Micromirror Dynamic Deformation Compensation

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative SolutionsGenerate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Micromirror devices face challenges due to dynamic deformation of the mirror during pivoting, which leads to broadening of laser beams and conflicting performance parameters such as mirror size, deflection angle, mechanical deformability, and slewing frequency, often requiring tradeoffs and increased mass moment of inertia.

Innovation Solution

Incorporating a dynamic deformation compensator with actuators that elastically deform the mirror to compensate for dynamic deformation, allowing for controlled mirror pivoting and maintaining a flat reflection surface, thereby improving operational capability without increasing mass moment of inertia.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Reliability

If the mirror is reinforced to reduce dynamic deformation, then the mirror robustness is improved, but the mass moment of inertia of the mirror increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemirror robustnessVSAvoidmass moment of inertia

Core Design Contradiction:

ReliabilityVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces mechanical reinforcement (adding mass to the mirror) with an active control system using actuators to counteract dynamic deformation. The actuators generate forces that compensate for deformation without increasing the mirror's mass moment of inertia, thus resolving the contradiction between robustness and weight.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Solution Approach 2:

The mirror system becomes self-correcting by incorporating actuators that automatically detect and compensate for dynamic deformation during operation. The system monitors its own state and applies corrective forces, eliminating the need for passive mechanical reinforcement that would increase mass.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #25Self-service

2Strength

If coordinated combinations of different materials are used to increase mirror robustness, then the mirror strength is improved, but the manufacturing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemirror robustnessVSAvoidmanufacturing process complexity

Core Design Contradiction:

StrengthVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces complex multi-material manufacturing with a simpler single-material mirror structure augmented by actuators. The robustness is achieved through active control rather than material complexity, significantly simplifying the manufacturing process while maintaining or improving strength.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

3Stability of the object's composition

If the suspension system is optimized to increase mirror robustness, then the mirror stability is improved, but the mass moment of inertia increases and manufacturing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemirror stabilityVSAvoidmass moment of inertia

Core Design Contradiction:

Stability of the object's compositionVSWeight of moving object

Solution Approach 1:

The patent replaces passive mechanical suspension optimization with an active control system using actuators. The actuators compensate for instability and deformation without adding significant mass to the moving mirror assembly, thus improving stability without increasing the mass moment of inertia.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

4Area of moving object

If the mirror size is increased to improve performance, then the deflection angle is improved, but the dynamic deformation increases

Engineering Contradiction:

Improvemirror sizeVSAvoiddynamic deformation

Core Design Contradiction:

Area of moving objectVSShape

Solution Approach 1:

The patent enables larger mirror sizes by introducing actuators that actively counteract the increased dynamic deformation. The actuators provide compensating forces that allow the mirror to maintain its shape and optical performance even at larger sizes, thus resolving the contradiction between size and deformation.

Inventive Principle:

Principle #28Mechanics substitution (Replace mechanical system)

Applied Scientific Principles

This section explains which scientific principles are used to turn an abstract innovation direction into a practical engineering solution.

Function Achieved in This Case

This solution effectively reduces dynamic deformation, maintaining a flat mirror surface and improving performance parameters, enabling enhanced operational capability and minimizing the negative influence of reflected radiation.

Implementation Method 1

the mirror comprises a dynamic deformation compensator, which is formed with at least one actuator for elastic deformation of the mirror in order to at least partially, preferably completely, compensate a dynamic deformation of the mirror

Methodology Applied

Scientific EffectElastic deformation: Elasticity

Data Source

PatentEP4394479A1Micromirror device and method operating same

Publication Date: 2024.07.03 SILICON AUSTRIA LABS GMBH

Figure 1~2
Figure 3~4
Figure 5~10

AI summary

The invention concerns a micromirror device (1) comprising a mirror (3), which mirror (3) is mounted controllably pivotable about a rotation axis (R), wherein the mirror (3) comprises a dynamic deformation compensator (2), which is formed with at least one actuator (5) for elastic deformation of the mirror (3) in order to at least partially, preferably completely, compensate a dynamic deformation of the mirror (3) with control of the actuator (5). Furthermore, the invention concerns a method of operating a micromirror device (1) and a method of manufacturing a micromirror device (1).