## 3 Fabrication of Sensor
The latter corresponds to type IV made as shown in Figure 11 (which is named \"MCF rubber sensor (b)\" here), and the former is the simple case of type IV as described as follows (which is named \"MCF rubber sensor (a)\" here). The MCF rubber liquid without the hydrate is poured on a metal affixed using the double electroconductive adhesive tape to obtain one electrode of the sensor, and then, a constant voltage and electric current are supplied under the metal as the anode such that the metal is adhered to the MCF rubber. Next, the MCF rubber liquid with the hydrate is poured on the electrolytically polymerized solid MCF rubber without a hydrate, and another metal that should be the other electrode of the sensor is placed on the MCF rubber liquid with the hydrate. These steps are the same as those in case (b). The next step is different. A constant voltage and electric current are supplied under the solid MCF rubber as the cathode and another metal as the anode such that the solid MCF rubber and another metal are simultaneously adhered to the MCF rubber with the hydrate. In the case of bare MCF rubber, the initial electrical resistivity without pressure is the larger than that in case of any MCF rubber sensors; however, upon pressing, it becomes smaller by \(\sim\)15 \(\Omega\) m, which is smaller than those in case of any MCF rubber sensors. However, because electrodes are needed in a sensor, the bare MCF rubber does not fulfill the requirement. In the case of MCF rubber sensor 1, the electrical resistivity in the smallest pressure range is smaller than that of bare MCF rubber. In the case of MCF rubber sensor 2, the electrical resistivity in the smallest pressure range is smaller than that of MCF rubber 1. If an adhesive tape is not used, the electrodes are easily detached from the rubber sensor. Therefore, these results indicate that MCF rubber sensor 2 is superior to MCF rubber sensor 1. In the case of MCF rubber sensor (b), the initial electrical resistivity in the smallest pressure range is smaller than that of MCF rubber 2 by \(\sim\)60 \(\Omega\) m, which is 10-ordered \(\Omega\)m the same as that of bare MCF rubber and is smaller than that of any other MCF rubber sensors. The electrical resistivity does not vary with increasing pressure. The results indicate that the sensor produced by the present adhesive production technique with the hydrate is superior to the MCF rubber sensor made without firm adhesion of electrodes to the sensor (e.g., MCF rubber sensor 2). Furthermore, they also indicate that we can achieve electric conductivity between rubber and metal smaller from the beginning of application of pressure by using the present adhesive production technique. In the case of the MCF rubber sensor (a), the electrical resistivity is larger than that of the MCF rubber sensor (b). The cause of the results is that the coordination of electric current's passing inner the MCF rubber fabricated by particle and molecules of the MCF rubber is intensified by multiple electrolytic polymerization. Therefore, the present adhesive production technique corresponding to (b) in Tables 2 and 3 is superior to that corresponding to (a) in Tables 2 and 3. On the other hand, the cases of MCF rubber sensor 1, 2, (a) and (b) are abruptly changed by enhanced pressure around the initial pressure as indicated \"p\" in Figure 14b. This tendency has more agile switching effect by the least pressure rather than the case of bare MCF rubber as indicated \"q\" in Figure 14b. As for reliability and durability of the present fabricated sensor, we suggest as follows. According to the period of electrolytic polymerization, the secular change of property of the fabricated sensor differs. The cause is due to the water involved in the fabricated sensor. Because of the use of NR or CR, water gets into the MCF rubber.