pith. sign in

arxiv: 2604.13858 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-15 · ⚛️ physics.optics · cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Breakdown of spallation in multi-pulse ultrafast laser ablation

David Redka , Julian Vollmann , Nicolas Thomae , Maximilian Spellauge , Heinz P. Huber This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-10 12:50 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.optics cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ultrashort-pulse laser ablationhomogeneous spallationmulti-pulse regimeNewton ringspump-probe interferometryphase explosionstainless steel
0
0 comments X

The pith

Homogeneous spallation governs only the first ultrafast laser pulse on metals and breaks down by the third or fourth pulse.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines whether the established single-pulse mechanism of homogeneous spallation, in which tensile stress ejects a thin liquid film from a flat metal surface, continues when later pulses strike an already modified surface. Pump-probe interferometry on stainless steel reveals clear Newton-ring signatures only after the initial pulse. These rings disappear and the optical response saturates into a different pattern after three to four pulses. The authors conclude that multi-pulse ablation therefore proceeds by a distinct process. This distinction matters because practical laser machining always uses repeated pulses on the same location.

Core claim

On austenitic stainless steel, homogeneous spallation and its associated nanometre-scale liquid film dominate the first pulse, producing temporally evolving concentric Newton rings. The contribution of this mechanism is strongly reduced on the second pulse; by the third pulse the rings vanish and sustained surface bulging collapses, while the optical transients fully saturate into a phase-explosion-like signature by the fourth pulse. Fourier-domain coherence analysis rules out roughness-induced decoherence as the cause of the change. Four independent observables, both time-resolved and final-state, converge on the same transition after three to four pulses, establishing that spallation-layer

What carries the argument

Pulse-by-pulse time-resolved pump-probe interferometry that tracks Newton rings and optical phase transients, cross-checked by Fourier-domain coherence analysis to exclude roughness artefacts.

If this is right

  • Spallation-layer ejection cannot be invoked to model ablation rates once the surface has received more than one pulse.
  • Industrial multi-pulse laser processing must incorporate a transition to a phase-explosion-like regime after the initial shots.
  • Ablation depth per pulse is expected to stabilise only after the first few pulses once spallation ceases.
  • Surface preparation or pulse-to-pulse feedback could extend the spallation window beyond one shot.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The transition point may shift with material, fluence, or pulse duration, offering a testable variable for other metals.
  • If spallation is absent after the first pulse, models that rely on it for predicting debris or melt dynamics will over-estimate film ejection in repeated irradiation.
  • The observed saturation suggests that a steady-state ablation morphology is reached quickly, which could simplify process control in high-repetition-rate machining.

Load-bearing premise

The disappearance of Newton rings and saturation of transients after three to four pulses signals the end of homogeneous spallation rather than some other unexcluded change in surface morphology or optical response.

What would settle it

Persistent Newton rings or non-saturating optical transients continuing beyond the fourth identical pulse on a comparably prepared surface would falsify the claimed breakdown.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.13858 by David Redka, Heinz P. Huber, Julian Vollmann, Maximilian Spellauge, Nicolas Thomae.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Single-pulse spallation dynamics at 2Fthr. (a) Raw interferograms at selected pump–probe delays ∆t (38.7 µm field of view). (b) Spatiotemporal maps of the relative reflectivity change ∆R/R0 (top) and interferometric phase ∆ϕ expressed as equivalent optical path length (bottom) versus delay ∆t and radial distance r from the irradiation centre. (c) Three-stage spallation-layer disintegration pathway and the … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Breakdown of spallation under multi-pulse irradiation at 2Fthr. (a) Raw interferograms after N = 2 (top) and N = 3 (bottom) pulses per site, with ∆t referenced to the respective pump pulse (38.7 µm field of view). (b) Spatiotemporal maps of ∆R/R0 (top) and equivalent optical path length change ∆ϕ (bottom) for N = 2, referenced to the final state after the preceding pulse, with centre traces shown next to e… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Coherence diagnostics and pulse-resolved ablation metrics establish a spallation-to-phase-explosion like transition after three pulses. (a) Normalised spectral powers of the DC (red) and AC (blue) Fourier components as a function of delay for N = 1, 2, 3, and 4, extracted within a restricted integration bandwidth (Methods). (b) Scanning electron micrographs of the crater-centre morphology (10 µm field of v… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ultrashort-pulse laser ablation of metals near damage threshold is governed by homogeneous spallation, in which tensile unloading releases a nanometre-thin liquid film whose optical signatures are temporally evolving concentric Newton rings in pump--probe experiments. This well-established picture rests almost exclusively on single-pulse results obtained on ideally flat surfaces, yet application-oriented processing invariably operates in a multi-pulse regime in which each pulse irradiates a surface progressively modified by preceding pulses. Whether homogeneous spallation persists under these conditions has remained an open question. Here we resolve this question using time-resolved pump-probe interferometry applied pulse by pulse to austenitic stainless steel. We show that homogeneous spallation dominates the first pulse, while its contribution is strongly reduced for the second pulse. By the third pulse, Newton rings vanish and sustained surface bulging collapses, with the optical transients fully saturating into a phase-explosion-like signature by the fourth pulse. Fourier-domain coherence analysis rules out roughness-induced decoherence as an optical artefact. Four independent observables, spanning time-resolved and final-state measurements, converge on the same transition after three to four pulses. Spallation-layer formation, widely invoked to explain ultrashort-pulse ablation of metals, is thus a single-pulse phenomenon rather than a multi-pulse ablation mechanism.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. This paper presents an experimental investigation using time-resolved pump-probe interferometry applied pulse-by-pulse to austenitic stainless steel. It claims that homogeneous spallation (evidenced by temporally evolving concentric Newton rings and surface bulging) dominates only the first pulse, is strongly reduced on the second pulse, and by the third to fourth pulses the optical transients vanish and saturate into a phase-explosion-like signature. Fourier-domain coherence analysis is invoked to exclude roughness-induced decoherence as an artifact, with four independent observables (time-resolved and final-state) converging on a transition after 3-4 pulses. The central conclusion is that spallation-layer formation is strictly a single-pulse phenomenon rather than a mechanism operative in multi-pulse ablation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the result is significant for the field of ultrafast laser ablation because it challenges the common extrapolation of single-pulse spallation models to the multi-pulse regimes used in practical processing. The experimental design, with its pulse-by-pulse tracking and convergence of four observables plus an explicit Fourier coherence check against roughness artifacts, provides a direct test of mechanism persistence that could inform revised models incorporating incubation effects. Credit is due for the reproducible experimental protocol and falsifiable, observation-based claim.

major comments (1)
  1. [Results and discussion of multi-pulse optical transients] The interpretation that the disappearance of Newton rings, collapse of sustained surface bulging, and saturation of optical transients after three to four pulses uniquely diagnoses the breakdown of homogeneous spallation (rather than cumulative surface morphology or dielectric changes) is load-bearing for the central claim. While the Fourier-domain coherence analysis rules out roughness-induced decoherence, the manuscript does not provide explicit exclusion or modeling of other plausible optical confounders such as incubation-altered reflectivity, subsurface void formation, or non-uniform dielectric response that could produce similar saturation signatures without a change in the ablation mechanism.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract and main text would benefit from inclusion of quantitative error bars, statistical measures, or detailed exclusion criteria for the four converging observables to allow independent verification of the reported saturation behavior.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading, positive evaluation of significance, and constructive major comment. We address the concern point by point below and agree that additional discussion will strengthen the manuscript.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The interpretation that the disappearance of Newton rings, collapse of sustained surface bulging, and saturation of optical transients after three to four pulses uniquely diagnoses the breakdown of homogeneous spallation (rather than cumulative surface morphology or dielectric changes) is load-bearing for the central claim. While the Fourier-domain coherence analysis rules out roughness-induced decoherence, the manuscript does not provide explicit exclusion or modeling of other plausible optical confounders such as incubation-altered reflectivity, subsurface void formation, or non-uniform dielectric response that could produce similar saturation signatures without a change in the ablation mechanism.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript would benefit from explicit discussion of these alternative optical explanations. The central claim is supported by the convergence of four independent observables (time-resolved Newton-ring evolution, surface-bulging dynamics, optical-transient saturation, and final-state morphology) rather than any single signature. Newton rings arise specifically from thin-film interference in a detached liquid layer; incubation-altered reflectivity would modulate amplitude but not generate or suppress this interference pattern in a strictly pulse-number-dependent manner. Subsurface void formation or phase-explosion onset would produce different temporal phase-shift dynamics without the initial coherent bulging and ring evolution confined to the first pulse. Non-uniform dielectric response is inconsistent with the spatially uniform saturation observed in the interferometric data. The Fourier coherence check already excludes roughness-induced loss of visibility. To address the referee's point directly, we will add a dedicated paragraph in the revised discussion section that qualitatively contrasts these confounders with the observed signatures and cites supporting literature on incubation. No new experiments are required for this clarification. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: purely experimental observations with independent convergence of data

full rationale

The paper presents time-resolved pump-probe interferometry measurements on stainless steel under multi-pulse irradiation. Its central claim—that homogeneous spallation is limited to the first pulse and breaks down by the third or fourth pulse—rests on the direct observation of vanishing Newton rings, collapse of surface bulging, and saturation of optical transients, corroborated by four independent observables and a Fourier-domain coherence check that excludes roughness-induced decoherence. No equations, fitted parameters, model predictions, or derivations are present that could reduce to the input data by construction. Self-citations, if any, are not load-bearing for the experimental inference, and the result is falsifiable against external benchmarks such as single-pulse literature. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with no reduction to inputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the domain assumption that Newton rings and specific optical transients are reliable signatures of homogeneous spallation, with no free parameters or new entities introduced.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Newton rings in pump-probe interferometry indicate homogeneous spallation in single-pulse ablation
    Standard interpretation in the field for flat surfaces near damage threshold.
  • domain assumption Fourier-domain coherence analysis can distinguish roughness-induced decoherence from true mechanistic changes
    Used to rule out optical artifacts from surface modification.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5539 in / 1458 out tokens · 72025 ms · 2026-05-10T12:50:10.163242+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Optech Consulting, Laser market data (2026)

    work page 2026

  2. [2]

    Sugioka and Y

    K. Sugioka and Y. Cheng, Light: Science & Applications 3, e149 (2014)

    work page 2014

  3. [3]

    R. R. Gattass and E. Mazur, Nature Photonics2, 219 (2008)

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    Kerse, H

    C. Kerse, H. Kalaycıoğlu, B. Çetin, D. K. Kesim, Ö. Akçaalan, S. Yavaş, M. D. Aşık, B. Öktem, H. Hoog- land, R. Holzwarth, and F. Ö. Ilday, Nature537, 84 (2016)

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    Oparin, J

    K.Sokolowski-Tinten, J.Bialkowski, A.Cavalleri, D.Von Der Linde, A. Oparin, J. Meyer-ter Vehn, and S. I. Anisi- mov, Physical Review Letters81, 224 (1998), 475 cita- tions (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 1998

  6. [6]

    Winter, S

    J. Winter, S. Rapp, M. Spellauge, C. Eulenkamp, M. Schmidt, and H. P. Huber, Applied Surface Science 511, 145514 (2020), 49 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Fuentes-Edfuf, M

    Y. Fuentes-Edfuf, M. Garcia-Lechuga, J. Solis, and J. Siegel, Laser & Photonics Reviews16, 2200511 (2022), 12 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    T. G. White, T. D. Griffin, D. Haden, H. J. Lee, E. Galtier, E. Cunningham, D. Khaghani, A. Descamps, L. Wollenweber, B. Armentrout, C. Convery, K. Ap- pel, L. B. Fletcher, S. Goede, J. B. Hastings, J. Irat- cabal, E. E. McBride, J. Molina, G. Monaco, L. Mor- rison, H. Stramel, S. Yunus, U. Zastrau, S. H. Glenzer, G. Gregori, D. O. Gericke, and B. Nagler,...

    work page 2025

  9. [9]

    Lorazo, L

    P. Lorazo, L. J. Lewis, and M. Meunier, Physical Review Letters91, 225502 (2003), 257 citations (Crossref) [2024- 10-25]

    work page 2003

  10. [10]

    M. E. Povarnitsyn, V. B. Fokin, and P. R. Levashov, Applied Surface Science357, 1150 (2015), 58 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2015

  11. [11]

    Rethfeld, D

    B. Rethfeld, D. S. Ivanov, M. E. Garcia, and S. I. Anisi- mov, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics50, 193001 (2017), 359 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-25]

    work page 2017

  12. [12]

    N. A. Inogamov, V. V. Zhakhovskii, S. I. Ashitkov, Y. V. Petrov, M. B. Agranat, S. I. Anisimov, K. Nishihara, and V. E. Fortov, Journal of Experimental and Theo- retical Physics107, 10.1134/s1063776108070017 (2008), publisher: Pleiades Publishing Ltd

    work page doi:10.1134/s1063776108070017 2008

  13. [13]

    M. E. Povarnitsyn, N. E. Andreev, E. M. Apfelbaum, T. E. Itina, K. V. Khishchenko, O. F. Kostenko, P. R. Levashov, and M. E. Veysman, Applied Surface Science 258, 9480 (2012), publisher: Elsevier BV

    work page 2012

  14. [15]

    L. V. Zhigilei, Z. Lin, and D. S. Ivanov, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C113, 11892 (2009), 382 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2009

  15. [16]

    Paltauf and P

    G. Paltauf and P. E. Dyer, Chemical Reviews103, 487 (2003), 311 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2003

  16. [17]

    Manca, S

    B. Rethfeld, K. Sokolowski-Tinten, D. Von Der Linde, and S. I. Anisimov, Physical Review B65, 10.1103/phys- revb.65.092103 (2002), publisher: American Physical So- ciety (APS)

    work page doi:10.1103/phys- 2002

  17. [18]

    Bonse, G

    J. Bonse, G. Bachelier, J. Siegel, and J. Solis, Physi- cal Review B74, 134106 (2006), 89 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2006

  18. [19]

    Redka, M

    D. Redka, M. Spellauge, C. Sandner, J. Minár, and H. P. Huber, Applied Surface Science686, 162190 (2025), pub- lisher: Elsevier BV

    work page 2025

  19. [20]

    Bulgakova and A

    N. Bulgakova and A. Bulgakov, Applied Physics A Ma- terials Science & Processing73, 199 (2001), 428 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2001

  20. [21]

    G. Lin, L. Jiang, P. Ji, J. Sun, J. Hu, and Y. Lian, Op- tics & Laser Technology180, 111404 (2025), publisher: Elsevier BV

    work page 2025

  21. [22]

    Y. Jee, M. F. Becker, and R. M. Walser, Journal of the Optical Society of America B5, 648 (1988), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    work page 1988

  22. [23]

    Mannion, J

    P. Mannion, J. Magee, E. Coyne, G. O’Connor, and T. Glynn, Applied Surface Science233, 275 (2004), pub- lisher: Elsevier BV

    work page 2004

  23. [24]

    Thomae, D

    N. Thomae, D. Jangid, M. Spellauge, C. Eulenkamp, E. Gurevich, C. Schwalb, H. P. Huber, and D. Redka, Laser & Photonics Reviews20, e00694 (2026)

    work page 2026

  24. [25]

    Bonse, S

    J. Bonse, S. Hohm, S. V. Kirner, A. Rosenfeld, and J. Kruger, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics23, 10.1109/jstqe.2016.2614183 (2017), pub- lisher: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). 9

    work page doi:10.1109/jstqe.2016.2614183 2016

  25. [26]

    Gnilitskyi, T

    I. Gnilitskyi, T. J.-Y. Derrien, Y. Levy, N. M. Bul- gakova, T. Mocek, and L. Orazi, Scientific Reports7, 10.1038/s41598-017-08788-z (2017), publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08788-z 2017

  26. [27]

    A. Y. Vorobyev and C. Guo, Laser & Photonics Reviews 7, 385 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [28]

    Rudenko, C

    A. Rudenko, C. Mauclair, F. Garrelie, R. Stoian, and J.-P. Colombier, Physical Review B99, 235412 (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [29]

    Maxwell Meets Marangoni—A Review of Theories on Laser- Induced Periodic Surface Structures

    J. Bonse and S. Gräf, Laser & Photonics Reviews14, 10.1002/lpor.202000215 (2020), publisher: Wiley

    work page doi:10.1002/lpor.202000215 2020

  29. [30]

    V. V. Temnov, K. Sokolowski-Tinten, P. Zhou, and D. Von Der Linde, Journal of the Optical Society of America B23, 1954 (2006), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    work page 1954

  30. [31]

    Thomae, M

    N. Thomae, M. Spellauge, D. Redka, and H. P. Huber, Applied Surface Science Advances32, 100928 (2026)

    work page 2026

  31. [32]

    A. A. Ionin, S. I. Kudryashov, and A. A. Samokhin, Physics-Uspekhi60, 149 (2017), publisher: Uspekhi Fizicheskikh Nauk (UFN) Journal

    work page 2017

  32. [33]

    Wu and L

    C. Wu and L. V. Zhigilei, Applied Physics A114, 11 (2014), 278 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2014

  33. [34]

    G. A. Niklasson, C. G. Granqvist, and O. Hunderi, Ap- plied Optics20, 26 (1981)

    work page 1981

  34. [35]

    M. R. Rahman, L. Shen, J. P. Ewen, D. M. Heyes, D. Dini, and E. R. Smith, Communications Physics7, 242 (2024)

    work page 2024

  35. [36]

    M. A. Durán-Olivencia, R. S. Gvalani, S. Kalliadasis, and G. A. Pavliotis, Journal of Statistical Physics174, 579 (2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [37]

    C.-Y. Shih, M. V. Shugaev, C. Wu, and L. V. Zhigilei, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C121, 16549 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [38]

    Rudenko, C

    A. Rudenko, C. Mauclair, F. Garrelie, R. Stoian, and J. Colombier, Applied Surface Science470, 228 (2019), publisher: Elsevier BV

    work page 2019

  38. [39]

    Rudenko, A

    A. Rudenko, A. Abou-Saleh, F. Pigeon, C. Mauclair, F. Garrelie, R. Stoian, and J.-P. Colombier, Acta Mate- rialia194, 93 (2020), 96 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-25] MAG ID: 3021592697

    work page 2020

  39. [40]

    Weber, T

    R. Weber, T. Graf, P. Berger, V. Onuseit, M. Wieden- mann, C.Freitag,andA.Feuer,OpticsExpress22,11312 (2014), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    work page 2014

  40. [41]

    Bauer, A

    F. Bauer, A. Michalowski, T. Kiedrowski, and S. Nolte, Optics Express23, 1035 (2015), publisher: Optica Pub- lishing Group

    work page 2015

  41. [42]

    J. M. Liu, Optics Letters7, 196 (1982), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    work page 1982

  42. [43]

    Di Niso, C

    F. Di Niso, C. Gaudiuso, T. Sibillano, F. P. Mezzapesa, A. Ancona, and P. M. Lugarà, Optics Express22, 12200 (2014), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    work page 2014

  43. [44]

    Lickschat, D

    P. Lickschat, D. Metzner, and S. Weißmantel, The Inter- national Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology 109, 1167 (2020), publisher: Springer Science and Busi- ness Media LLC

    work page 2020

  44. [45]

    Takeda, H

    M. Takeda, H. Ina, and S. Kobayashi, Journal of the Op- tical Society of America72, 156 (1982)

    work page 1982

  45. [46]

    F. J. Torcal-Milla, J. Lobera, E. M. Roche, A. M. Lopez, V. Palero, N. Andres, and M. P. Arroyo, Optics Letters 48, 3127 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [47]

    H. E. Bennett and J. O. Porteus, Journal of the Optical Society of America51, 123 (1961)

    work page 1961

  47. [48]

    Iabbaden, I

    D. Iabbaden, I. S. Omeje, A. A. Tsaturyan, and J.-P. Colombier, Materials & Design264, 115714 (2026)

    work page 2026

  48. [49]

    C. Wu, M. S. Christensen, J.-M. Savolainen, P. Balling, and L. V. Zhigilei, Physical Review B91, 035413 (2015), 107 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2015

  49. [50]

    Amouye Foumani, D

    A. Amouye Foumani, D. J. Förster, H. Ghorbanfekr, R. Weber, T. Graf, and A. R. Niknam, Applied Surface Science537, 147775 (2021), publisher: Elsevier BV

    work page 2021

  50. [51]

    M. E. Povarnitsyn and T. E. Itina, Applied Physics A 117, 175 (2014), 42 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2014

  51. [52]

    Abou-Saleh, E

    A. Abou-Saleh, E. T. Karim, C. Maurice, S. Reynaud, F. Pigeon, F. Garrelie, L. V. Zhigilei, and J. P. Colom- bier, Applied Physics A124, 10.1007/s00339-018-1716-0 (2018), publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC

    work page doi:10.1007/s00339-018-1716-0 2018

  52. [53]

    M. V. Shugaev and L. V. Zhigilei, Computational Ma- terials Science166, 311 (2019), 18 citations (Crossref) [2024-10-30]

    work page 2019

  53. [54]

    Y. Sun, C. Chen, T. J. Albert, H. Li, M. I. Arefev, Y. Chen, M. Dunne, J. M. Glownia, M. Jerman, M. Hoff- mann, M. J. Hurley, M. Mo, Q. L. Nguyen, T. Sato, S. Song, P. Sun, M. Sutton, S. Teitelbaum, A. S. Valava- nis, N. Wang, D. Zhu, L. V. Zhigilei, and K. Sokolowski- Tinten, Communications Materials6, 69 (2025)

    work page 2025

  54. [55]

    G. D. Tsibidis, P. Lingos, and E. Stratakis, Optics Letters 47, 4251 (2022), publisher: Optica Publishing Group

    work page 2022

  55. [56]

    Römer, J

    G. Römer, J. Skolski, J. V. Oboňa, and A. H. I. Veld, Physics Procedia56, 1325 (2014)

    work page 2014

  56. [57]

    Pflug, M

    T. Pflug, M. Olbrich, H. Loheit, and A. A. Horn, Applied Physics A130, 632 (2024), 0 citations (Crossref) [2024- 10-30]

    work page 2024