MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895983641 · doi:10.2351/1.5062949

High throughput surface structuring with ultrashort pulses in synchronized mode with fast polygon line scanner

2013· article· en· W2895983641 on OpenAlexaff
Beat Neuenschwander, Beat Jäggi, Markus Zimmermann, Lars Penning, Ronny De Loor, K. J. Weingarten, A. Oehler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser Material Processing Techniques
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersKommission für Technologie und Innovation
KeywordsScannerOpticsLaserLaser scanningPolygon (computer graphics)Computer scienceGalvanometerMachiningScan lineLine (geometry)Synchronization (alternating current)Materials sciencePhysicsMathematicsTelecommunicationsPixelGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High precision laser micromachining requires an exact synchronization of the laser pulse train with the mechanical axes of the motion system to ensure for each single pulse a precise control of the laser spot position - on the target. For ultra short pulsed laser systems this was already demonstrated with a conventional two-axis galvanometer scanner. But this solution is limited by the scanner architecture to a marking speed of about 10m/s with a maximum scan line length of about 100mm. It is therefore not suited for average powers far beyond 10W when working at the optimum point with highest removal rate and machining quality is desired. A way to overcome this limitation is offered by polygon line scanners which are able to realize much higher lateral speeds at large scan line lengths. In this work we will report on the results with a polygon line scanner having a maximum moving spot velocity of 100m/s, a scan line length of 170mm, spot diameters of 45µm (1064nm) and 22µm (532nm) together with a 50W, 10-ps laser system. The precise control of the laser spot position i.e. the synchronization is realized via the new SuperSyncTM technology. Decoating, perforation and 3D patterning will act as benchmark processes to evaluate this scanning technology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.787

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLaser Material Processing TechniquesFrench-language works237,207