While doing the design of NEMS Logic gate, the most important points we should think wisely whether to go for Casimir’s force interaction or Van der Waal’s force interaction that occur between cantilever beam and electrode surface, otherwise we could do great blunder in the designing our NEMS logic system . Presently, I have successfully design considering both forces separately and simulated it in COMSOL Multiphysics software. However, we don’t have still the NEMS processing tools for designing NEMS logic that is in nanometre range, where we can verify the reliability issues of our designed logic gates in device form. First of all we should distinguish between Casimir force and Van der Waal’s force properly.
We have one parameter called plasma wavelength, which will actually determine whether we shall opt Vanderwaal’s force or Casimir’s force. Considering plasma frequency properties of materials, it has been said that, for separations much less than the plasma wavelength (for a metal) or much less than the absorption wavelength (for a dielectric) of the material constituting the surfaces (typically below 20 nm), the retardation, which is a result of the finite propagation speed of the electromagnetic field, is not significant. In this case, the inter-molecular force between two surfaces is simplified as the Van der Waals attraction. When the separation is large enough (typically above 20 nm) so that the retardation is pronounced, the intermolecular force between two surfaces can be described by the Casimir’s (retarded van der Waals) interaction i.e.
Casimir force acts if initial gap length > Plasma wavelength
Van der Waal’s Force acts if initial gap length < Plasma wavelength
If this above findings are correct, then we have no issues of being in ambiguity, however, we can actually be sure only when we can have our NEMS Logic gate in devices form and we can check its reliability and functionality issues.
References:
1. Lamoreaux SK (2005) Rep Prog Phys 68:201–236
2. Ramezani et al. Microsyst Technol (2008) 14:145–157
3. Ramezani et al. Microsyst Technol (2006) 12:1153–1161