Characterization of a continuous-wave Raman laser in H2

Journal of the Optical Society of America B: Optical Physics

Volumn 16, Issue 8, 1999, Pages 1305-1312

  Brasseur, J K ^a   Roos, P A ^a   Repasky, K S ^a   Carlsten, J L ^a  

^a MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0033432588     PISSN: 07403224     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1364/JOSAB.16.001305     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. J. K. Brasseur, K. S. Repasky, and J. L. Carlsten, Opt. Lett. 23, 367 (1998).
2. K. S. Repasky, J. K. Brasseur, L. Meng, and J. L. Carlsten, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 15, 1667 (1998).
3. K. S. Repasky, L. Meng, J. K. Brasseur, J. L. Carlsten, and R. C. Swanson, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 16, 717 (1999).
4. K. S. Repasky, L. E. Watson, and J. L. Carlsten, Appl. Opt. 34, 2615 (1995).
5. K. S. Repasky, J. G. Wessel, and J. L. Carlsten, Appl. Opt. 35, 609 (1996).
6. S. Rebic, A. S. Parkins, and D. F. Walls, Opt. Commun. 156, 426 (1998).
7. P. Peterson, A. Gavrielides, and M. P. Sharma, Opt. Commun. 160, 80 (1999).
8. R. G. Harrison, Weiping Lu, and P. K. Gupta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1372 (1989).
9. 2, which gives a coherence decay of ∼2 ns, whereas the Raman cavity has a build-up time of ∼1-10 μs; thus coherence effects can be ignored.
10. D. C. MacPherson, R. C. Swanson, and J. L. Carlsten, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. 25, 1741 (1989).
11. G. D. Boyd, W. D. Johnston, and I. P. Kaminow, IEEE J. Quantum Electron. QE-4, 203 (1969).
12. -4, the gain of the system can be treated as if it were linear [exp(G) → 1 + G]; thus a spatial average of the pump's field inside the Raman laser cavity is sufficient to calculate the gain. The spatial average reduces the gain by a factor of 2. This factor of one-half is absent in Refs. 1 and 2 and should be included.
13. We have an inhomogeneous differential equation, which is solved by a linear combination of the homogeneous solution and the particular solution such that the following boundary conditions are met. At time equal to zero the pump inside the cavity is zero, and at time equal to infinity our solution limits to √T/(1 -√R), the result of a discrete sum of the fields inside an interferometer.
14. p(f) = 156 ppm, l = 7.68cm, β= 0.001 [for Eq. (13)], b = 18cm. The equations were integrated numerically by use of the Bulstoer algorithm.
15. To conserve energy the areas for the pump and the Stokes beams, used to calculate power, need to be identical and are normalized to the pump beam. The wavelength dependence of the area for the Stokes beam is included in the mode-filling parameter of Ref. 11.
16. J. L. Hall and T. W. Hänsch, Opt. Lett. 9, 502 (1984).
17. 00 mode of the HFC; the actual power at the entrance of the cavity was 1.1 mW. 18. The measured photon conversion efficiency is smaller than the efficiency reported in Ref. 1 owing to additional exposures to atmospheric conditions; this increases the absorption of the mirrors of the HFC.
18. S = (150 ± 20) ppm.
19. W. K. Bischel and M. J. Dyer, Phys. Rev. A 33, 3113 (1986).
20. -9 cm/W. [See W. K. Bischel and M. J. Dyer, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 3, 677 (1986).]
21. The absence of the EOM does not affect the cw Raman laser linewidth, since the narrowed pump linewidth is of the order of ∼1 kHz, owing to instabilities in the HFC, and the Raman linewidth for the vibrational transition is 510 MHz. However, the HFC transforms frequency noise into amplitude noise, so that an EOM was added to increase the stability at frequencies near or above the cavity half-width for the RIN measurements.
22. rms, which occur at a frequency of 90 Hz.