• Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B
• /
• v.34 no.1
• /
• pp.73-76
• /
• 2010

The issue of inspection and characterization of microstructures has emerged as a major consideration in design, fabrication, and detection of MEMS devices. However, the conventional measurement techniques, including scanning electron microscopy (SEM) imaging, atomic force microscopy (AFM) scanning, and mechanical surface profiler, require often destructive process or may be difficult to measure with a wafer scale. In this paper, we characterize the surface profiles of microstructures using an optical scanner based on a DVD pick-up module. Scanning images of the microstructures are successfully generated using the intensity of reflected light from different depths of the surface profiles, based on the focus error signal (FES) from photodiodes. It is shown that the proposed optical scanner can be used as an alternative measurement system with high performance and low cost, compared to conventional measurement techniques.

• Journal of Korean Ophthalmic Optics Society
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.219-225
• /
• 2010

Purpose: Usefulness in predicting the power of spherical rigid gas-pearmeable (RGP) lenses prescription using dioptric power matrices and arithmetic calculations was evaluated in this study. Noncycloplegic refractive errors and over-refractions were performed on 110 eyes of 55 subjects (36 males and 19 females, aged $24.60{\pm}1.55$years) in twenties objectively with an auto-refractometer (with keratometer) and subjectively. Tear lenses were calculated from keratometric readings and base curves of RGP lenses, and the power of RGP lenses were computed by a dioptric power matrix and an arithmetic calculation from the manifest refraction and the tear lens, and were compared with those by over-refractions in terms of spherical (Sph), spherical quivalent (SE) and astigmatic power. Results: The mean difference (MD) and 95% limits of agreement (LOA=$MD{\pm}1.96SD$) were better for SE (0.26D, $0.26{\pm}0.70D$) than for Sph (0.61D, $0.61{\pm}0.86D$). The mean difference and agreement of the cylindrical power between matrix and arithmetic calculation (-0.13D, $-0.13{\pm}0.53D$) were better than between the others (-0.24D, $0.24{\pm}0.84D$ between matrix and over-refraction; -0.12D, $0.12{\pm}1.00D$ between arithmetic calculation and over-refraction). The fitness of spherical RGP lenses were 54.5% for matrix, 66.4% for arithmetic calculation and 91.8% for over-refraction. Arithmetic calculation was close to the over-refraction. Conclusions: In predicting indications and powers of spherical RGP lens fitting, although there are the differences of axis between total (spectacle) astigmatism and corneal astigmatism, Spherical equivalent using an arithmetic calculation provides a more useful application than using a dioptric power matrix.