Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 51 references

Single femtosecond laser pulse interaction with mica

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single femtosecond laser pulse modifies muscovite mica at 2.4 J/cm², and the paper attributes the low threshold to interlayer water that vaporizes and bursts through the surface.

desk verdict Solid single-pulse topology data on mica with an over-reached water-vaporization mechanism; the LOI evidence does not actually prove interlayer molecular water, but the empirical progression is worth referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02113 v1 pith:7OMYWKHU submitted 2019-08-15 cond-mat.mtrl-sci physics.app-phphysics.optics

Saurabh Awasthi , Douglas J. Little , A. Fuerbach , D.M. Kane This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sciphysics.app-phphysics.optics
keywords femtosecondlaserprocessingmuscovitemicasingle-pulsemodificationthresholdinterlayerwaterlaser-inducedsurfacetopologydielectricablationopticalprofilometrylayeredminerals
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

The paper sets out to show that one ultrafast laser pulse, instead of the many pulses usually needed for transparent dielectrics, can visibly modify freshly cleaved muscovite mica. It reports a single-pulse modification threshold near 2.4 J/cm² and a fluence-dependent sequence of topologies—shallow craters, raised bumps, central jets, and rimmed craters—as the pulse energy rises to 7.07 J/cm². The proposed explanation is that mineral water trapped between mica layers absorbs part of the pulse energy, vaporizes, and drives bubble formation, delamination, and micro-explosions. If correct, the result identifies interlayer water, not just bulk dielectric response, as the controlling factor in femtosecond laser modification of a mineral.

What carries the argument

The central object is interlayer mineral water enclosed between the negatively charged (001) layers of muscovite, with the paper estimating about 4 ± 1 H₂O molecules per unit cell from X-ray fluorescence loss on ignition. This water is the agent that carries the argument: it is said to absorb pulse energy, vaporize into pockets, cavitate and micro-explode, producing the bumps, jets, and rimmed craters, while the low cleavage energy of mica (~500 mJ/m²) makes layer de-adhesion easy once vapour pressure develops.

What would settle it

Repeat the single-pulse irradiation on muscovite sheets from the same batch after drying them or driving off the water by heating, and compare the threshold and topologies; if the 2.4 J/cm² threshold and the bump-and-jet features persist without interlayer water, the proposed vaporization mechanism is not the cause.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the interaction of a single ~150 fs, 800 nm pulse focused to a ~6 µm spot on muscovite is much stronger than expected for a standard transparent dielectric: measurable modification begins at about 2.4 J/cm², below the 2.5–15.2 J/cm² multi-pulse thresholds quoted for other dielectrics, and the modified sites do not follow the usual ablation progression. Increasing the fluence produces a systematic sequence of topologies—a shallow crater, a bump surrounding or next to a crater, taller bumps with openings, a central jet, and finally a deep rimmed crater with a bump inside. The paper attributes this behavior to roughly 4 ± 1 interlayer H₂O molecules per unit cell, estimated from a 4.72 wt% loss on ignition in X-ray fluorescence analysis. The proposed mechanism is that pulse energy couples through multiphoton ionization, vaporizes interlayer water, and the resulting vapour pockets nucleate, expand, and sometimes burst through the surface, while at the highest fluences re-solidifying material traps the gas.

Load-bearing premise

The mechanism rests on the assumption that the 4.72% loss on ignition is entirely interlayer H₂O distributed uniformly through the muscovite, and that this water—rather than some other absorption or defect channel—vaporizes under the pulse and drives the observed surface changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Single-pulse laser structuring of muscovite becomes possible at fluences around 2.4 J/cm², so layered hydrated dielectrics do not always require multi-pulse accumulation to show measurable modification.
  • The fluence-to-topology map could serve as a deterministic single-pulse fabrication method for craters, bumps, jets, and rims on mica surfaces.
  • Standard models of femtosecond-laser ablation of dielectrics will need to include volatile interlayer species when the target is a layered mineral.
  • Because optical surface profiling captured the full 3D height sequence, it can be used non-destructively to quantify laser modifications that electron microscopy only resolves laterally.
  • The reported threshold and topology sequence give a concrete benchmark for future molecular-dynamics simulations of water-assisted laser processing of layered crystals.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same interlayer-water mechanism should lower the single-pulse modification threshold in other hydrated layered silicates, such as biotite or vermiculite, whenever their interlayer water content is comparable.
  • A test the authors leave implicit: drying or dehydroxylating the muscovite before irradiation should raise the threshold toward standard dielectric values and suppress the bump-and-jet topologies, using identical sheets from the same batch.
  • If the few-nanojoule energy needed to vaporize the affected water is the governing cost, then the modification threshold is set by water content rather than band gap, which would connect this result to water-driven processing of other natural minerals.
  • Because the water-per-unit-cell estimate comes from bulk loss on ignition, spatially resolved water measurements at the laser-affected sites could reveal whether the active water is uniformly distributed or concentrated near cleavage planes.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports an experimental study of single femtosecond laser pulse (800 nm, ~150 fs, ~6 μm spot) interaction with freshly cleaved muscovite mica. The authors find a systematic progression of surface topologies as a function of incident fluence, from shallow craters at about 2.4 J/cm2 through bumps, rims, and jets at higher fluences, with bulk material removal at the highest fluences studied. They characterize the features with optical surface profiling (OSP) and field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM), providing statistics on feature heights and diameters. The paper attributes the unexpectedly strong coupling and low modification threshold to interlayer mineral water in the muscovite, which is inferred from a 4.72 wt% loss on ignition measured by X-ray fluorescence. The authors propose that laser-induced vaporization of this water drives layer de-adhesion, cavitation, and micro-explosions, and they provide a calculation of the number of water molecules in the affected volume and the energy needed to vaporize them.

Significance. If the reported observations and their mechanistic interpretation are correct, this work would document a distinct set of single-pulse femtosecond laser modification topologies in a layered dielectric and would identify interlayer water as a controlling factor, potentially motivating new studies of laser processing of layered minerals and hydrated materials. The main strength of the paper is its systematic experimental dataset: OSP and FESEM measurements at multiple fluences with stated standard deviations and a claimed threshold fluence of 2.4 J/cm2. However, the central mechanistic claim that interlayer molecular water is the primary cause of the low threshold and the observed topologies rests on an assignment of the XRF loss on ignition that the present manuscript does not justify, because the measured value is quantitatively consistent with dehydroxylation of the structural OH groups in muscovite. The comparison of the measured threshold with literature dielectric thresholds is also not made on a like-for-like basis. These issues are load-bearing for the paper's main narrative, though the empirical topology data may remain valuable regardless of the mechanism.

major comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 2 and Supplementary Sections C-D] The assignment of the 4.72 wt% loss on ignition to interlayer molecular H2O is not justified. Ideal muscovite, KAl2(Si3Al)O10(OH)2, has a formula weight of ~398.3 g/mol and loses one H2O per formula unit upon dehydroxylation, corresponding to 18.0/398.3 = 4.52 wt% H2O. The measured 4.72 wt% is within error of this purely structural contribution. The calculation in Supplementary Section D yields about 4 H2O molecules per unit cell, which is exactly the number of water molecules produced by dehydroxylating the 8 OH groups in the four-formula-unit muscovite cell. Thus the calculation is consistent with hydroxyl-derived water rather than with a distinct reservoir of molecular water between layers. Direct evidence for molecular interlayer water in the laser-affected volume (for example, temperature-programmed desorption, TGA-MS, or FTIR) is needed to support the proposed mechanism.
  2. [Supplementary Section D] The thickness used to compute the number of layers is inconsistent: the calculation states "Number of individual layers in a sheet = 200*10^-6 / 1.29*10^-9", using 200 µm, whereas the Methods section and Supplementary Section C specify that the muscovite sheets are 300 µm thick. This changes the per-layer water mass and therefore the resulting number of water molecules per unit cell. The calculation should be redone with the correct sheet thickness, and the effect of the error on the energy estimate in the same section should be evaluated.
  3. [Introduction and Discussion] The claim that the single-pulse modification threshold of 2.4 J/cm2 is "unprecedentedly low for a dielectric" is not supported by a like-for-like comparison. The literature thresholds cited (refs 17–19, giving 2.5–15.2 J/cm2) are generally defined by visible or ablative damage, whereas the threshold in this work is defined by OSP detection of a shallow crater with depth 3.84 ± 1.07 nm (Fig. 3a). These criteria are not equivalent. The authors should either compare their threshold with literature values obtained using similar high-sensitivity detection methods, or explicitly state the detection-limited nature of their threshold and temper the "unprecedentedly low" wording.
  4. [Discussion and Conclusion] The proposed mechanism—vaporization of pre-existing interlayer mineral water driving de-adhesion, cavitation, and micro-explosions—is presented as the primary explanation for the observed topologies, but the only quantitative support for a molecular water reservoir is the XRF LOI discussed above. If the LOI arises mainly from dehydroxylation of structural OH, the water is produced chemically at elevated temperature rather than existing as liquid in interlayer sites before the laser pulse. The energy budget and bubble-nucleation picture in Supplementary Section D would then require substantial revision, as would the central claim of "H2O assisted laser modification in a transparent mineral by single fs pulse irradiation." The authors should either provide direct experimental evidence for molecular interlayer water in the processed material or reframe the mechanism to include water generated by dehydroxylation and other high-temperature processes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Methods] There is a typo in the Methods section: "Suraface marking" should read "Surface marking."
  2. [Throughout] The abbreviation for loss on ignition is used inconsistently as "L.O.I." and "LOI"; please standardize.
  3. [References] Reference 37 (Radoslovich, Acta Crystallogr. 13, 919–932 (1960)) is missing the article title in the reference list; please complete the bibliographic data.
  4. [Supplementary Section E] The opening sentence of Section E, "introduces that modification observed in the muscovite using FESEM images is indicative of polymer-like laser processing," is ungrammatical and should be rephrased.
  5. [Fig. 4 and Supplementary Section A] The crater depth at 4.59 J/cm2 is listed as 141.82 ± 30.07 nm, but at 4.94 J/cm2 it drops to 16.72 ± 10.82 nm; this large non-monotonic jump is not discussed in the main text and should be addressed as a possible regime change or measurement issue.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: threshold and topology data are directly measured; the interlayer-water mechanism is an interpretive hypothesis, not a fitted output.

full rationale

The paper's central empirical claims—the 2.4 J/cm² single-pulse modification threshold, the fluence-dependent progression from craters to bumps to rims/jets, and the OSP/FESEM measurements—are direct observations, not outputs of any model fitted to those observations. No parameter is fitted to a subset of the modification data and then 'predicted' for another subset. The water-content estimate (4.72 wt% L.O.I.; ~4 H₂O per unit cell) is computed from XRF and an assumed unit-cell volume, and is used only to support the proposed mechanism of interlayer-water vaporization. That mechanism is plausible but is not derived from, nor used to generate, the threshold or topologies; it is an interpretive explanation offered alongside the data. The one self-citation (Little & Kane, OSP operating principle) is an instrumentation reference and is not load-bearing. The concern that 4.72 wt% loss on ignition could be structural dehydroxylation water rather than interlayer molecular water is an evidentiary critique of the mechanism, not a demonstration that any claim is equivalent by construction to its inputs. Accordingly, no step satisfies the quoted-reduction standard for circularity.

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

The central empirical observation does not depend on fitted parameters. The mechanistic explanation depends on several domain assumptions about water content, fluence calibration, cross-study threshold comparability, and measurement artifacts. The most fragile is the water-content assumption.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 4.72 wt% loss on ignition from XRF is entirely attributable to interlayer H2O in the muscovite lattice.
    Entered at Figure 2 and Supplementary Section D. The paper estimates ~4 H2O molecules per unit cell from this assumption. Prior literature supports water in muscovite, but the specific content in this sample is not directly measured, and the calculation uses an internally inconsistent sheet thickness.
  • domain assumption The laser fluence values are accurate, based on a 6 µm 1/e^2 spot size and power measurement, with no reported fluence uncertainty.
    Entered in Methods and figure captions. The spot-size value is stated without a measurement method, and fluence is used to define the modification threshold.
  • domain assumption Single-pulse modification thresholds for other dielectrics from the cited literature are comparable despite different detection criteria.
    Entered in the Introduction and Discussion. The 'unprecedentedly low' claim relies on cross-study comparison where prior thresholds are typically defined by visible or optical damage, while this study uses sub-nanometer-height OSP detection.
  • domain assumption The observed topologies are not artifacts of OSP measurement or FESEM carbon coating.
    Entered in the Results section. The paper argues that OSP and FESEM agree, but does not run control measurements on unprocessed mica beyond casual inspection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Single femtosecond laser pulse interaction with mica." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7OMYWKHU

@misc{pith2026190902113,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Single femtosecond laser pulse interaction with mica},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7OMYWKHU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02113}
}
read the original abstract

Ultrafast, femtosecond laser pulse interaction with dielectric materials has shown them to have significantly higher laser fluence threshold requirements, as compared to metals and semiconductors, for laser material modification, such as laser ablation. Examples of dielectrics are crystalline materials such as quartz and sapphire, and amorphous glasses. The interaction between femtosecond laser pulses, at a wavelength with negligible linear absorption, and a dielectric has been found to be weak, and multiple pulse irradiation is therefore typically used in order to see significant and quantifiable effects. In this study the dielectric is the crystalline, layered, natural mineral muscovite, a mica with formula KAl_2 (Si_3 Al) O_10 (OH)_2. Muscovite, newly cleaved, is used in a wide range of technological and scientific applications including as an insulating material in electronics and as an ultra-flat and ultra-clean substrate. A single, ~800 nm wavelength, ~6 micron spotsize, ~150 fs laser pulse is found to lead to a systematic range of laser modification topologies, as a function of the fluence of the single laser pulse, including bulk removal of material. The fs laser pulse/material interaction is greater than expected for a standard dielectric at a given fluence. Optical surface profiling and FESEM are used to characterise the topologies. Contrasting the results of the two techniques supports the use of optical surface profiling to characterise the material modification despite its limitations in lateral resolution as compared to FESEM. The interlayer mineral water content of natural muscovite is proposed as the primary reason that mica behaves differently to a standard dielectric when irradiated with a single 800 nm fs laser pulse.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02113 by the authors.

Figure 15
Figure 15. XRF elemental analysis data visualized as pie-plot. Si, Al and K are the major contributors to the elemental composition of the muscovite sheet in the study. The loss on ignition (L.O.I) component in the study is attributed to H2O, as it is the most probable candidate to be lost on heating and the weight- % estimate is similar to previously reported data. Hence, H2O contributed 4.72 % of the total composition [PITH… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

51 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Mirza, I. et al. Ultrashort pulse laser ablation of dielectrics: Thresholds, mechanisms, role of breakdown. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–11 (2016)

    work page 2016

  2. [2]

    & Mourou, G

    Tien, A.-C., Backus, S., Kapteyn, H., Murnane, M. & Mourou, G. Short-Pulse Laser Damage in Transparent Materials as a Function of Pulse Duration. Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3883–3886 (1999)

    work page 1999

  3. [3]

    & Rethfeld, B

    Brouwer, N. & Rethfeld, B. Excitation and relaxation dynamics in dielectrics irradiated by an intense ultrashort laser pulse. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B Opt. Phys. 31, 28–35 (2014)

    work page 2014

  4. [4]

    & Cheng, Y

    Sugioka, K. & Cheng, Y. Ultrafast lasers-reliable tools for advanced materials processing. Light Sci. Appl. 3, 1–12 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Cheng, J. et al. A review of ultrafast laser materials micromachining. Opt. Laser Technol. 46, 88–102 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Malinauskas, M. et al. Ultrafast laser processing of materials: From science to industry. Light Sci. Appl. 5, 3–5 (2016)

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    S. K. Sundaram & E. Mazur. Inducing and probing non-thermal transitions in semiconductors using femtosecond laser pulses. Nat. Mater. 1, 217–224 (2002)

    work page 2002

  8. [8]

    Bulgakova, N. M. Theoretical Models and Qualitative Interpretations of Fs Laser Material Processing. J. Laser Micro/Nanoengineering 2, 76–86 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 51 references
  1. [9]

    M., Stoian, R., Rosenfeld, A., Hertel, I

    Bulgakova, N. M., Stoian, R., Rosenfeld, A., Hertel, I. V. & Campbell, E. E. B. Electronic transport and consequences for material removal in ultrafast pulsed laser ablation of materials. Phys. Rev. B 69, 054102 (2004)

    2004

  2. [10]

    H., Redlingshöer, B., Reg, Y., Otto, A

    Leitz, K. H., Redlingshöer, B., Reg, Y., Otto, A. & Schmidt, M. Metal ablation with short and ultrashort laser pulses. Phys. Procedia 12, 230–238 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Vorobyev, A. Y. & Guo, C. Femtosecond laser nanostructuring of metals. Opt. Express 14, 2164 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    von & A.Tiinnermann

    B.N.Chichkov, C.Momma, S.Nolte, Alvensleben, F. von & A.Tiinnermann. Femtosecond, picosecond and nanosecond laser ablation of solids. Appl. Phys 63, 109–115 (1996)

    1996

  5. [13]

    G., Rode, A

    Gamaly, E. G., Rode, A. V., Luther-Davies, B. & Tikhonchuk, V. T. Ablation of solids by femtosecond lasers: Ablation mechanism and ablation thresholds for metals and dielectrics. Phys. Plasmas 9, 949–957 (2002)

    2002

  6. [14]

    B., Brodeur, A

    Schaffer, C. B., Brodeur, A. & Mazur, E. Laser-induced breakdown and damage in bulk transparent materialsinduced by thightly focused femtosecond laser pulses. Meas. Sci. Technol. 12, 1784–1794 (2001)

    2001

  7. [15]

    G., Rode, A

    Gamaly, E. G., Rode, A. V., Luther-Davies, B. & Tikhonchuk, V. T. Ablation of solids by femtosecond lasers: Ablation mechanism and ablation thresholds for metals and dielectrics. Phys. Plasmas 9, 949 (2002)

    2002

  8. [16]

    H., Sun, J

    Fan, C. H., Sun, J. & Longtin, J. P. Plasma Absorption of Femtosecond Laser Pulses in Diele ctrics. J. Heat Transfer 124, 275 (2002)

    2002

  9. [17]

    Xu, S. et al. Femtosecond laser ablation of crystals SiO2 and YAG. Opt. Commun. 274, 163–166 (2007)

    2007

  10. [18]

    Zheng, H. Y. et al. Femtosecond pulse laser ablation of sapphire in ambient air. Appl. Surf. Sci. 228, 221–226 (2004)

    2004

  11. [19]

    Deshpande, D. C. et al. Investigation of femtosecond laser assisted nano and microscale modifications in lithium niobate. J. Appl. Phys. 97, (2005)

    2005

  12. [20]

    & Rethfeld, B

    Brouwer, N. & Rethfeld, B. Transient electron excitation and nonthermal electron -phonon coupling in dielectrics irradiated by ultrashort laser pulses. Phys. Rev. B 95, 1–10 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Glezer, E. N. & Mazur, E. Ultrafast-laser driven micro-explosions in transparent materials. Appl. Phys. Lett. 71, 882–884 (1997)

    1997

  14. [22]

    Dhar, R. N. Dielectric properties of freshly cleaved muscovite mica [3]. Nature 210, 1144–1145 (1966)

    1966

  15. [23]

    Dielectric behavior of the film formed on mica cleaved in moist air

    Tangent, L. Dielectric behavior of the film formed on mica cleaved in moist air. 68, 173 –183 (1964)

    1964

  16. [24]

    & Dickson, G

    Hidnert, P. & Dickson, G. Some physical properties of mica. J. Res. Natl. Bur. Stand. (1934). 35, 309 (1945)

    1934

  17. [25]

    Obreimoff, J. W. & Kapitza, P. The splitting Strength of Mica. Proc. R. Soc. London A 127, 290–297 (1930)

    1930

  18. [26]

    Bailey, A. I. & Kay, S. M. A Direct Measurement of the Influence of Vapour, of Liquid and of Oriented Monolayers on 9 the Interfacial Energy of Mica. Proc. R. Soc. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 301, 47–56 (1967)

    1967

  19. [27]

    De Poel, W. et al. Muscovite mica: Flatter than a pancake. Surf. Sci. 619, 19–24 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Ostendorf, F. et al. How flat is an air-cleaved mica surface ? Nanotechnology 19, (2008)

    2008

  21. [29]

    van Hameren, R. et al. Macroscopic Hierarchical Surface Patterning of Porphyrin Trimers via Self -Assembly and Dewetting. Science (80-. ). 314, 1433 LP – 1436 (2006)

    2006

  22. [30]

    Frank, P. et al. Influence of surface temperature and surface modifications on the initial layer growth of para- hexaphenyl on mica (0 0 1). Surf. Sci. 601, 2152–2160 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Li, C. I. et al. Van der Waal Epitaxy of Flexible and Transparent VO 2 Film on Muscovite. Chem. Mat er. 28, 3914–3919 (2016)

    2016

  24. [32]

    & Parrinello, M

    Odelius, M., Bernasconi, M. & Parrinello, M. Two dimensional ice adsorbed on mica surface. Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2855– 2858 (1997)

    1997

  25. [33]

    Steinberg, S. et al. Van der Waals epitaxial growth of α-alumina nanocrystals on mica. Science (80-. ). 260, 656–659 (1993)

    1993

  26. [34]

    Adhesion energy between mica surfaces: Implications for the frictional coefficient under dry and wet conditions

    Sakuma, H. Adhesion energy between mica surfaces: Implications for the frictional coefficient under dry and wet conditions. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 118, 6066–6075 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    Christenson, H. K. Adhesion and surface energy of mica in air and water. J. Phys. Chem. 97, 12034–12041 (1993)

    1993

  28. [36]

    The geometry of cracks and blisters in mica

    Hull, D. The geometry of cracks and blisters in mica. Acta Mater. 45, 233–244 (1997)

    1997

  29. [37]

    Radoslovich, E. W. The Structure of Muscovite, KA12(Si3A1)OIo(OH)2. Acta Crystallogr . 13, 919–932 (1960)

    1960

  30. [38]

    Gao, J. et al. Layer-by-layer removal of insulating few-layer mica flakes for asymmetric ultra-thin nanopore fabrication. Nano Res. 5, 99–108 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum

    Langmuir, I. The adsorption of gases on plane surfaces of glass, mica and platinum. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 40, 1361–1403 (1918)

    1918

  32. [40]

    & Gualtieri, A

    Mazzucato, E., Artioli, G. & Gualtieri, A. High temperature dehydroxylation of muscovite -2M: a kinetic study by in situ XRPD. Phys. Chem. Miner. 26, 375–381 (1999)

    1999

  33. [41]

    Guggenheim, S., Vhang, Y. H. & Groos Koster Van, A. F. Muscovite dehydroxylation: High temprature studies. Am. Mineral. 72, 537–550 (1987)

    1987

  34. [42]

    & Vedder, W

    Gaines Jun., G.L. & Vedder, W. Dehydroxylation of Muscovite. Nature 201, 495 (1964)

    1964

  35. [43]

    B., Nishimura, N., Glezer, E

    Schaffer, C. B., Nishimura, N., Glezer, E. N., Kim, A. M.-T. & Mazur, E. Dynamics of femtosecond laser-induced breakdown in water from femtoseconds to microseconds. Opt. Express 10, 196 (2002)

    2002

  36. [44]

    & Ripken, T

    Tinne, N., Kaune, B., Krüger, A. & Ripken, T. Interaction mechanisms of cavitation bubbles induced by spatially and temporally separated fs-laser pulses. PLoS One 9, 1–26 (2014)

    2014

  37. [45]

    S., Malkov, Y

    Efimenko, E. S., Malkov, Y. A., Murzanev, A. A. & Stepanov, A. N. Femtosecond laser pulse -induced breakdown of a single water microdroplet. J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 31, 534 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    Daskalova, A. et al. Controlling the porosity of collagen, gelatin and elastin biomaterials by ultrashort laser pulses. Appl. Surf. Sci. 292, 367–377 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    & Chichkov, B

    Unger, C., Koch, J., Overmeyer, L. & Chichkov, B. N. Time-resolved studies of femtosecond-laser induced melt dynamics. Opt. Express 20, 24864 (2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    & Nishida, N

    Kawamura, D., Takita, A., Hayasaki, Y. & Nishida, N. Bump formation on a glass surface with a transparent coating using femtosecond laser processing. Appl. Phys. A 85, 39–43 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    A., Suárez, C., Bor, Z

    Juhasz, T., Kastis, G. A., Suárez, C., Bor, Z. & Bron, W. E. Time-resolved observations of shock waves and cavitation bubbles generated by femtosecond laser pulses in corneal tissue and water. Lasers Surg. Med. 19, 23–31 (1996)

    1996

  42. [50]

    Lenzner, M. et al. Femtosecond Optical Breakdown in Dielectrics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4076 (1998). 1 Single femtosecond laser pulse interaction with mica Saurabh Awasthi1*, Douglas J. Little1, A. Fuerbach1, D.M. Kane1*

    1998

  43. [51]

    Section A contains the data of depth and diameter for the laser processed sites at different fluences as obtained from the optical surface profiler (OSP)

    MQ Photonics research centre, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW-2109 *Corresponding authors E-mail : - deb.kane@mq.edu.au ; saurabh.awasthi@hdr.mq.edu.au Supplementary Information The information supplementing the main text of the manuscrip...

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.