IR Laser Modifications of Anodic Tantalum Pentoxide for Photonic Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Making waveguides requires modification of material along a waveguide path in such a way that conditions for light propagation are advantageous along the waveguide but not so much in surrounding material. Usually, waveguides are produced with micro or nano photolitographic techniques that later require some wet chemistry, and wet or dry etching processes, or in-diffusion processes. Here we are presenting our experiments on non photolitographic modification of electrochemically prepared tantalum pentoxide, Ta2O5, for possible photonic applications. The e-beam evaporated thin tantalum layers on glass were anodized at 23◦C in the 0.5% H2SO4 electrolyte. After anodization samples were rinsed with deionized water and blow dried with nitrogen gas. Laser material modifications were performed in an OPTOMEC, Inc. Aerosol Jet Printer, Model AJ300CE that was equipped not only with a pneumatic and an ultrasonic jet printing set ups, but also with a UV source and with a IR laser. The laser was static over a platen where a sample was located. The laser beam was perpendicular to the platen. Laser writing was done by moving the platen. The platen motion (+/- 1um) was computer controlled and that practically allowed any design. Any *.dxf design files were transformed into the program files that run the system. Straight lines were tested for various laser powers. The width of lines was laser power depended. The circular designs and random designs were generated at the constant laser power and at the constant platen speed. Zeiss optical microscope images of samples were collected without a filter. The microscope light was perpendicular to the surface of the samples. All laser inscribed patterns were very bright compared to the rest of the samples - Figure 1. Figure 1. The IR laser inscribed pattern in anodic Ta2O5 sample. The line with is ~115um. * Electrochemical Society Active Member Figure 1
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) | 0.002 | 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".