Baschnagel, J. and Binder, K., Macromolecules.
28, 6808 (1995).
Pakula, T., J. Chem. Phys.
95, 4658 (1991).
Wallace, W.E., van Zanten, J.H., Wu, W.L., Phys. Rev. E.
52, R3329 (1995).
van Zanten, J.H., Wallace, W.E., Wu, W.L.., Phys. Rev. E.
53, R2053 (1996).
Keddie, J.L., Jones, R.A.L., Cory, R.A., Europhys. Lett.
27, 59 (1994).
Forrest, J.A., Dalnoki-Veress, K., Dutcher, J.R., Phys. Rev. E.
56, 5707 (1997).
Kajiyama, T., Tanaka, K., Takahara, A., Macromolecules.
30, 280 (1997).
Prucker, O., Christian, S., Bock, H., Frank, C.W., Knoll, W., Macromol. Chem. Phys.
199, 1435 (1998).
Hall, D.B., Miller, R.D., Torkelson, J.M., J. P. Sci., B: Phys.
35, 2795. (1997).
Kwan, S.C.M., Wu, C., Li, F., Savitski, E.P., Harris, F.W., Cheng, S.Z.D., Macromol. Chem. Phys.
198, 3605 (1997).
11. According to ISO 31–8 the term “molecular weight” has been replaced by “relative molecular mass,” symbol Mr Thus, if this nomenclature were to be followed in thispublication, one would write Mr, n instead of the historically conventional M, for the number average molecular weight, with similar changes for Mw, Mz, and My, and it would be called the “number average relative molecular mass.” The conventional notation, rather than the ISO notation, has been employed for this publication.
12. The data in Figure 1 are presented along with the standard uncertainty (±) involved in the measurement.
13. The error in the fitted dPS film thickness at different respective temperatures is estimated to be Δthick = 0.1 Å by the fitting procedure which is based on a Marquart-Levenburg fit that minimizes a merit function, χ2, through variation of a group of specified parameters.(14–16) The small magnitude of the uncertainty estimate is a partial consequence of this fitting procedure which minimizes χ2 based on a set of optimized parameters (polyimide films and dPS film thickness, neutron scattering length density, and interfacial roughness between layers) whose individual errors are small but correlated.(16) Although an absolute measure of the individual uncertainty in the dPS film thickness would be beneficial it is not possible to obtain such an estimate for any fitted parameter value resulting from this type of χ2 fitting of the experimental data without imposing an arbitrary criteria of deviation between an optimum fit and a significantly less-than optimum fit. The error estimate provided by the χ2 routine is the least ambiguous estimate for the film thickness measurements in this study.
Ankner, J.F. and Majkrzak, C.F., SPIE.
1738, 260 (1992).
Press, W.H. et al., Numerical Recipes, 3 rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK (1992).
Asmussen, A. and Riegler, H., J. Chem. Phys.
104, 8159 (1996).