From: W. Trevor King <wking@tremily.us>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 20:34:18 +0000 (-0400)
Subject: calibcant/procedure.tex: Mention materassi09's alternative bump technique
X-Git-Tag: v1.0~240
X-Git-Url: http://git.tremily.us/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=62a7bca30fc93f845be96fb8576187687d8ceaf7;p=thesis.git

calibcant/procedure.tex: Mention materassi09's alternative bump technique
---

diff --git a/src/calibcant/procedure.tex b/src/calibcant/procedure.tex
index 78dcfd1..90aa66a 100644
--- a/src/calibcant/procedure.tex
+++ b/src/calibcant/procedure.tex
@@ -63,6 +63,15 @@ unmeasurable deflection voltages.  One of the unfolding pulls in
 \cref{fig:pyafm:labview-comparison:many} exhibits this effect,
 although it was recorded using a different stack.
 
+An alternative approach using sinusoidal piezo oscillation in the
+contact region has been proposed by \citet{materassi09}, on the
+grounds that it is more reliable and easily automated than an explicit
+bump and manual analysis.  While I agree that \emph{any} automated
+method is likely better than manual analysis, I feel that the
+difference between using an automated bump with a linear contact fit
+and using an automated oscillation with a linear contact fit is likely
+negligible.
+
 \subsection{Temperature measurements}
 \label{sec:calibcant:temperature}