4.6 Article

Gigashot optical degradation in silica optics at 351 nm

期刊

OPTICS EXPRESS
卷 23, 期 4, 页码 4074-4091

出版社

OPTICAL SOC AMER
DOI: 10.1364/OE.23.004074

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory [DE-AC52-07NA27344]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As applications of lasers demand higher average powers, higher repetition rates, and longer operation times, optics will need to perform well under unprecedented conditions. We investigate the optical degradation of fused silica surfaces at 351 nm for up to 10(9) pulses with pulse fluences up to 12 J/cm(2). The central result is that the transmission loss from defect generation is a function of the pulse intensity, I-p, and total integrated fluence, phi(T), and is influenced by oxygen partial pressure. In 10(-6) Torr vacuum, at low I-p, a transmission loss is observed that increases monotonically as a function of number of pulses. As the pulse intensity increases above 13 MW/cm(2), the observed transmission losses decrease, and are not measureable for 130 MW/cm(2). A physical model which supports the experimental data is presented to describe the suppression of transmission loss at high pulse intensity. Similar phenomena are observed in anti-reflective sol-gel coated optics. Absorption, not scattering, is the primary mechanism leading to transmission loss. In 2.5 Torr air, no transmission loss was detected under any pulse intensity used. We find that the absorption layer that leads to transmission loss is less than 1 nm in thickness, and results from a laser-activated chemical process involving photo-reduction of silica within a few monolayers of the surface. The competition between photo-reduction and photo-oxidation explains the measured data: transmission loss is reduced when either the light intensity or the O-2 concentration is high. We expect processes similar to these to occur in other optical materials for high average power applications. (C) 2015 Optical Society of America

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据