In the previous year’s work, we have shown that reporting laser-induced damage threshold (LIDT) as a single number might be misleading without mentioning the testing details. Furthermore, we also demonstrated that the longitudinal mode structure of the laser pulse could also lead to some discrepancies in LIDT estimates. A direct comparison of most popular testing protocols, namely 1-on-1, S-on-1, R-on-1, and Raster Scan was made for dielectric mirror coatings. In this year's study, we extended our work to new experiments on transmissive optics, namely uncoated fused silica and AR coatings. As in the previous study we used similar irradiation conditions: both single longitudinal mode injection seeded pulses as well as non-seeded multimode pulses with comparable effective pulse durations. Samples were tested using both first (1064 nm) and third (355 nm) harmonics of nanosecond Nd: YAG laser. In addition to experimental work, we also added a theoretical part that includes the results of pertinent Monte Carlo simulations. The experimental results and simulations are directly compared and discussed.
Quality standards are the basis for establishing a common ground between both research institutions and commercial organizations that exchange quantitative information about product features and related issues. In the rapidly changing world, the field of photonics is at the forefront of innovation: research, development, and manufacturing of new types of optics and lasers take place daily. In this context, new important aspects and limitations of the current damage testing approach become apparent. Accordingly, the ISO family of standards (ISO 21254) related to laser-induced damage threshold testing is reviewed and updated regularly. Various inputs into laser-induced damage testing were collected over the years by Lithuanian laser-induced damage community, which is a long-time practitioner of the current and previous revisions of ISO standards. Within this presentation, an attempt is made to contribute to the tremendous work that has already been done. Two types of efforts are made. First of all, we seek to identify weak points, edge cases and areas that leave some space for various misinterpretations and systematic errors. Secondly, we propose possible solutions (with corresponding Monte Carlo simulations for validation) that are currently in practice at laboratories of Lidaris UAB and Laser Research Center of Vilnius University. The suggested inputs are mostly related to definitions of damage criteria, test procedures, analysis of results, selection of appropriate testing protocols and their parameters as well as data representation. By no means, our observations seek to diminish the value of present approaches. As imperfect as they are, current standards were the only appropriate reference for a long time and proved to be adequate in most cases. We believe that the idea of a single protocol that would address all the issues of the community is flawed (considering the wide gamut of optics and lasers), therefore different testing protocols should be viewed as tools to address different problems. We also hope that some of our quantitative inputs could bring more clarity to preconceptions about laser-induced damage testing and significantly improve current approaches.
As a rule of thumb, laser-induced damage threshold (LIDT) is often reported in terms of a single number, without even mentioning the testing details. However, meaning of reported LIDT numbers could be different depending on the testing protocol used. Such differences are not always obvious to practitioners that are designing or building laser systems (users of LIDT numbers). Furthermore, the properties of laser sources used for LIDT testing could also be very different among various testing laboratories. Thus, in order to exemplify possible effects of LIDT testing details on reported values an experimental study is conducted, where direct comparison of the most popular testing protocols, namely 1-on-1, S-on-1, R-on-1, and Raster Scan, is made. Experiments were organized in such a way that all the tests for the wavelength of interest were done on the same sample (conventional high-reflectivity HR mirror) by using both injection-seeded pulses (single longitudinal mode) as well as non-seeded (multimode) pulses with comparable effective pulse duration. Two sufficiently large dielectric mirrors were tested. Experiments were conducted for fundamental- (1064 nm) and third- (355 nm) harmonic wavelengths of Nd:YAG laser. The LIDTs obtained by using distinct testing protocols as well as pertinent damage morphologies are directly compared and discussed.
Access to the requested content is limited to institutions that have purchased or subscribe to SPIE eBooks.
You are receiving this notice because your organization may not have SPIE eBooks access.*
*Shibboleth/Open Athens users─please
sign in
to access your institution's subscriptions.
To obtain this item, you may purchase the complete book in print or electronic format on
SPIE.org.
INSTITUTIONAL Select your institution to access the SPIE Digital Library.
PERSONAL Sign in with your SPIE account to access your personal subscriptions or to use specific features such as save to my library, sign up for alerts, save searches, etc.