MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064179973 · doi:10.1117/12.707967

Optical coherence and beamspread in ultrafast-laser pulsetrain-burst hole drilling

2006· article· en· W2064179973 on OpenAlexafffund
Jesse Dean, Paul Forrester, Martin Bercx, David Graper, Luke McKinney, F. Frank, Marc Nantel, R. S. Marjoribanks

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsOpticsLaserMaterials scienceUltrashort pulseLaser drillingBeam (structure)MachiningPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulsetrain-burst machining has been shown to have advantages over single-pulse laser processing of materials and biological tissues. Ultrafast lasers are often able to drill holes in brittle and other difficult materials without cracking or swelling the target material, as is sometimes the case for nanosecond-pulse ablation; further, pulsetrain-bursts of ultrafast pulses are able to recondition the material during processing for instance, making brittle materials more ductile and striking advantages can result. In the work we report, we have investigated hole-drilling characteristics in metal and glass, using a Nd:glass pulsetrain-burst laser (1054 nm) delivering 1-10 ps pulses at 133 MHz, with trains 3-15 μs long. We show that as the beam propagates down the channel being drilled, the beam loses transverse coherence, and that this affects the etch-rate and characteristics of channel shape: as the original Gaussian beam travels into the channel, new boundary conditions are imposed on the propagating beam principally the boundary conditions of a cylindrical channel, and also the effects of plasma generated at the walls as the aluminum is ablated. As a result, the beam will decompose over the dispersive waveguide modes, and this will affect the transverse coherence of the beam as it propagates, ultimately limiting the maximum depth that laser-etching can reach. To measure transverse beam coherence, we use a Youngs two-slit interference setup. By measuring the fringe visibility for various slit separations, we can extract the transverse coherence as a function of displacement across the beam. However, this requires many data runs for different slit separations. Our solution to this problem is a novel approach to transverse coherence measurements: a modified Michelson interferometer. Flipping the beam left-right on one arm, we can interfere the beam with its own mirror-image and characterise the transverse coherence across the beam in a single shot.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207