Stable high power deep-uv enhancement cavity in ultra-high vacuum with fluoride coatings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We demonstrate the superior performance of dielectric fluoride coatings versus oxide coatings in long term vacuum operation of a high power deep-ultraviolet enhancement cavity. In ultra-high vacuum (10−8 mbar), the fluoride optics can maintain up to 10 W of stable intracavity power on one hour time scales, a record-high at these vacuum levels, whereas for the oxide optics, we observe rapid degradation at lower intracavity powers with a rate that increases with power. After observing degradation in high vacuum, we can recover the fluoride and oxide optics with oxygen; however, this recovery process becomes ineffective after several applications. For the fluoride optics, we see that initial UV conditioning in an oxygen environment helps to improve the performances of the optics. In oxygen-rich environments from ∼10−4 mbar, the fluoride optics can stably maintain up to 20 W of intracavity power on several-hour time scales whereas for the oxide optics there is immediate degradation with a rate that increases with decreasing oxygen pressure.
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".