Lithuanian inputs to new edition of ISO Standard for laser-induced damage threshold testing

Abstract

Quality standards are the basis for establishing a common ground between both research institutions and commercial organizations that exchange quantitative information about product features and related issues. In the rapidly changing world, the field of photonics is at the forefront of innovation: research, development, and manufacturing of new types of optics and lasers take place daily. In this context, new important aspects and limitations of the current damage testing approach become apparent. Accordingly, the ISO family of standards (ISO 21254) related to laser-induced damage threshold testing is reviewed and updated regularly. Various inputs into laser-induced damage testing were collected over the years by Lithuanian laser-induced damage community, which is a long-time practitioner of the current and previous revisions of ISO standards. Within this presentation, an attempt is made to contribute to the tremendous work that has already been done. Two types of efforts are made. First of all, we seek to identify weak points, edge cases and areas that leave some space for various misinterpretations and systematic errors. Secondly, we propose possible solutions (with corresponding Monte Carlo simulations for validation) that are currently in practice at laboratories of Lidaris UAB and Laser Research Center of Vilnius University. The suggested inputs are mostly related to definitions of damage criteria, test procedures, analysis of results, selection of appropriate testing protocols and their parameters as well as data representation. By no means, our observations seek to diminish the value of present approaches. As imperfect as they are, current standards were the only appropriate reference for a long time and proved to be adequate in most cases. We believe that the idea of a single protocol that would address all the issues of the community is flawed (considering the wide gamut of optics and lasers), therefore different testing protocols should be viewed as tools to address different problems. We also hope that some of our quantitative inputs could bring more clarity to preconceptions about laser-induced damage testing and significantly improve current approaches.