Gem Using Quasi-Brewster Angle Technique

Journal of Lasers, Optics & Photonics

ISSN: 2469-410X

Open Access

Opinion - (2022) Volume 9, Issue 2

Gem Using Quasi-Brewster Angle Technique

Amitabha Basuray*
*Correspondence: Amitabha Basuray, Department of Applied Optics and Photonics, University of Calcutta, West Bengal, University of Calcutta, India, Email:
Department of Applied Optics and Photonics, University of Calcutta, West Bengal, University of Calcutta, India

Date of Submission: 06-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. jlop-22-58319; Editor assigned: 07-Feb-2022, Pre QC No. P-58319; Reviewed: 20-Feb-2022, QC No. Q-58319; Revised: 21-Feb-2022, Manuscript No. R-58319; Published: 28-Feb-2022 , DOI: 10.37421/jlop.2022.9.10
Citation: Basuray, Amitabha. “Gem Using Quasi-Brewster Angle Technique.” J Laser Opt Photonics 9 (2022): 10. DOI: 10.37421/jlop.2022.9.10
Copyright: © 2022 Basuray A. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.


The essential for qBAT is to fabricate a sensible optical model for the harm of tests. The optical models relating to the best precious stone (Ideal), just surface unpleasantness (SR), and synchronous presence of surface harshness and subsurface harm (SSD), separately. In this paper, it is accepted that the ideal gem is Lu2O3 single gem with practically no surface harshness and subsurface harm. The model is the reference to assess the impact of surface unpleasantness and subsurface harm on the stage distinction bend, which isn't accessible in the genuine creation. Gem handling typically brings about both surface harshness and subsurface harm. The surface quality is somewhat high in the fine cleaning and CMP, and the surface unpleasantness is by and large in the nanometer scale. The example surface contains pits, scratches, and stature undulations, and the subsurface harm is more mind boggling and various and combined with one another. To improve on the model, they are likened as surface unpleasantness (SR) layer and subsurface harm (SSD) layer, separately. Also, there is no severe limit between surface unpleasantness and subsurface harm, and the limits are schematic lines. The surface harshness layer and subsurface harm layer are described utilizing the successful medium guess (EMA) model.

To get surface morphology and surface harshness (Sa), all examples were estimated utilizing optical profilometer (Sneox, Sensofar). Normal estimations chose from fine cleaning and CMP. The estimation region is 877.2 × 660.5 μm utilizing × 20 goal and PSI calculation. Many scratches exist toward the beginning of fine cleaning, and as cleaning continues the scratches step by step decline until they vanish. The outer layer of the CMP tests is smoother and liberated from clear deformities like scratches. The surface unpleasantness (Sa) shows diminishing pattern as for the fine cleaned tests. Each example was estimated at three haphazardly chosen areas in the middle region, and the normal of the three estimations was utilized as the last surface harshness (Sa). The last estimated consequences of Sa, everything being equal. The general Sa will in general diminish as cleaning advances, and the surface harshness of all CMP tests is lower than that of the fine cleaned tests. Also, the mistake bar is generally enormous, which is credited to the surface that is now smooth and the surface unpleasantness (Sa) is around 1 nm, when a slight sub-nanometer undulation of the surface will prompt huge deviation. The estimation region (877.2 × 660.5 μm) is a little part of the example surface size (around 12 mm in width), so numerous estimations at various areas will undoubtedly shift somewhat.


Transmission electron microscopy (FEI, Talos F200X, working at 200kV) is used to dissect subsurface harm of tests. Inferable from the feeble conductivity of Lu2O3 single gem, Au conductive layer should be pre-kept on the example surface to work with the TEM example planning. The Pt defensive layer was stored again to forestall extra subsurface harm brought about by centered particle shaft (FIB) during the TEM example diminishing interaction. Two run of the mill tests with 60 min of fine cleaning and 60 min of CMP were chosen for cross-sectional TEM estimation. No obvious subsurface harms, for example, subsurface breaks, deformity layers, and remaining burdens, are seen in both the fine cleaned and the CMP tests. To additionally examine the moment subsurface harm of both, high amplification TEM tests were performed on the region in the ran boxes. It very well may be seen that the cross section appropriation is customary and uniform, and there are practically no disengagements, twins, and formless and different deformities. Taking everything into account, the TEM estimation results exhibit that there is for all intents and purposes no subsurface harm in both of the two commonplace examples. It should be underscored that since the TEM example readiness will harm the example, the real estimation method is optical non-horrendous tests, including optical profilometer and ellipsometer estimations, trailed by TEM.

The stage distinction of everything cleaned tests close to Brewster point was estimated utilizing variable point ellipsometer (J.A. Woollam, RC2), and all stage contrast bends. The occurrence point range is 60-66°, 0.1° as augmentation, and the long pivot and short hub of curved estimation spot are around 6 and 4 mm, individually. The stage distinction estimated information relating to the frequency of 640 nm are chosen. As with the optical profilometer test, we chose three areas in the focal region of the example for estimation, and the normal of the three estimations was embraced as the end-product. The strong and dabbed lines are the stage contrast bends of the five fine cleaned tests and the four CMP tests, separately. All the stage distinction bends are steep and the Slope is near 90°, demonstrating that the surface unpleasantness is little, which is in concurrence with the estimation aftereffects of the optical profilometer. To notice the subtleties nearby Brewster point, the information in the scope of 62.3-62.8° frequency point were amplified, as displayed in the inset. The Slope of the CMP tests is essentially bigger than that of the fine cleaned tests, which shows that the surface unpleasantness of the CMP tests is lower than that of the fine cleaned ones. Additionally, the fundamental judgment is that the Slope shows a rising pattern with the increment of cleaning time. Note that the θqb for all the fine cleaned and CMP tests is seldom moved, demonstrating that the subsurface harm is essentially unaltered [1-5].


In this review, the surface and subsurface harm of fine cleaned and CMP Lu2O3 single gem was explored utilizing the qBAT. To acquire tests with different surface/subsurface harm, a gem handling plan was planned. To check the estimation aftereffects of the qBAT, the surface and subsurface quality were described by business 3D optical profilometer and TEM, separately. The consistency of the deliberate outcomes exhibits the plausibility and high responsiveness of qBAT for assessing surface and subsurface harm on cleaned Lu2O3 single precious stone. Thusly, the qBAT empowers quick, nonhorrendous, and effortless investigation of cleaned surfaces and subsurface harm. It conquers the inherent downsides of ordinary assessment techniques, which are convoluted, tedious, and exorbitant. Fast and concurrent examination of surface and subsurface harm in light of Slope and qBAS estimation results gives basic direction to the enhancement of cleaning processes during machining. Taking everything into account, this study gives an effective way to deal with cleaned Lu2O3 surface/subsurface harm appraisal and further widens the utilization of qBAT.


  1. Ma, Bin, Zhengxiang Shen, Pengfei He and Yiqin Ji, et al. "Subsurface quality of polished SiO2 surface evaluated by quasi-Brewster angle technique." Optik 122 (2011): 1418-1422.
  2. Google Scholar, Crossref

  3. Yao, Chengyuan, Shuchun Huo, Wanfu Shen and Zhaoyang Sun, et al. "Assessing the quality of polished brittle optical crystal using quasi-Brewster angle technique." Precision Engineering 72 (2021): 184-191.
  4. Google Scholar, Crossref

  5. Arnold, Alexandre, Isabelle Cloutier, Anna M Ritcey and Michèle Auger. "Temperature and pressure dependent growth and morphology of DMPC/DSPC domains studied by Brewster angle microscopy." Chemistry and physics of lipids 133 (2005): 165-179.
  6. Google Scholar, Crossref

  7. Ou-yang, Wei, Tetsuya Yamamoto, Takahiro Aida and Takaaki Manaka, et al. "Domain observation and molecular orientation of chiral dipalmitoylphosphatidylcholine monolayer by Brewster angle microscopy and Maxwell displacement current." Thin Solid Films 516, no. 9 (2008): 2649-2651.
  8. Google Scholar, Crossref

  9. Adamson, Peep. "Characteristic Brewster angles for anisotropic interfaces." Optik 125 (2014): 7247-7257.
  10. Google Scholar, Crossref

Google Scholar citation report
Citations: 198

Journal of Lasers, Optics & Photonics received 198 citations as per Google Scholar report

Journal of Lasers, Optics & Photonics peer review process verified at publons

Indexed In

arrow_upward arrow_upward