Submicron and nano surface patterning using nanosecond laser technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Direct writing by laser techniques in the micro and nanostructuring scale is very important for the fabrication of new materials and multifunctional devices. They have proven to be very successful tools for precision machining and microfabrication with applications in optical devices, microelectronics, medical device, biomedical, defense applications, and MEMS. Focused nanosecond (ns) laser pulses can produce periodic structures and arrays pattern structures in semiconductors and thin metallic film on shaped surfaces. The achievable structure size is restricted by the wavelength and diffraction limit as well as it is determined by material properties and laser pulse stability. This thesis proposes a nanosecond laser nanostructuring technique in common optical path configuration to examine the limitations of the currently used fabrication methods and type of setups used; the competitive edge is using nanosecond lasers as a tool. Prospectively, this technology can be applied for femtosecond laser fabrication, because this is an easy, simple and common optical path configuration. For this experimental setup, the use of a common optical path configuration for automatic interference offers equals path lengths. It is not required for complicated optical setups while in femtosecond laser setups, it is extremely important to use path compensation in order to offer time delay for one laser beam due to a long path and more optical components. A low repetition rate, low power nanosecond laser system is investigated to preventing the (HAZ) conditions. The influence of the laser repetition rate and pulse energy on the size and quality of submicron features which fabricated on silicon wafers and thin gold film is investigated. In terms of nanomachining below the ablation threshold (surface patterning), the influence of laser fluence, repetition rate and pulse energy on the spacing as well as diameter of dots created on silicon wafer surface is examined. These studies show the capability of the proposed system of nanosecond laser in common optical path configuration in meeting the industry requirements.
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".