Pulse duration dependence of laser damage mechanisms

Bliss, Erlan S.

doi:10.1007/bf01424087

Cited by 38 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 24 publications

(23 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We treat both the PD and the QD-heating as being instantaneous. As it comes to the QD-heating, the energy gap between Stark levels can be bridged by a single phonon, with time constant on the ps or sub-ps scale [36], [37]. After this timescale, the deposited QD-energy is (locally) in thermal equilibrium, and its effect on the phase of a propagating pulse is determined by the local temperature and the thermo-optic coefficient dn/dT.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photodarkening-Induced Phase Distortions and Their Effects in Single-Channel and Coherently Combined Yb-Doped Fiber Chirped Pulse Amplification Systems

Feng

Zhang

Nilsson

2018

J. Lightwave Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We use numerical simulations to investigate the effects of photodarkening (PD) on pulse compression and coherent combination following chirped-pulse amplification in Yb-doped fiber amplifiers. Even though we increase the pump power to keep the pulse energy constant, PD degrades the pulses due to phase distortions resulting from heating acting already within a pulse as well as to increased self-phase modulation if the fiber length is optimized for the PD-free fiber at beginning of life. By contrast, in a fiber shorter than this, the drop in peak power is a relatively modest 35% even at a PD propagation loss as large as 5 dB, thus providing effective mitigation against PD-induced phase distortions. The improvements extend to the combination efficiency of beam-combined systems.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Photodarkening-Induced Phase Distortions and Their Effects in Single-Channel and Coherently Combined Yb-Doped Fiber Chirped Pulse Amplification Systems

Feng

Zhang

Nilsson

2018

J. Lightwave Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Damage occurs through conventional heat deposition ( heating of the lattice), resulting in melting, boiling, or fracture of the dielectric material. Because the controlling rate is that of thermal conduction through the lattice, this model predicts 14,15 a t 1/2 dependence of the threshold fluence on pulse duration. This is in reasonably good agreement with numerous experiments 16 -23 in which a t a scaling with nominally 0.3 , a , 0.6 was observed in a variety of dielectric materials (including samples with defects) from 10 ps to more than 100 ns.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Optical ablation by high-power short-pulse lasers

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Laser-induced damage threshold measurements were performed on homogeneous and multilayer dielectrics and gold-coated optics at 1053 and 526 nm for pulse durations t ranging from 140 fs to 1 ns. Gold coatings were found, both experimentally and theoretically, to be limited to 0.6 J͞cm 2 in the subpicosecond range for 1053-nm pulses. In dielectrics, we find qualitative differences in the morphology of damage and a departure from the diffusion-dominated t 1/2 scaling that indicate that damage results from plasma formation and ablation for t # 10 ps and from conventional heating and melting for t . 50 ps. A theoretical model based on electron production by multiphoton ionization, joule heating, and collisional (avalanche) ionization is in quantitative agreement with both the pulse-width and the wavelength scaling of experimental results.

show abstract

“…Indeed, this temporal scaling law has motivated many research groups in order to obtain information on the mechanisms responsible for laser-induced damage in dielectrics. Unlike the standard 0.5 value of x that has been demonstrated in a lot of materials by both experimental (Stuart et al, 1996) and simple physical considerations (Bliss, 1971;Wood, 2003), LID in KDP exhibits a lower value of x that is close to 0.35 at 3ω (Adams et al, 2005;Burnham et al, 2003). A first attempt has been made by Feit and co-workers to explain this deviation from 0.5 Trenholme et al, 2006).…”

Section: Dmt Modelmentioning

confidence: 93%