3D printing technique and its application in the fabrication of THz fibers and waveguides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing technique, has recently found applications in various engineering fields due to its ability to produce freeform 3D structures beyond the ability of traditional subtractive manufacturing methods. In this respect, the field of THz photonics is no exception. The adoption of 3D printing technique resulted in a revolution in THz optics and device manufacturing and will continue advancing this field for years to come. In this Perspective paper, we consider, in particular, the fabrication of guided optics devices for the THz operation range using additive manufacturing. We first introduce the technical characteristics of various 3D printing techniques as well as the advantages, disadvantages, and main performance parameters. Then, various 3D printed THz waveguides and fibers and functional devices, such as metalized/metallic/dielectric rectangular waveguides, photonic crystal waveguides, hollow-core anti-resonant/Bragg waveguides, hybrid metal/dielectric waveguides, plasmonic waveguide, porous fibers, magic tee, and serpentine waveguide traveling-wave circuits, are discussed. We also highlight practical applications of 3D printed waveguides/fibers in manipulating THz waves, especially in the fields of sensing and communication, including the analyte thickness and refractive index sensors, subwavelength/suspended core fiber communication links, dispersion compensators, and add-drop multiplexers. Finally, the prospects of 3D printing techniques in the THz field are summarized.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".