Can anyone explain the unusual energy losses in my UV-laser mirror setup?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter S.Hollas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Energy Mirror
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the unusual energy losses observed in a UV-laser mirror setup, specifically focusing on the discrepancies in energy loss percentages at two different mirrors when using a frequency quadrupled Nd:YAG laser. The inquiry includes aspects of measurement techniques, mirror properties, and potential contamination from other wavelengths.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes a 7% energy loss at the first mirror and a 12% loss at the second, suggesting a potential relationship with the presence of 1064nm and 532nm fractions in the laser output.
  • Another participant questions the bandwidth over which the energy losses are measured, indicating that energy meters may integrate over broad ranges, potentially affecting the results.
  • A different participant raises concerns about the surface figure of the mirrors and the size of the power meter, suggesting that scattering could contribute to cumulative losses.
  • Several participants inquire about the specifics of the power measurement setup, including the type of detector used and whether filters are employed to isolate the wavelengths.
  • One participant mentions that the frequency doubling crystal's configuration could impact the measurement and asks about the mirrors' selection process and coatings.
  • Another participant emphasizes the need for filters to obtain reliable measurements, indicating that the current data may be contaminated by other wavelengths.
  • A later reply suggests estimating the contributions of the various wavelengths based on the mirror properties and the energy meter's sensitivity curve to understand the discrepancies better.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the reliability of the measurements and the potential impact of other wavelengths on the results. There is no consensus on the cause of the energy losses, and multiple competing views remain regarding the measurement techniques and mirror properties.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include potential contamination from unfiltered wavelengths, the dependence on the specific properties of the mirrors, and the lack of clarity on the measurement bandwidths. The discussion does not resolve these uncertainties.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in laser optics, experimental physics, and measurement techniques may find this discussion relevant.

S.Hollas
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I have a problem with which I would appreciate any help that is offered:

I have a 266nm laser (frequency quadrupled 1064nm Nd:YAG), and the energy losses along the route are a little strange. The beam is reflected by two UV mirrors; however, the first mirror loses ~7% of the in-going energy, but the second loses ~12% of the in-going energy. I have swapped the mirrors, and the effect remains.

The beam that is emmitted by the laser contains some 1064nm and 532nm fractions, and I feel that the losses of these frequencies (they should be minimally reflected by the UV mirrors) at the first mirror must relate to the problem, but I cannot figure out why.

Can anybody understand this effect?
 
Science news on Phys.org
Over what bandwidths are the 7% and 12% numbers measured? Energy meters tend to integrate over broad ranges, and your quadrupled beam will contain significant amounts of 1w, 2w and 3w as well as 4w.
 
What surface figure are the mirrors and how big is your power meter?
It could be that they are each scattering some light out of the beam - the effect of this is cumulative.
 
Some questions...

1. How are you measuring the power loss? What detector type are you using? Are you using a filter of some kind? Does the detector have a window?
2. Is the Frequency doubling crystal intra-cavity? Is it in a separate cavity from the YAG crystal? Is the entire lasing and doubling process done in a black-box (i.e. you only get to play with the output)?
3. Were the mirrors hand-me-downs (for want of a better term) or were they chosen specifically for this type of application? Are the mirrors coated?

Claude.
 
Dear Friends,

Thankyou for your responses, and I shall try and answer your questions:

The power meter is a Gentec Duo, measuring from 100µJ to 100mJ. The beam strength that I am measuring is ~30mJ; the measuring head is a Gentec QE25 series.

The mirrors are at 45º; I have both changed the position of each mirror in the beam line, and replaced one of the mirrors over the time this effect has been seen; they were new when I began, though the first mirror does suffer coating damage over time from the non-266nm sections of the primary beam.

The frequency quadrupled output is in a separate box immediately after the laser cavity.
There is no filter in the beam line.

I am measuring the energy by removing the beam cover immediately before and after each mirror; the gap between the mirrors is ~2m.

I hope this helps,

Simon.
 
What bandwidth does the power meter measure over - it is probably sensitive to 532/1064 as well. Unless the doubler has blocking filters it will leak some of the original wavelength and your mirrors are probably reflecting some of this.
 
Yes, it is sensitive to the other frequencies, and I am sure I am measuring them. If the situation were reversed, and the first mirror lost more than the second I would understand.
I am investigating the scattering effect, but initial results show nothing significant.
 
I agree with mgb_phys. As it stands, the data you are getting is too unreliable as it is almost certainly "contaminated" with other wavelengths. You need some filters to get a reliable measurement.

Claude.
 
Last edited:
You can probably estimate the amount of 1w, 2w and 3w coming out of your box, and from the mirror properties you can calculate the reflectivity at those wavelengths, so given the energy meter sensitivity curve (probably provided with the meter) you ought to be able to make a reasonable estimate for how the total energy measurements would differ after the first and second reflections. I'll bet it's roughly consistent with your numbers, I've seen these sorts of discrepancies myself. Experimental physics is harder than many theorists think it is. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
40K