Spot size mode converter for efficient coupling to SiN waveguides

2004 ◽  
Author(s):  
My T. Doan ◽  
Chi F. Tsang ◽  
Badam Ramana Murthy ◽  
Babu Narayanan ◽  
Chang Kuo Chang ◽  
...  
1994 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 522-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
F. Ghirardi ◽  
B. Mersali ◽  
J. Brandon ◽  
G. Herve-Gruyer ◽  
A. Carenco

1996 ◽  
Vol 32 (15) ◽  
pp. 1372 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Sakai ◽  
Y. Tohmori ◽  
Y. Suzaki ◽  
Y. Kondo ◽  
O. Mitomi

1995 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 1007 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoto Yoshimoto ◽  
Kenji Kawano ◽  
Hiroaki Takeuchi ◽  
Susumu Kondo ◽  
Yoshio Noguchi

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 072502 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiangjie Zhao ◽  
Hamed Dalir ◽  
Xiaochuan Xu ◽  
Ray T. Chen

2005 ◽  
Author(s):  
Y. Sakai ◽  
Y. Tohmori ◽  
Y. Suzaki ◽  
H. Oohashi ◽  
Y. Kondo ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Etienne de Harven

Biological ultrastructures have been extensively studied with the scanning electron microscope (SEM) for the past 12 years mainly because this instrument offers accurate and reproducible high resolution images of cell shapes, provided the cells are dried in ways which will spare them the damage which would be caused by air drying. This can be achieved by several techniques among which the critical point drying technique of T. Anderson has been, by far, the most reproducibly successful. Many biologists, however, have been interpreting SEM micrographs in terms of an exclusive secondary electron imaging (SEI) process in which the resolution is primarily limited by the spot size of the primary incident beam. in fact, this is not the case since it appears that high resolution, even on uncoated samples, is probably compromised by the emission of secondary electrons of much more complex origin.When an incident primary electron beam interacts with the surface of most biological samples, a large percentage of the electrons penetrate below the surface of the exposed cells.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document