Comparison of the pseudorandom noise code and pulsed direct-detection lidars for atmospheric probing

Applied Optics

Volumn 36, Issue 24, 1997, Pages 6021-6023

  Machol, Janet L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

Author keywords

Lidar; Pseudorandom noise code

Indexed keywords

ATMOSPHERE; LIDAR; SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO;

EID: 0031580330     PISSN: 1559128X     EISSN: 21553165     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/AO.36.006021     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. N. Takeuchi, N. Sugimoto, H. Baba, and K. Sakurai, “Random modulation cw lidar, ” Appl. Opt. 22, 1382-1386 (1983). [Eq. (15) is missing a factor of 1/VN.]
2. N. Takeuchi, H. Baba, K. Sakurai, and T. Ueno, “Diode-laser random-modulation cw lidar, ” Appl. Opt. 25, 63-67 (1986).
3. D. N. Norman and C. S. Gardner, “Satellite laser ranging using pseudonoise code modulated laser diodes, ” Appl. Opt. 27, 3650-3655 (1988).
4. H. Sang Lee and A. Notari, “Comparison of pseudorandom modulated and pulsed lidars, ” in Conference on Lasers and ElectroOptics, Vol. 15 of 1995 OSA Technical Digest Series (Optical Society of America, Washington, D.C., 1995), p. 242.
5. F. J. MacWilliams and N. J. A. Sloane, “Pseudo-random sequences and arrays, ” Proc. IEEE 64, 1715-1729 (1976).
6. ANSI, American National Standard for the Safe Use of Lasers, Z136.1-1986 (American National Standards Institute, New York, 1986).