Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 49 references

The paper claims that CNT bridging between pillars flips from thermal-tip-vibration control to gas-flow 'kite growth' control at a length crossover near 4 μm, and that this crossover tunes network topology.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A crossover length separates vibration-dominated from gas-flow-dominated bridging in pillar-assisted carbon nanotube networks, and a new geometric model predicts bridge counts from pillar spacing.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-04 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid geometric bridging model, but the thermal-vibration vs. flow crossover is undermined by an order-of-magnitude mismatch between the thermal amplitudes and the bridging angles the model requires. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08301 v1 pith:F2HKRSDX submitted 2025-09-10 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Crossover between kite growth and vibrational bridging in pillar-assisted controlled formation of carbon nanotube networks

Yuanjia Liu , Taiki Inoue , Yoshihiro Kobayashi This is my paper
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci PACS 81.07.De81.15.Gh
keywords carbon nanotubesnanopillar arrayskite growthvibrational bridgingthermal vibrationgas-flow deflectionCVD synthesisnetwork topology
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The reading

Pillar-assisted growth of suspended carbon nanotube (CNT) networks has usually been explained by one of two mechanisms: the tips vibrate and randomly land on neighbors, or gas flow lifts and drags long CNTs like kites. The paper argues these are not competing theories but two regimes of one process, separated by a length crossover. For CNTs shorter than about 4 micrometers under their growth conditions, thermal vibration of the tip dominates the motion and sets short-range bridging between nearest pillars; for longer CNTs, flow-induced deflection grows as the fourth power of length and takes over, aligning bridges along the gas flow and allowing longer spans. The paper derives a geometry-only formula for how many bridges form between a pillar pair and shows that the crossover position can be shifted by gas velocity, so pillar spacing and flow direction become knobs for network topology. Why it matters: the same growth process can be steered to make dense, vibration-dominated local wiring or sparse, flow-aligned long-range interconnects from a single tunable design.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in pillar-assisted CVD of carbon nanotube (CNT) networks, the same growth run contains two successively dominant regimes. While a CNT is short, its free tip is driven mainly by thermal vibration, whose amplitude grows with length as L^1.5; this makes the tip swing over tens to hundreds of nanometers and land randomly on neighboring pillars, producing short, roughly isotropic nearest-neighbor bridges. Once the tube is long enough, the drag force from the gas flow produces a cantilever deflection that grows as L^4 and overtakes thermal motion. Under the authors' growth conditions this crossover sits near 4 μm; below it, vibration controls bridging, above it, k

What carries the argument

Two scaling relations and one geometric formula carry the argument. The thermal vibration amplitude of a cantilevered CNT is σ ∝ L_c^1.5 (Eq. 13), while the gas-flow-induced tip deflection under free-molecular drag is δ ∝ L_c^4 (Eqs. 11–12); equating these curves gives a condition-dependent crossover length. The geometric bridging model replaces the earlier power-law bridging probability with an analytical expression B = 2K·arcsin(d/2(L+d))·arctan(h(L+d)/((L+d)^2−(d/2)^2)) (Eq. 8), which converts the horizontal and vertical angular windows between two pillars into an expected number of bridges per pillar pair. The crossover curves select the mechanism, and the angular formula converts that m

Load-bearing premise

The crossover calculation feeds a gas velocity into the deflection formula, but the paper does not specify whether it uses the inlet velocity or the much slower local velocity between pillars; for dense arrays where the local flow is about half the inlet speed, the 4 μm crossover could shift substantially.

What would settle it

Measure the tip motion of growing CNTs of known length by in-situ electron microscopy in a flow with known local velocity at the pillar top; if tubes shorter than 4 μm show flow-aligned deflection comparable to their thermal vibration, or tubes longer than 4 μm show random vibration, the crossover claim fails. Alternatively, grow networks at 3 μm pillar spacing with the flow velocity measured between pillars and check whether bridging anisotropy matches the prediction using local rather than inlet velocity.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the crossover claim holds, a single growth recipe can be tuned by flow rate to switch networks from dense, short-range, vibration-dominated connections to sparse, long-range, flow-aligned kite bridges.
  • Because dense pillar arrays reduce local flow velocity to about half the inlet value near the pillar tops, the same inlet flow produces less kite deflection inside dense arrays, so the flow-aligned bridging excess is smaller than it would be if local velocity matched the inlet.
  • The anisotropic 3×10 vs. 10×3 comparison isolates the kite-growth contribution: vibration probability is identical in both layouts, so the extra flow-parallel bridges in 3×10 are attributed to kite growth.
  • Bridge-type distributions previously reported for purely vibrational growth can be reproduced with a kite-growth recipe by choosing the right pillar spacing, so similar final topology does not imply the same underlying growth mechanism.
  • The crossover length decreases with gas velocity—roughly 6 μm at 0.002 m/s, 4 μm at 0.01 m/s, and 2–3 μm at 0.05 m/s—making flow rate a direct dial for the minimum length at which kite behavior appears.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Inference: if the deflection calculation were repeated with the local velocity at pillar tops (~50% of inlet at 3 μm spacing), the predicted crossover for dense arrays would move to longer lengths, likely changing the interpretation of which bridges in the 3×10 samples are kite-formed.
  • Inference: the geometric bridging formula could be inverted—from measured bridging statistics at several spacings, one could estimate the operative CNT length distribution and effective density K, turning SEM counts into a length probe.
  • Inference: the crossover suggests a length-separation effect: under one flow, short tubes remain vibrationally anchored while long tubes align and span farther, which could be exploited to grade connectivity by distance from the catalyst.
  • Inference: network complexity metrics (proportion of bent, multi-pillar, or 'other' bridges) track the crossover position; intentionally operating near the crossover may maximize structural diversity for reservoir computing without increasing catalyst density.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper reports a combined experimental, analytical, and FEM study of carbon nanotube (CNT) networks grown between SiO2 nanopillars. It introduces a geometric bridging model in which the average number of bridges per pillar pair is written as B = KΩΩ′, with Ω and Ω′ closed-form transverse and longitudinal angular accessibilities. The model is fitted to new SEM statistics and to literature data. The paper then proposes that, for short CNTs, thermal vibration dominates tip motion and produces short-range vibrational bridging, while for longer CNTs gas-flow-induced deflection dominates and enables kite-growth bridging; a crossover length of ~4 μm is claimed for the authors' growth conditions. The framework is used to reinterpret earlier reports on vibrational versus flow-directed CNT growth.

Significance. If correct, the study would provide a quantitative geometric model for bridging statistics in pillar-assisted CNT growth and a unifying crossover between two previously separate growth regimes. The closed-form geometric model and its reasonable fit across multiple datasets (Fig. 3d) are genuine strengths, as is the attempt to use FEM flow fields to connect local gas flow to growth mechanics. The crossover concept is interesting and falsifiable. However, the central quantitative claim—the ~4 μm crossover—currently rests on an inconsistent use of the thermal vibration amplitude, and the flow-velocity input is ambiguous. These issues are load-bearing and need to be resolved before the crossover claim can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (13), Fig. 5(a), Table S3] The red curve in Fig. 5(a) is the RMS thermal displacement from Eq. (13). The vibrational-bridging model in Section 3.1 requires an effective angular range θ≈68° (Eq. (10)). For a cantilever of length L=400 nm, a half-angle of 34° implies a tip displacement of roughly 2L sin(34°)≈450 nm; Table S3 gives σ=18 nm analytically and 40 nm in the FEM with a softened catalyst. At L=1 μm the required displacement is ~1.1 μm while σ=71 nm. The angular RMS of the thermal motion, ~1.5σ/L, is only about 4° at 400 nm, much smaller than the ~30° half-angle needed for bridging. Thus Eq. (13) measures a different quantity from the vibration that actually produces bridging. The comparison in Fig. 5(a) therefore does not establish that thermal vibrations dominate for L<4 μm or that flow deflection overtakes them near 4 μm. The crossover must be recomputed using an angular amplitude consistent with Eq. (10)
  2. [Section 3.2, Eq. (12), Fig. 4, Table S3] The deflection calculation uses a flow velocity V, but the manuscript does not state whether V is the inlet velocity (0.01 m/s) or the local pillar-top velocity. Fig. 4 shows that for 3 μm spacing the local velocity at the pillar tops is about one-half of the inlet value and near the substrate nearly stagnant. If Eq. (12) was evaluated at the inlet velocity, the flow deflection is overestimated at the densest spacings; the crossover length would shift from ~4 μm to roughly 5–6 μm for those arrays. Since the crossover is used to explain differences between 3, 5, and 10 μm spacings, the calculation should use the local velocities from the FEM or explicitly discuss the resulting spacing-dependent crossover. As written, the universal ~4 μm threshold is not established.
  3. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (9)–(10)] The extraction of θ≈68° from the K ratio relies on the simplifications Ω1≈Ω2, Ω1′≈Ω2′, and Ω1<10°. For the 3 μm spacing used in the key 3×10 and 10×3 samples, Eq. (6) gives Ω≈20°, and for 5 μm spacing Ω≈12°, so the small-angle condition is violated in exactly the configurations where the anisotropy is largest. Moreover, K1 and K2 are free parameters fitted to the same bridging data from which θ is inferred, so the agreement is not an independent validation of the vibration model. Please use the full Eq. (9) without the small-angle simplification and, if possible, provide an independent estimate of θ, for example from in-situ vibration observations or from the FEM mechanical model.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (9)] The expression contains 'B1(L1)/B2(L2)' where the context suggests a ratio of K values or KΩΩ′ products; please clarify or correct the notation.
  2. [Table S1] The dynamic viscosity is listed as 2 × 105 Pa·s; the intended value is presumably 2 × 10^-5 Pa·s.
  3. [Fig. 4] Velocity magnitudes are shown in arbitrary units. Add a quantitative color scale or state numerical values so the statement that the local velocity is approximately half the inlet velocity is directly verifiable.
  4. [Eqs. (11)–(12), Table S2] The CNT radius R used in the flow-force and deflection calculations is not specified in the main text or in Table S2. Since the deflection depends on R through the area moment of inertia I, the value used for Fig. 5(a) and Table S3 should be stated.
  5. [Supporting Information, Section S1] There is a typo: 'The the longitudinal angle' should read 'The longitudinal angle'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: crossover and bridging curves are derived from standard mechanics/geometry; fitted constants are not renamed as independent predictions.

full rationale

The central crossover claim is not circular: Eqs. (11)-(13) are standard cantilever/thermal-vibration formulas with literature material parameters, and the crossover at ~4 μm follows from the L^1.5 vs L^4 scaling laws quoted in Section 3.2, not from fitting the network statistics. The bridging model B=KΩΩ' is openly fitted with a single scaling constant K; the geometry-only shape is a real, falsifiable content. The θ≈68° estimate is a re-parameterization of the fitted K ratio through Eq. (10), but the paper uses it only as a consistency check against externally reported oscillation angles, not as a prediction of new data. Self-citations to [21-25] establish prior experimental mechanisms and are not invoked as an unverified uniqueness theorem. The unresolved issue of whether Fig. 5(a) used local or inlet flow velocity, and the quantitative mismatch between the Eq. (13) thermal amplitude and the ~60° swing used in the bridging model, are correctness/consistency concerns rather than circular reductions of the derivation to its inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

5 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central crossover model rests on standard beam mechanics and free-molecular drag with several parameters taken from literature or chosen by hand, plus a fitted K for the geometric bridging model. No new physical entities are postulated.

free parameters (5)
  • K (bridging proportionality constant per neighbor type) = Not reported numerically; only ratio K1/K2 ≈ 3 is given
    Fitted to average bridge counts in Fig. 3(d) for each sample group and neighbor type; absorbs CNT density and growth conditions.
  • θ (effective vibrational angular range) = ≈68° (⊥NN), ≈75° (//NN), derived from K ratio
    Inferred from the ratio of fitted K constants via Eq. (10); not directly measured.
  • Ap (pump vibration amplitude) = 50 μm (assumed upper range)
    Chosen by hand to demonstrate that mechanical vibration is negligible; not measured in this system.
  • f (pump vibration frequency) = 100 Hz (assumed upper range)
    Chosen by hand together with Ap; not measured in this system.
  • CNT radius R = Not stated explicitly; typical SWCNT radius implied
    R enters Eqs. (11) and (12) through the drag force and moment of inertia; the plotted curves in Fig. 5(a) require a specific value, which is never given.
axioms (6)
  • standard math Steady-state incompressible Navier-Stokes equations (Eqs. 1-3)
    Used in COMSOL FEM simulations of gas flow around pillar arrays.
  • domain assumption Free-molecular-flow drag formula (Eq. 11) with momentum accommodation coefficient φ=0.9
    Assumes Knudsen number >> 1 for CNT diameters; formula from Dahneke [33].
  • domain assumption CNT modeled as a cantilever beam with uniform elastic properties for deflection and vibration (Eqs. 12, 13, 15-17)
    Standard continuum mechanics applied to a single-walled CNT with Young's modulus ~1 TPa; catalyst root flexibility neglected after a one-point FEM check.
  • domain assumption Tip-growth mechanism with catalyst particle at the free end (kite growth), as in prior work [21]
    Growth conditions were designed to promote tip growth; if root growth occurs, the crossover model does not apply to the counted bridges.
  • ad hoc to paper Symmetric-geometry simplification Ω1≈Ω2, Ω1'≈Ω2', Ω1<10° to reduce Eq. (9) to Eq. (10)
    Used to estimate vibration angle θ from the K ratio; the introduced approximation error is not quantified.
  • domain assumption Cylindrical pillar approximation for square cross-section pillars in the geometric model
    Justified by the large spacing-to-diameter ratio, but valid only when L is much larger than the difference between square and circular cross-sections.

reviewed 2026-08-04 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Crossover between kite growth and vibrational bridging in pillar-assisted controlled formation of carbon nanotube networks." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F2HKRSDX

@misc{pith2026250908301,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Crossover between kite growth and vibrational bridging in pillar-assisted controlled formation of carbon nanotube networks},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F2HKRSDX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08301}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Pillar-assisted growth is a technique in which short carbon nanotubes (CNTs) form suspended networks by growing across closely spaced microfabricated pillars. During growth, the CNT tips exhibit vibrations that allow them to bridge the neighboring pillars. To improve the complexity and controllability of the CNT networks, we introduce a kite-growth mechanism in which CNTs are elongated and aligned by gas flow during growth, enabling a longer bridging distance compared to vibrational bridging. By integrating theoretical modeling, simulations, and experimental synthesis, we found that CNT tip vibrations dominate bridging at short lengths, whereas gas flow increasingly influences alignment as CNTs grow longer. This results in a crossover behavior governed by gas flow and pillar arrangement. We also developed a bridging model based on geometric constraints to quantify the bridging behavior based on pillar spacing and angular accessibility. The statistical analysis of the resulting network structures demonstrates that the pillar arrangement significantly influences the connection types, with kite growth enabling more diverse network topologies. These findings provide design principles for tuning the density and structural complexity of suspended CNT networks, offering promising applications in nanoscale electrical interconnect wiring and three-dimensional circuit architectures.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Iijima, Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon, Nature 354 (1991) 56–58

    S. Iijima, Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon, Nature 354 (1991) 56–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/354056a0

    doi:10.1038/354056a0 1991

  2. [2]

    Iijima, T

    S. Iijima, T. Ichihashi, Single-shell carbon nanotubes of 1-nm diameter, Nature 363 (1993) 603–605. https://doi.org/10.1038/363603a0

    work page doi:10.1038/363603a0 1993

  3. [3]

    Dresselhaus, M.S

    G. Dresselhaus, M.S. Dresselhaus, R. Saito, Physical Properties Of Carbon Nanotubes, World Scientific, 1998

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    Ando, The electronic properties of graphene and carbon nanotubes, NPG Asia Mater 1 (2009) 17–21

    T. Ando, The electronic properties of graphene and carbon nanotubes, NPG Asia Mater 1 (2009) 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1038/asiamat.2009.1

    work page doi:10.1038/asiamat.2009.1 2009

  5. [5]

    Ruoff, D.C

    R.S. Ruoff, D.C. Lorents, Mechanical and thermal properties of carbon nanotubes, Carbon 33 (1995) 925 –930. https://doi.org/10.1016/0008-6223(95)00021-5

    work page doi:10.1016/0008-6223(95)00021-5 1995

  6. [6]

    Cao, J.A

    Q. Cao, J.A. Rogers, Random networks and aligned arrays of single-walled carbon nanotubes for electronic device applications, Nano Res. 1 (2008) 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12274-008-8033-4

    work page doi:10.1007/s12274-008-8033-4 2008

  7. [7]

    Dillon, Carbon Nanotubes for Photoconversion and Electrical Energy Storage, Chem

    A.C. Dillon, Carbon Nanotubes for Photoconversion and Electrical Energy Storage, Chem. Rev. 110 (2010) 6856 –6872. https://doi.org/10.1021/cr9003314

    work page doi:10.1021/cr9003314 2010

  8. [8]

    Schroeder, S

    V . Schroeder, S. Savagatrup, M. He, S. Lin, T.M. Swager, Carbon Nanotube Chemical Sensors, Chem. Rev. 119 (2019) 599 –663. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00340

    doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00340 2019

  9. [9]

    C. Qiu, Z. Zhang, M. Xiao, Y . Yang, D. Zhong, L. -M. Peng, Scaling carbon nanotube complementary transistors to 5 -nm gate lengths, Science 355 (2017) 271–276. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaj1628

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aaj1628 2017

  10. [10]

    N.F. Zorn, J. Zaumseil, Charge transport in semiconducting carbon nanotube networks, Applied Physics Reviews 8 (2021) 041318. https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0065730

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0065730 2021

  11. [11]

    Y . Yue, D. Zhang, P. Wang, X. Xia, X. Wu, Y . Zhang, J. Mei, S. Li, M. Li, Y . Wang, X. Zhang, X. Wei, H. Liu, W. Zhou, Large -Area Flexible Carbon Nanofilms with Synergistically Enhanced Transmittance and Conductivity Prepared by Reorganizing Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Networks, Advanced Materials 36 (2024) 2313971. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.202313971

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.202313971 2024

  12. [12]

    X. Zhu, M. Xi, J. Wang, P. Zhang, Y . Li, X. Luo, L. Bai, X. Chen, L. Peng, Y . Cao, Q. Li, X. Liang, High-performance ternary logic circuits and neural networks based on carbon nanotube source -gating transistors, Science Advances 11 26 (2025) eadt1909. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adt1909

    work page doi:10.1126/sciadv.adt1909 2025

  13. [13]

    Schmidt, I.A

    R.H. Schmidt, I.A. Kinloch, A.N. Burgess, A.H. Windle, The Effect of Aggregation on the Electrical Conductivity of Spin -Coated Polymer/Carbon Nanotube Composite Films, Langmuir 23 (2007) 5707 –5712. https://doi.org/10.1021/la062794m

    work page doi:10.1021/la062794m 2007

  14. [14]

    Tortorich, J

    R.P. Tortorich, J. -W. Choi, Inkjet Printing of Carbon Nanotubes, Nanomaterials 3 (2013) 453–468. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano3030453

    work page doi:10.3390/nano3030453 2013

  15. [15]

    Cassell, N.R

    A.M. Cassell, N.R. Franklin, T.W. Tombler, E.M. Chan, J. Han, H. Dai, Directed Growth of Free -StandingSingle-Walled Carbon Nanotubes, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 121 (1999) 7975–7976. https://doi.org/10.1021/ja992083t

    work page doi:10.1021/ja992083t 1999

  16. [16]

    Franklin, H

    N.R. Franklin, H. Dai, An Enhanced CVD Approach to Extensive Nanotube Networks with Directionality, Advanced Materials 12 (2000) 890 –894. https://doi.org/10.1002/1521-4095(200006)12:12<890::AID-ADMA890>3.0.CO;2- K

    work page doi:10.1002/1521-4095(200006)12:12 2000

  17. [17]

    Huang, B

    S. Huang, B. Maynor, X. Cai, J. Liu, Ultralong, Well -Aligned Single-Walled Carbon Nanotube Architectureson Surfaces, Advanced Materials 15 (2003) 1651–1655. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.200305203

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.200305203 2003

  18. [18]

    Zhang, Y

    R. Zhang, Y . Zhang, Q. Zhang, H. Xie, W. Qian, F. Wei, Growth of Half-Meter Long Carbon Nanotubes Based on Schulz –Flory Distribution, ACS Nano 7 (2013) 6156–6161. https://doi.org/10.1021/nn401995z

    work page doi:10.1021/nn401995z 2013

  19. [19]

    Y . Bai, H. Yue, J. Wang, B. Shen, S. Sun, S. Wang, H. Wang, X. Li, Z. Xu, R. Zhang, F. Wei, Super-durable ultralong carbon nanotubes, Science 369 (2020) 1104–1106. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5220

    work page doi:10.1126/science.aay5220 2020

  20. [20]

    Jiang, F

    Q. Jiang, F. Wang, R. Li, B. Li, N. Wei, N. Gao, H. Xu, S. Zhao, Y . Huang, B. Wang, W. Zhang, X. Wu, S. Zhang, Y . Zhao, E. Shi, R. Zhang, Synthesis of Ultralong Carbon Nanotubes with Ultrahigh Yields, Nano Lett. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c03858

    work page doi:10.1021/acs.nanolett.2c03858 2023

  21. [21]

    Y . Liu, T. Inoue, M. Wang, M. Arifuku, N. Kiyoyanagi, Y . Kobayashi, Gas flow –directed growth of aligned carbon nanotubes from nonmetallic seeds, Carbon 214 (2023) 118309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.carbon.2023.118309

    work page arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Homma, Y

    Y . Homma, Y . Kobayashi, T. Ogino, T. Yamashita, Growth of suspended carbon nanotube networks on 100 -nm-scale silicon pillars, Applied Physics Letters 81 (2002) 2261–2263. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.1507840

    work page doi:10.1063/1.1507840 2002

  23. [23]

    Matsumoto, Y

    T. Matsumoto, Y . Homma, Y . Kobayashi, Bridging Growth of Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes on Nanostructures by Low-Pressure Hot-Filament Chemical Vapor Deposition, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 44 (2005) 7709. 27 https://doi.org/10.1143/JJAP.44.7709

    work page doi:10.1143/jjap.44.7709 2005

  24. [24]

    Homma, D

    Y . Homma, D. Takagi, Y . Kobayashi, Suspended architecture formation process of single -walled carbon nanotubes, Applied Physics Letters 88 (2006) 023115. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2162799

    work page doi:10.1063/1.2162799 2006

  25. [25]

    Homma, S

    Y . Homma, S. Chiashi, Y . Kobayashi, Suspended single-wall carbon nanotubes: synthesis and optical properties, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72 (2009) 066502. https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/72/6/066502

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/72/6/066502 2009

  26. [26]

    Seo, T.J

    J. Seo, T.J. Lee, S. Ko, H. Yeo, S. Kim, T. Noh, S. Song, M.M. Sung, H. Lee, Hierarchical and Multifunctional Three‐Dimensional Network of Carbon Nanotubes for Microfluidic Applications, Advanced Materials 24 (2012) 1975–1979. https://doi.org/10.1002/adma.201104958

    work page doi:10.1002/adma.201104958 2012

  27. [27]

    Seo, T.J

    J. Seo, T.J. Lee, C. Lim, S. Lee, C. Rui, D. Ann, S. -B. Lee, H. Lee, A Highly Sensitive and Reliable Strain Sensor Using a Hierarchical 3D and Ordered Network of Carbon Nanotubes, Small 11 (2015) 2990 –2994. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.201401812

    work page doi:10.1002/smll.201401812 2015

  28. [28]

    Y . Sun, R. Chen, J. Oh, B. Yoo, H. Lee, Novel synthesis of dual-suspended architectures between Si -pillars for enhanced photocatalytic performance, RSC Adv. 7 (2017) 2880 –2883. https://doi.org/10.1039/C6RA25464K

    work page doi:10.1039/c6ra25464k 2017

  29. [29]

    R. Chen, J. Kang, M. Kang, H. Lee, H. Lee, Silicon Pillar Structure Assisted Three Dimensional Carbon Nanotube Assembly: Fabrications and Rational Surface Modifications, Bulletin of the Chemical Society of Japan 91 (2018) 979 –

    work page 2018

  30. [30]

    B. Xu, R. Chen, J. Zhou, J. Liang, Recent Progress and Challenges Regarding Carbon Nanotube On -Chip Interconnects, Micromachines 13 (2022)

    work page 2022

  31. [31]

    H.-Y . Liu, Y . Sun, D.-M. Sun, H. -M. Cheng, Carbon Nanotube 3D Integrated Circuits: From Design to Applications, Advanced Functional Materials n/a (n.d.) 2424012. https://doi.org/10.1002/adfm.202424012

    work page doi:10.1002/adfm.202424012

  32. [32]

    F. Yao, W. Yu, C. Liu, Y . Su, Y . You, H. Ma, R. Qiao, C. Wu, C. Ma, P. Gao, F. Xiao, J. Zhao, X. Bai, Z. Sun, S. Maruyama, F. Wang, J. Zhang, K. Liu, Complete structural characterization of single carbon nanotubes by Rayleigh scattering circular dichroism, Nat. Nanotechnol. 16 (2021) 1073 –1078. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-021-00953-w

    work page doi:10.1038/s41565-021-00953-w 2021

  33. [33]

    Dahneke, Slip correction factors for nonspherical bodies —II free molecule flow, Journal of Aerosol Science 4 (1973) 147 –161

    B.E. Dahneke, Slip correction factors for nonspherical bodies —II free molecule flow, Journal of Aerosol Science 4 (1973) 147 –161. 28 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(73)90066-9

    work page doi:10.1016/0021-8502(73)90066-9 1973

  34. [34]

    Timoshenko, S

    G. Timoshenko, S. P. J.N., Theory of Elasticity, McGraw -Hill Education (1951)

    work page 1951

  35. [35]

    Homma, Y

    Y . Homma, Y . Kobayashi, T. Ogino, D. Takagi, R. Ito, Y .J. Jung, P.M. Ajayan, Role of Transition Metal Catalysts in Single -Walled Carbon Nanotube Growth in Chemical Vapor Deposition, J. Phys. Chem. B 107 (2003) 12161 –12164. https://doi.org/10.1021/jp0353845

    work page doi:10.1021/jp0353845 2003

  36. [36]

    Born, On the stability of crystal lattices

    M. Born, On the stability of crystal lattices. I, Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 36 (1940) 160 –172. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305004100017138

    work page doi:10.1017/s0305004100017138 1940

  37. [37]

    Treacy, T.W

    M.M.J. Treacy, T.W. Ebbesen, J.M. Gibson, Exceptionally high Young’s modulus observed for individual carbon nanotubes, Nature 381 (1996) 678–680. https://doi.org/10.1038/381678a0

    work page doi:10.1038/381678a0 1996

  38. [38]

    Krishnan, E

    A. Krishnan, E. Dujardin, T.W. Ebbesen, P.N. Yianilos, M.M.J. Treacy, Young’s modulus of single-walled nanotubes, Phys. Rev. B 58 (1998) 14013–14019. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.58.14013

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.58.14013 1998

  39. [39]

    Rao, Y .F

    S.S. Rao, Y .F. Fah, Mechanical vibrations, 5. ed. in SI units, Prentice Hall/Pearson, Singapore, 2011

    work page 2011

  40. [40]

    Tanaka, M

    H. Tanaka, M. Akai -Kasaya, A. TermehYousefi, L. Hong, L. Fu, H. Tamukoh, D. Tanaka, T. Asai, T. Ogawa, A molecular neuromorphic network device consisting of single-walled carbon nanotubes complexed with polyoxometalate, Nat Commun 9 (2018) 2693. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04886-2

    work page doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04886-2 2018

  41. [41]

    Tanaka, T

    G. Tanaka, T. Yamane, J.B. Héroux, R. Nakane, N. Kanazawa, S. Takeda, H. Numata, D. Nakano, A. Hirose, Recent advances in physical reservoir computing: A review, Neural Networks 115 (2019) 100 –123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neunet.2019.03.005

    doi:10.1016/j.neunet.2019.03.005 2019

  42. [42]

    Banerjee, S

    D. Banerjee, S. Azhari, Y . Usami, H. Tanaka, Room temperature demonstration of in -materio reservoir computing for optimizing Boolean function with single -walled carbon nanotube/porphyrin -polyoxometalate composite, Appl. Phys. Express 14 (2021) 105003. https://doi.org/10.35848/1882-0786/ac24db

    work page doi:10.35848/1882-0786/ac24db 2021

  43. [43]

    Tanaka, S

    H. Tanaka, S. Azhari, Y . Usami, D. Banerjee, T. Kotooka, O. Srikimkaew, T.-T. Dang, S. Murazoe, R. Oyabu, K. Kimizuka, M. Hakoshima, In-materio computing in random networks of carbon nanotubes complexed with chemically dynamic molecules: a review, Neuromorph. Comput. Eng. 2 (2022) 022002. https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4386/ac676a

    work page doi:10.1088/2634-4386/ac676a 2022

  44. [44]

    Azhari, D

    S. Azhari, D. Banerjee, T. Kotooka, Y . Usami, H. Tanaka, Influence of 29 junction resistance on spatiotemporal dynamics and reservoir computing performance arising from an SWNT/POM 3D network formed via a scaffold template technique, Nanoscale 15 (2023) 8169 –8180. https://doi.org/10.1039/D2NR04619A. 30 Supporting information Crossover between kite growt...

    work page doi:10.1039/d2nr04619a 2023

  45. [47]

    (S2) This relationship follows from: sin(𝛺/2) = 𝑑 2(𝐿 + 𝑑) , (S3) tan(𝛺/2) = 𝑑 2𝑦 , (S4) cos(𝛺/2) = 𝑧 𝑦

    Derivation of 𝛺 From the geometric configuration, the transverse angle 𝛺 in the horizontal plane is given by: 𝛺 = 2arcsin ( 𝑑 2(𝐿 + 𝑑)) . (S2) This relationship follows from: sin(𝛺/2) = 𝑑 2(𝐿 + 𝑑) , (S3) tan(𝛺/2) = 𝑑 2𝑦 , (S4) cos(𝛺/2) = 𝑧 𝑦 . (S5)

    work page

  46. [48]

    (S6) By substituting Eq

    Derivation of 𝛺′ The the longitudinal angle 𝛺′, which quantifies the vertical accessibility range for bridging, is related to the pillar height ℎ and lateral distance 𝑧 by: tan(𝛺′) = ℎ 𝑧 . (S6) By substituting Eq. (S4) and (S5) into Eq. (S6), and expressing all quantities in terms of 𝛺, we obtain: 𝛺′ = arctan (2ℎtan(𝛺/2) 𝑑cos(𝛺/2) ) = arctan ( 2ℎsin(𝛺/2) ...

    work page

  47. [49]

    Final Expression for Bridging Number 𝐵 By substituting Eq. S(2) and (8) into (1), we arrive at the analytical form: 32 𝐵 = 2𝐾 · arcsin ( 𝑑 2(𝐿 + 𝑑)) · arctan ( ℎ(𝐿 + 𝑑) (𝐿 + 𝑑)2 − (𝑑/2)2) , (S9) This equation shows that the bridging number 𝐵 depends on the geometric parameters of the system: pillar spacing 𝐿, pillar diameter 𝑑, and pillar height ℎ. Notabl...

    work page 2000

  48. [990]

    https://doi.org/10.1246/bcsj.20180042

    work page doi:10.1246/bcsj.20180042

  49. [1148]

    https://doi.org/10.3390/mi13071148

    work page doi:10.3390/mi13071148

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 4, 2026.