Material micromachining using bursts of high repetition rate picosecond pulses from a fiber laser source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we demonstrate the benefits of using bursts of picosecond pulses for material micromachining and compare the results with those obtained when using a nanosecond source with similar pulse energy, pulse width and pulse shape. The picosecond laser source used for the experiments was delivering 60-ps pulses at a repetition rate of 1.8 GHz, grouped within arbitrarily-shaped bursts having a width that could be varied from 2.5 to 40 ns. The laser output central wavelength was at 1064 nm and the output beam M2 value was below 1.15. Micro-milling experiments were performed on silicon for two levels of energy per burst and with different burst amplitude profiles. We show that the maximum material removal efficiency and the surface quality can be increased by more than 25% when using bursts of picosecond pulses with respect to nanosecond pulses with similar energy per pulse. Effect of shaping the burst envelope of the picosecond laser on the maximum material removal efficiency is also presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".