Physical Properties of Nanostructured CdO Films from Alkaline Baths Containing Saccharin as Additive
Nanostructured cadmium oxide (CdO) films were fabricated on glass substrates from alkaline baths containing saccharin as an additive by a successive ionic layer adsorption and reaction (SILAR) method. The effects of saccharin concentration in the bath on the structural, morphological, and optical properties were studied by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray diffraction (XRD), photoluminescence, and Raman spectroscopy. The analyses showed that the surface morphologies, XRD peak intensities, Raman spectroscopy, and photoluminescence properties of CdO films changed with saccharin concentration. From the results, it can be said that morphological characteristic and optical properties of the films could be calibrated by adding various saccharin percentages in the growth bath.
Influence of manganese concentration and annealing temperatures on the physical properties of CdO films grown by the SILAR method
Undoped and doped Cadmium oxide (CdO) films with different Mn concentrations were prepared on glass substrates by the successive ionic layer adsorption and reaction method and annealed at two different temperatures. Structural, morphological and optical conditions were performed by XRD, scanning electron microscope (SEM) and UV–vis spectrum measurements. The deposited films were dense and they adhere well to the glass substrates. From the SEM photographs, it was seen that Mn doping concentration and annealing process affect the morphologies of the nanostructures. It was found that the growth process modifies the microstructures of the CdO films. XRD results and UV–vis analysis reveal that the crystal structure and optical band gap of the films could be adjusted by varying the Mn concentration and annealing temperature. The results also indicate that there is a direct dependence of the physical and optical properties of the metal oxide films on doping concentration and annealing process.
Strategy and Manipulation in Medieval Elections
There are many goals in developing electoral protocols, including a desire for a system which is transparent, in that it is clear what the rule or procedure to follow is; nonmanipulable, in that it is not in a person’s best interest to misrepresent their preferences; honest, in the sense that it elects the ‘right’ candidate; and not open to strategizing, i.e., bribery or collusion. However, these desiderata are in tension with each other: Often, transparent electoral procedures are the least strategy resistant, and many honest procedures encourage manipulation. Thus a balance between these different goals must be sought. In modern times, since the seminal result on vote manipulation, the Gibbard-Satterthwaite Theorem [5, 6], much attention has been devoted to developing voting rules where manipulation is never in the best interest of the voters [4] or which are computationally too complex for the average bounded agent to be able to manipulate [1]. This focus on computational aspects of electoral methods is one of the hallmarks of modern studies on voting. But pursuit of these goals is not restricted to modern times: Those participating in elections in the Middle Ages also sought transparency, non-manipulability, honesty, and strategyproofness in so far as these properties can be consistently expressed in a single procedure. However, given the lack of computational sophistication in the Middle Ages, alternate approaches were needed in order to promote honesty, discourage strategizing, etc. These approaches can be classified as either external (constraints introduced outside of the electoral procedure, such as incentives for coming to consensus quickly) or internal (constraints introduced within the electoral procedure, such as voting rules which cannot be manipulated without adverse effects, or which are too difficult for the average bounded agent to manipulate). Surveying examples of both approaches in the context of medieval ecclesiastical and secular elections provides an interesting comparison to modern electoral procedures. Elections in the Middle Ages were used for the same reasons that they are today: To select suitable candidate(s) for a particular office, duty, or obligation. However, it is important to note that the term electio was used in the Middle Ages in a broader sense than our modern ‘election’. Its primary sense was ‘selection’ or ‘choice’, and only secondarily ‘election’ in the modern sense. Thus, many records which purportedly discuss elections are not discussing elections of the type which interests us. We can identify four categories of medieval electoral processes: (1) Election by an external authority having no direct interest in the election; (2) Indirect election, where electors name other electors who then select or elect the officials; (3) Election by lot; and (4) Election by ballot. Elections of the first and third types are generally computationally uninteresting; the first type corresponds to dictatorial voting rules, and the third type collapses to probability theory. In general, interesting voting methods are found only in the fourth type, election by ballot, though they can also occur in indirect election.