A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining Applications
In this report we investigate the performance of various beam shutter technologies when applied to femtosecond laser micromachining. Three different shutter options are considered: a mechanical blade shutter, a bistable rotary solenoid shutter, and an electro-optic modulator (EOM) shutter. We analyz...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2022-01-01
|
| Series: | Materials |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/3/897 |
| _version_ | 1797486733602848768 |
|---|---|
| author | Damon G. K. Aboud Michael J. Wood Gianluca Zeppetelli Nithin Joy Anne-Marie Kietzig |
| author_facet | Damon G. K. Aboud Michael J. Wood Gianluca Zeppetelli Nithin Joy Anne-Marie Kietzig |
| author_sort | Damon G. K. Aboud |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In this report we investigate the performance of various beam shutter technologies when applied to femtosecond laser micromachining. Three different shutter options are considered: a mechanical blade shutter, a bistable rotary solenoid shutter, and an electro-optic modulator (EOM) shutter. We analyzed the behavior of each shutter type during repeated open/close commands (period of 10 ≤ <i>T</i> ≤ 200 ms) using both high-speed videography and practical micromachining experiments. To quantify the performance at varying cycle periods, we introduce a new variable called the compliance that characterizes the average state of the shutter with respect to its intended position. We found that the solenoid shutter responds poorly to sequential commands. The mechanical shutter provides reliable performance for cycled commands as short as <i>T</i> = 40 ms, but begins to lag significantly behind the control signal for <i>T</i> ≤ 20 ms. The EOM shutter provides the most precise and reliable performance, with an opening time of only 0.6 ms and a high compliance with the signal commands, even when cycled very quickly (<i>T</i> = 10 ms). Overall, this study acts as an extensive practical guide for other laser users when considering different shutter options for their laser system and desired application. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-09T23:37:29Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-e088391dc210441b9f2f3fcf30489fae |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1996-1944 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-09T23:37:29Z |
| publishDate | 2022-01-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Materials |
| spelling | doaj.art-e088391dc210441b9f2f3fcf30489fae2023-11-23T16:58:57ZengMDPI AGMaterials1996-19442022-01-0115389710.3390/ma15030897A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining ApplicationsDamon G. K. Aboud0Michael J. Wood1Gianluca Zeppetelli2Nithin Joy3Anne-Marie Kietzig4Department of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C5, CanadaDepartment of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C5, CanadaDepartment of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C5, CanadaDepartment of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C5, CanadaDepartment of Chemical Engineering, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0C5, CanadaIn this report we investigate the performance of various beam shutter technologies when applied to femtosecond laser micromachining. Three different shutter options are considered: a mechanical blade shutter, a bistable rotary solenoid shutter, and an electro-optic modulator (EOM) shutter. We analyzed the behavior of each shutter type during repeated open/close commands (period of 10 ≤ <i>T</i> ≤ 200 ms) using both high-speed videography and practical micromachining experiments. To quantify the performance at varying cycle periods, we introduce a new variable called the compliance that characterizes the average state of the shutter with respect to its intended position. We found that the solenoid shutter responds poorly to sequential commands. The mechanical shutter provides reliable performance for cycled commands as short as <i>T</i> = 40 ms, but begins to lag significantly behind the control signal for <i>T</i> ≤ 20 ms. The EOM shutter provides the most precise and reliable performance, with an opening time of only 0.6 ms and a high compliance with the signal commands, even when cycled very quickly (<i>T</i> = 10 ms). Overall, this study acts as an extensive practical guide for other laser users when considering different shutter options for their laser system and desired application.https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/3/897pulsed laserlaser micromachiningmechanical shuttersolenoid shutterelectro-optic modulator shutteropening time |
| spellingShingle | Damon G. K. Aboud Michael J. Wood Gianluca Zeppetelli Nithin Joy Anne-Marie Kietzig A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining Applications Materials pulsed laser laser micromachining mechanical shutter solenoid shutter electro-optic modulator shutter opening time |
| title | A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining Applications |
| title_full | A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining Applications |
| title_fullStr | A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining Applications |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining Applications |
| title_short | A Practical Comparison of Beam Shuttering Technologies for Pulsed Laser Micromachining Applications |
| title_sort | practical comparison of beam shuttering technologies for pulsed laser micromachining applications |
| topic | pulsed laser laser micromachining mechanical shutter solenoid shutter electro-optic modulator shutter opening time |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1944/15/3/897 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT damongkaboud apracticalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT michaeljwood apracticalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT gianlucazeppetelli apracticalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT nithinjoy apracticalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT annemariekietzig apracticalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT damongkaboud practicalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT michaeljwood practicalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT gianlucazeppetelli practicalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT nithinjoy practicalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications AT annemariekietzig practicalcomparisonofbeamshutteringtechnologiesforpulsedlasermicromachiningapplications |