Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 30 references

Laser micromachining of arbitrarily complex and overhang-free SiN nanomechanical resonators

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An open-source toolset turns standard chip-layout files into laser-ablation paths, letting free-standing silicon-nitride membranes be machined into complex resonator geometries within an hour and with under two micrometres of overhang.

desk verdict A genuinely useful rapid-prototyping toolset, with a material-Q claim that outruns the data. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18599 v1 pith:366YKD7T submitted 2025-07-24 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Yahya Saleh , Zachary Louis-Seize , Timothy Hodges , David Girard , Mohammed Shakir , Mathis Turgeon-Roy , Francis Doyon-D'Amour , Chang Zhang
show 2 more authors
Arnaud Weck Raphael St-Gelais
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords lasermicromachiningsiliconnitridenanomechanicalresonatorsGDSIIlayoutqualityfactordissipationdilutiontrampolineresonatorrapidprototyping
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Silicon nitride nanomechanical resonators come in many specialized geometries, but prototyping them normally requires photolithography or electron-beam lithography plus several etching steps, often taking hours and leaving stress-degrading overhang. This paper argues that direct femtosecond laser ablation can replace that pipeline: its software converts a standard semiconductor layout file (GDSII) into a spatially distributed sequence of microholes that cuts out any polygon shape without cracking the prestressed membrane. The released toolset also aligns the layout to the actual membrane, capping residual overhang at roughly 2 µm, and interleaves hole passes so high-aspect-ratio structures do not crack. Using it, the authors machine trampoline and branched-clamp resonators in 20–60 minutes, measure quality factors up to $3.7\times10^6$, and extract material quality factors near 4000–3700, within the range of unablated plain membranes. If the claim holds, iterative design of high-performance resonators becomes a matter of editing a layout file and running a machine rather than a clean-room campaign.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the Polygon Hole Sequence Generator, a routine that converts any polygon boundary into a sequence of overlapping microholes: an initial pass places holes spaced a few micrometres apart, and each later pass inserts a hole at the midpoint of every segment, halving the spacing until holes overlap and the shape releases. Because material is removed gradually around the whole perimeter rather than along a moving crack tip, local stress concentrations stay low enough to avoid fracturing the prestressed membrane. Around this sits the rest of the Stress-Controlled Laser Micromachining Toolset pipeline: a layout-file reader that approximates all geometry as polygons, a Layout Aligner that scales and rotates the layout using measured membrane-corner coordinates and a 1 µm worst-case padding, giving at most ~2 µm overhang, a Layout Hole Sequence Assembler that either fully releases one polygon at a time or interleaves passes across all polygons (the interleaved mode prevents cracking of high-aspect-ratio structures), and a numerical-control writer. For interpreting device quality, the paper uses the dissipation-dilution factor $\alpha_{\rm dd}$ computed by FEM, together with the approximation $Q \approx \alpha_{\rm dd} Q_{\rm mat}$, to convert measured $Q$ into material $Q_{\rm mat}$.

What would settle it

Fabricate matching resonators from the same membrane batch by conventional lithography and by laser machining, characterize both under identical vacuum, and compare their fitted $Q_{\rm mat}$ values; a systematic deficit in the laser-made devices, or direct compositional evidence of silicon enrichment near the ablated edges (as seen in earlier laser work [12]), would falsify the claim that the process leaves intrinsic dissipation unchanged. A simpler check is to re-extract $Q_{\rm mat}$ from the published Q data while treating residual stress as an unknown across the reported low-stress SiN range and see whether the fitted values stay within the 2700–5700 unablated range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that arbitrary GDSII-defined resonator geometries can be laser-machined crack-free from free-standing SiN membranes in under one hour with at most about 2 µm of residual overhang, and that the resulting devices are mechanically as good as conventionally fabricated ones. Measured quality factors reach $Q = 3.7\times10^6$ at 60 kHz for a branched-clamp trampoline and $Q = 2.2\times10^6$ at 27 kHz for a conventional trampoline, and finite-element simulations of dissipation dilution reproduce the frequency dependence of both. Fitting those simulations yields material quality factors $Q_{\rm mat} = 4000$ and $3700$, which fall in the 2700–5700 range reported for plain, unablated low-stress SiN membranes. The authors therefore conclude that their laser machining process does not significantly affect intrinsic material dissipation, provided material damping is indeed the dominant loss channel. A central enabling detail is that, unlike earlier laser work, they omit the continuous final cleaning pass along the perimeter, cutting the total laser energy delivered to the SiN and apparently avoiding the silicon enrichment that previously degraded $Q_{\rm mat}$.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that laser machining leaves the material's intrinsic damping unchanged rests on fitting each measured quality factor with the single-loss-channel model $Q \approx \alpha_{\rm dd} Q_{\rm mat}$, using a dissipation-dilution formula adapted from [8] and a residual stress of 76 MPa inferred from one membrane; if clamping loss, laser-affected edge material, or simulation error also contributes, the extracted material quality factors do not by themselves prove equivalence with unablated membranes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Existing GDSII photomask designs can be repurposed directly for laser machining, so a library of resonator layouts becomes immediately fabricable without new masks.
  • The interleaved Hole Sequence Assembler extends crack-free machining to high-aspect-ratio designs with large stress concentrations, widening the accessible design space beyond beams and trampolines.
  • Because a finished device takes 20–60 minutes to machine, design iterations can be guided by measured performance rather than by prior simulation, accelerating the search for high-Q geometries.
  • If the extracted material quality factors are correct, laser ablation leaves intrinsic material dissipation essentially unchanged, so residual performance differences among laser-machined designs reflect geometry (dissipation dilution), not process damage.
  • The branched-clamp trampoline, which anchors tethers perpendicular to the silicon edge, opens the route to clamp-tapering studies that previously required conventional perpendicular anchoring.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the $Q_{\rm mat}$ result generalizes, the next natural limit to attack is geometric: designs that raise $\alpha_{\rm dd}$, such as better soft-clamping or hierarchical branching, should transfer directly to laser-machined devices because the process no longer sets the dissipation floor.
  • The pass-halving and interleaving principles are not SiN-specific; the same recipe—distributed removal plus interleaved passes to avoid stress redistribution—could be tested on other brittle prestressed membranes, such as silicon or diamond, where crack-free release is the bottleneck.
  • The ~2 µm overhang ceiling is set by manual crosshair alignment; replacing it with automated machine-vision corner detection should push overhang below one micrometre and let the same toolset be used at smaller feature sizes than the 15 µm tethers demonstrated here.
  • A direct test of the no-degradation claim would be to characterize a membrane before and after laser machining, or to compare identical geometries made by lithography and by laser from the same batch; the paper's evidence is indirect, via fitted $Q_{\rm mat}$.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an open-source software pipeline (SCLMT) that converts GDSII layout files into position-sequenced femtosecond-laser ablation patterns for cutting free-standing SiN membranes, together with an alignment routine that limits residual overhang to about 2 micrometers. The authors fabricate five trampoline-based geometries, two of which (a conventional trampoline and a branched-clamp trampoline) are characterized in vacuum; measured quality factors reach 3.7e6, and FEM-based dissipation-dilution analysis yields material quality factors of 4000 and 3700, which are interpreted as evidence that laser machining does not degrade intrinsic material dissipation. The paper emphasizes rapid prototyping (20-60 minutes per structure) and the release of the toolset on GitHub.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a genuinely useful rapid-prototyping capability: polygon layouts can be machined without photolithography, with an open-source toolset and a demonstrated path to released, crack-free devices. The measured Q values (up to 3.7e6) are respectable for laser-fabricated SiN resonators, and the composable software pipeline is a concrete strength. The main caveat is that the 'no degradation of material dissipation' conclusion rests on a model-dependent extraction with no direct unablated control, so the significance of the paper is primarily in the fabrication methodology rather than in the quantitative dissipation physics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Fig. 4, Eq. S2] The statement that the laser machining process 'does not significantly affect intrinsic material dissipation' is not established by the data as presented. The extracted Qmat values are obtained by fitting Q approximately equal to alpha_dd times Qmat to the measured Q factors of the same devices; the red points in Fig. 4 are then alpha_dd times the fitted Qmat, so agreement in absolute magnitude is enforced by construction and cannot validate the model. The frequency dependence provides some independent support, but the single-loss-channel assumption (no clamping, surface, or laser-affected-edge losses) and the unquantified uncertainty from using a single measured 76 MPa stress value for all devices mean that the 4000/3700 values do not demonstrate equivalence with unablated membranes. Please add a same-batch unablated control, quantify uncertainties, or soften the claim to 'consistent with' rather than 'on par with'.
  2. [Section III, references [13] and [19]] The comparison range used to argue that Qmat values are 'on par' is too broad to be discriminating, particularly since the range spans 2700 to 5700. In addition, reference [13] is described in the text as measuring a plain membrane, but the reference title indicates laser-machined resonators; if that value is from an ablated device, it is not an unablated control. Please verify the citation and, absent a direct control, frame the conclusion as a qualitative comparison rather than evidence of equivalence.
  3. [Section II and Fig. 3; title and abstract] The title and abstract claim 'overhang-free' structures, while the Methods and Results sections state a residual overhang of at most about 2 micrometers. Since even a 2 micrometer overhang can affect damping in high-Q SiN resonators, the terminology should be reconciled (for example, 'low-overhang' or 'controlled-overhang') to avoid overstating the result. Relatedly, 'arbitrarily complex' is stronger than demonstrated: all fabricated examples are trampoline variants with feature sizes of at least 15 micrometers, even though the software may in principle support more general polygon geometries.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Supplementary Section S3] The text refers to 'Fig. 3(c,b)' but the two characterized structures are the conventional trampoline and branched-clamp trampoline of Fig. 3(c,d); please correct the reference.
  2. [Supplementary Section S4, Eq. S2] Equation S2 is described as 'adapted from [8]'; please state explicitly what modification was made and, if possible, validate the formula against a benchmark mode or the original derivation.
  3. [Section III, Fig. 4] The measured Q factors are reported without uncertainties; please indicate the ringdown fitting precision and, if available, the reproducibility across repeated measurements.
  4. [Fig. 4 caption] The caption says 'simulation points,' but the red points are semi-empirical (simulated alpha_dd multiplied by a fitted Qmat); consider calling them 'model points' to avoid implying an ab-initio prediction of Q.
  5. [Abstract and Section III] The phrase 'material quality factors above 3700' is imprecise because one extracted value is exactly 3700; consider writing 'of 3700 and 4000' or 'at least 3700'.
  6. [Section II, reference [22]] For reproducibility, please include a version or commit identifier for the released software in addition to the repository URL.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Fig. 4's FEM 'prediction' partly reduces to the Qmat fit, but the central non-degradation claim retains independent external comparison.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III, Fig. 4 caption and surrounding text]
    "Material quality factors (Qmat) of 4000 and 3700 are extracted for the conventional and branched-clamp trampolines, respectively, by fitting finite element simulations of dissipation dilution to the experimental quality factor measurements. The simulation points, shown in red, represent the product of the simulated dissipation factors and the extracted Qmat values."

    The red FEM points are presented as matching measured Q-factors, but they are not independent predictions: they are computed as alpha_dd multiplied by a Qmat that is itself fitted to the same measured Q-factors under the model Q is approximately alpha_dd times Qmat. Therefore the overall magnitude of the red curve is forced to agree with the data by construction; only the mode-to-mode frequency dependence is a genuinely simulated prediction. The abstract's statement that measured quality factors 'closely match finite element simulations' consequently overstates the independent content of Fig. 4.

full rationale

The fabrication and software claims are self-contained: GDSII-to-toolpath conversion, alignment, and crack-free machining are demonstrated directly, and the measured Q up to 3.7e6 is an experimental result independent of any fit. The one partially circular element is the Fig. 4 comparison, where the red simulation points equal alpha_dd times a Qmat extracted from the same measured Q values, so the overall level of the curve matches by construction. This is mitigated by the figure caption explicitly disclosing the extraction and by the independently simulated frequency dependence of alpha_dd. The central claim that laser machining does not degrade material dissipation rests on comparing the fitted Qmat values (4000 and 3700) with literature values, including an external reference [19] (Qmat about 5700) and the authors' own earlier work [13] (about 2700); because an external reference is included, the self-citation to [13] is not load-bearing. The absence of a same-wafer unablated control and the single-loss-channel assumption are correctness risks rather than circularity. Overall score 4: one in-sample fit is presented as a prediction, but the central claim still has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on two fitted numbers (Qmat, and stress from a single sample membrane) plus a calibrated hole-spacing choice, together with literature models for membrane frequency, gas damping, and dissipation dilution. No new physical entities are introduced and the only new artifact is software, which is open-source. The main unverified modeling load is the Q approximately alpha_dd times Qmat assumption used to argue that laser machining preserves intrinsic material quality.

free parameters (3)
  • Material quality factor Qmat = 4000 (conventional trampoline); 3700 (branched-clamp trampoline)
    Fit parameter: Qmat multiplies the simulated dissipation-dilution factor to match measured Q-factors across modes (Fig. 4). The claim that laser machining does not degrade material dissipation depends directly on this fitted value.
  • Residual membrane stress sigma = ~76 MPa
    Obtained by fitting an analytical membrane-frequency model to the measured f1,1 of one sample membrane; then applied as a uniform isotropic prestress in all FEM simulations (Section II and S4). If stress varies between the 1.2 mm and 1.7 mm membranes, the dissipation-dilution predictions shift.
  • Ablation hole-spacing target sf,target = 0.5 um (half the 1 um hole diameter); initial spacing auto-selected to satisfy si <= P/2 and si >= 5 um
    Hand-set in the PHSG (Section II). The crack-free release of the fabricated structures depends on the final spacing being small enough for holes to overlap and the initial spacing being large enough to avoid stress-induced fracture. The chosen value follows prior calibration in reference [12].
assumptions (4)
  • standard math The fundamental frequency of a square membrane is f1,1 = (1/(sqrt(2)L)) * sqrt(sigma/rho), used to extract residual stress.
    Taken from reference [20]; used in Section II to set the 76 MPa FEM prestress.
  • standard math Ballistic drag-force damping model (Eq. S1) estimates vacuum-limited Q and rules out gas damping.
    From reference [20], applied in Supplementary S3 to justify ignoring gas damping at 1.2e-6 hPa.
  • domain assumption Dissipation dilution is captured by Eq. S2 (adapted from reference [8]), and total Q is approximately alpha_dd times Qmat.
    Used to convert measured Q into material Q; assumes no other loss channels and that the FEM mode shapes and clamping geometry are accurately modeled.
  • domain assumption Ablating overlapping microholes in successive halving-spacing passes prevents crack propagation in prestressed SiN.
    Empirical result carried over from references [12,13], extended in PHSG to arbitrary polygons; the crack-free outcome in the shown devices supports it, but the safety margin for arbitrary high-aspect geometries is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Laser micromachining of arbitrarily complex and overhang-free SiN nanomechanical resonators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/366YKD7T

@misc{pith2026250718599,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Laser micromachining of arbitrarily complex and overhang-free SiN nanomechanical resonators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/366YKD7T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18599}
}
read the original abstract

Research on silicon nitride (SiN) nanomechanical resonators produces an exceptionally rich variety of resonator geometries, for which there is currently no available rapid prototyping solution. Experimental advances in nanobeam, trampoline, phononic bandgap, and soft-clamping structures all rely on conventional nanofabrication involving e-beam or photolithography, followed by various etching steps. These techniques are typically time-consuming, relatively inflexible, and often result in spurious residual SiN overhang that can degrade mechanical quality factors. In contrast, recent work has shown that simple resonant structures, such as nanobeams, can be prototyped by direct laser ablation of free-standing SiN membranes using a spatially distributed sequence of microholes that limits stress concentration. However, these early demonstrations were restricted to basic shapes, created by manually combining ablation routines for circles and straight lines. Here, we demonstrate the fabrication of arbitrarily complex geometries using an open-source software toolset--released with this publication--that automatically generates laser-ablated hole sequences directly from standard semiconductor layout files (i.e., GDSII). The software includes a layout alignment tool that compensates for the membrane orientation and dimensional variations, limiting material overhang to ~2 um. Using this toolset, we fabricate several resonator geometries, each in under 1 hour, two of which are exhaustively characterized as candidate structures for high-performance radiation sensing. The measured quality factors of these structures closely match finite element simulations and reach values up to 3.7 x 10^6. From these measurements, we extract material quality factors above 3700, which is on par with low-stress SiN unablated plain membranes and with comparable structures produced using conventional fabrication methods.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.18599 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. presents several trampoline-based resonant structures with varying geometries and feature sizes, fab￾ricated using the SCLMT. The smallest features we fab￾ricate are the 15 µm-wide tethers of the trampoline in Fig. 3a; however, this is not necessarily the minimum feature size achievable with laser machining, since beams as narrow as 7 µm have been demonstrated in previous work [13]. The structures in [PITH_FULL_IMA… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

30 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [13]

    K. Li, J. Li, C. Reardon, C. S. Schuster, Y. Wang, G. J. Triggs, N. Damnik, J. M¨ uenchenberger, X. Wang, E. R. Martins, and T. F. Krauss, High speed e-beam writing for large area photonic nanostructures — a choice of param- eters, Scientific Reports 6, 32945 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [1]

    Reinhardt, T

    C. Reinhardt, T. M¨ uller, A. Bourassa, and J. C. Sankey, Ultralow-Noise SiN Trampoline Resonators for Sensing and Optomechanics, Physical Review X6, 021001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [2]

    Norte, J

    R. Norte, J. Moura, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, Mechanical Resonators for Quantum Optomechanics Experiments at Room Temperature, Physical Review Letters 116, 147202 (2016)

    work page 2016

  4. [3]

    Piller, J

    M. Piller, J. Hiesberger, E. Wistrela, P. Martini, N. Luh- mann, and S. Schmid, Thermal IR Detection With Nano- electromechanical Silicon Nitride Trampoline Resonators, IEEE Sensors Journal 23, 1066–1071 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [4]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics , Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 1391–1452 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    converts layout hole sequences into AeroBasic files needed to programmatically translate the stage and fire laser pulses (see output in Fig. 1). These files use G-code commands to control stage motion and position synchro- nized output to trigger laser pulses based on the stage position [23]. Details on cleaning procedures, as well as experimental charact...

    work page

  7. [6]

    Tsaturyan, A

    Y. Tsaturyan, A. Barg, A. Simonsen, L. G. Villanueva, S. Schmid, A. Schliesser, and E. S. Polzik, Demonstra- tion of suppressed phonon tunneling losses in phononic bandgap shielded membrane resonators for high-Q op- tomechanics, Optics Express 22, 6810 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    S. S. Verbridge, J. M. Parpia, R. B. Reichenbach, L. M. Bellan, and H. G. Craighead, High quality factor reso- nance at room temperature with nanostrings under high tensile stress , Journal of Applied Physics 99, 124304 (2006)

    work page 2006

Show all 30 references
  1. [8]

    M. J. Bereyhi, A. Beccari, R. Groth, S. A. Fedorov, A. Arabmoheghi, T. J. Kippenberg, and N. J. Engelsen, Hierarchical tensile structures with ultralow mechanical dissipation, Nature Communications 13, 3097 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Moreover, errors in front-to-back lithography alignment can exacerbate overhang at certain locations on the final structure, thereby worsening mechanical dissipation

    and, in both cases, leads to overhang that degrades the quality factor of the fabricated resonator [1, 2, 8]. Moreover, errors in front-to-back lithography alignment can exacerbate overhang at certain locations on the final structure, thereby worsening mechanical dissipation. ...

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    T. J. Clark, S. Bernard, J. Ma, V. Dumont, and J. C. Sankey,Optically Defined Phononic Crystal Defect, Phys- ical Review Letters 133, 226904 (2024)

    2024

  4. [11]

    D. Shin, A. Cupertino, M. H. J. De Jong, P. G. Steeneken, M. A. Bessa, and R. A. Norte, Spiderweb Nanomechanical Resonators via Bayesian Optimization: Inspired by Nature and Guided by Machine Learning, Ad- vanced Materials 34, 2106248 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    M. M. Greve and B. Holst, Optimization of an electron beam lithography instrument for fast, large area writing at 10 kV acceleration voltage , Journal of Vacuum Sci- ence & Technology B, Nanotechnology and Microelec- tronics: Materials, Processing, Measurement, and Phe- nomena...

    2013

  6. [14]

    X. Xie, R. Nikbakht, M. Couillard, R. St-Gelais, and A. Weck, Laser machining of free-standing silicon nitride membranes, Journal of Materials Processing Technology 318, 118001 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Nikbakht, X

    R. Nikbakht, X. Xie, A. Weck, and R. St-Gelais, High quality factor silicon nitride nanomechanical resonators fabricated by maskless femtosecond laser micromachin- ing, Journal of Vacuum Science & Technology B 41, 023002 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Bonse, G

    J. Bonse, G. Mann, J. Kr¨ uger, M. Marcinkowski, and M. Eberstein, Femtosecond laser-induced removal of sili- con nitride layers from doped and textured silicon wafers used in photovoltaics , Thin Solid Films 542, 420–425 (2013)

    2013

  9. [17]

    Uesugi, Y

    Y. Uesugi, Y. Kozawa, and S. Sato, in Laser-based Micro- 8 and Nanoprocessing XV (SPIE, Online Only, United States, 2021) p. 20

    2021

  10. [18]

    C. V. Leva, S. Jain, K. Kistermann, K. Sakurai, G. Stemme, A. Herland, J. Mayer, F. Niklaus, and S. N. Raja, Localized Nanopore Fabrication in Silicon Nitride Membranes by Femtosecond Laser Exposure and Subse- quent Controlled Breakdown , ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces 17,...

    2025

  11. [19]

    Uesugi, R

    Y. Uesugi, R. Fukushima, Y. Kozawa, and S. Sato, Ul- trafast laser ablation of 10-nm self-supporting membranes by two-beam interference processing, Optics Express 28, 26200 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Uesugi, T

    Y. Uesugi, T. Miwa, N. Kadoguchi, Y. Kozawa, and S. Sato, Multi-beam ultrafast laser processing of free- standing nanofilms, Applied Physics A 129, 101 (2023)

    2023

  13. [21]

    Villanueva and S

    L. Villanueva and S. Schmid, Evidence of Surface Loss as Ubiquitous Limiting Damping Mechanism in SiN Micro- and Nanomechanical Resonators , Physical Review Let- ters 113, 227201 (2014)

    2014

  14. [22]

    Schmid, L

    S. Schmid, L. G. Villanueva, and M. L. Roukes, Funda- mentals of nanomechanical resonators, second edition ed. (Springer, Cham, 2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    G. Mu, N. Snell, C. Zhang, X. Xie, R. Tahvildari, A. Weck, M. Godin, and R. St-Gelais, Remote Actua- tion of Silicon Nitride Nanomechanical Resonators Us- ing On-Chip Substrate Capacitors , Journal of Microelec- tromechanical Systems 32, 29–36 (2023)

    2023

  16. [24]

    Saleh, Stress-controlled laser micromachining toolset (2025), https://github.com/UOMEMS/sclmt

    Y. Saleh, Stress-controlled laser micromachining toolset (2025), https://github.com/UOMEMS/sclmt

    2025

  17. [25]

    Position Synchronized Output (PSO) – Co- ordinate Part Position with Process Control, https://www.aerotech.com/position-synchronized- output-pso-coordinate-part-position-with-process- control/

  18. [26]

    Snell, C

    N. Snell, C. Zhang, G. Mu, A. Bouchard, and R. St- Gelais, Heat Transport in Silicon Nitride Drum Res- onators and its Influence on Thermal Fluctuation- Induced Frequency Noise, Phys. Rev. Appl. 17, 044019 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    Zhang, E

    C. Zhang, E. K. Yalavarthi, M. Giroux, W. Cui, M. Stephan, A. Maleki, A. Weck, J.-M. M´ enard, and R. St-Gelais, High detectivity terahertz radiation sens- ing using frequency-noise-optimized nanomechanical res- onators, APL Photonics 9, 126105 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Zhang, Z

    C. Zhang, Z. Louis-Seize, M. Brazeau, T. Hodges, M. Turgeon-Roy, and R. St-Gelais, Enhanced bandwidth in radiation sensors operating at the fundamental temper- ature fluctuation noise limit , (2025), arXiv: 2505.21678

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    M. J. Bereyhi, A. Beccari, S. A. Fedorov, A. H. Ghadimi, R. Schilling, D. J. Wilson, N. J. Engelsen, and T. J. Kip- penberg, Clamp-Tapering Increases the Quality Factor of Stressed Nanobeams, Nano Letters 19, 2329–2333 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Rugar, H

    D. Rugar, H. J. Mamin, and P. Guethner, Improved fiber- optic interferometer for atomic force microscopy, Applied Physics Letters 55, 2588–2590 (1989). 9 S1. CLEANING PROCEDURE Occasionally, cutouts generated during laser machin- ing are redeposited elsewhere on the membrane u...

    1989

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.