Dual actuation micro-mirrors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper investigates the performance of cantilever-type micro-mirrors under electromagnetic, electrostatic and dual actuation. We developed and validated a two-DOFs model of the coupled bending-torsion motions of the mirror and used it in conjunction with experiments in air and in vacuum to compare all three actuation methods. We found that electromagnetic actuation is the most effective delivering a scanning range of ± out of a geometrically allowable range of ± at a current amplitude i = 3 mA and a magnetic field of B = 30 mT. Electrostatic actuation, whether alone or in conjunction with electromagnetic actuation, limited the stable angular range to smaller values (as small as ) due to the presence of spurious piston motions. This is an innate characteristic of micro-scale electrostatic actuation, the electrostatic force and the undesirable piston motion grow faster than the electrostatic torque and the desired angular displacement as the voltage is increased and they limit the stable angular range. Finally, we found that the dual actuation can be used to design two-DOF mirrors where electromagnetic actuation drives angular motion for optical beam steering and electrostatic actuation drives piston motion to control the mirror focus.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".