003

  41. [49]

    Kitagawa, H

    D. Kitagawa, H. Tsujioka, F. Tong, X. Dong, C. J. Bardeen, S. Kobatake, Control of photomechanical crystal twisting by illumination direction, Journal of the American Chemical Society 140 (12) (2018) 4208–4212. 32

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.