Virgo Roma Tor Vergata
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter

Go down

Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter Empty Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter

Post  mdipaolo Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:25 pm

The Goal of these measurement is to understand the changing of polarization of laser beam in operation to rotation of the Beam Splitter with incidence angle fixed. We have positioned the beam splitter to 45° rispect to the laser beam.

The folowing schedule is used:

Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter Slide110

We have used three beam splitter: two B.S. of the ULO (10ZPF3-17-U ZeSn D25.4mm...two equal) and one of II-VI (II-VI ZnSe S/N: 80-120451-03 0,120 Th. PO/5%R ).

First of All we have measurement the following parameters:

1) Input Power to the Polarizator [W] - PingPOL
2) Laser Maximum Power - Plaser [W]

After we have measurement the reflected power from polarizator in operation with rotation of the beam splitter.

3) Reflected power from polarizator - Pr [mW]
4) Reflected power with no beam splitter [mW] - PsenzaB.S.

Here the result for II-VI
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ii10
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ii11
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_sii-10

PsenzaB.S = 55 mW.
PingPOL = 12.92 W
Plaser = 13.53 W

With this condition we have changed casualy the incidence angle and we have repeated the measurement:
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ii12
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ii13
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_sii-11

In the following picture the compare between them:
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_sii-10

I think that the angle in order to have the minimum reflected power is not depend on incidence angle of laser on beam splitter.

Here, instead, the results for ULO 1
PsenzaB.S = 69 mW.
PingPOL = 11.66 W
Plaser = 13.20 W
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul10
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul11
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_sulo10

With this condition we have changed casualy the incidence angle and we have repeated the measurement:
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul14
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul15
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul16

In the following picture the compare between them:
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul10


I think that the angle in order to have the minimum reflected power is not depend on incidence angle of laser on beam splitter.

Here the results for ULO 2
PsenzaB.S = 69 mW.
PingPOL = 11.63 W
Plaser = 13.18 W
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul12
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul13
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul10

With this condition we have changed casualy the incidence angle and we have repeated the measurement:

Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul18
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul19
Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul20

In the following picture the compare between them:

Polarization vs Rotation of the Beam Splitter B_s_ul11
I think that the angle in order to have the minimum reflected power is not depend on incidence angle of laser on beam splitter.

The beam splitter of the ULO are the same...but i think that the result are different......

mdipaolo

Posts : 106
Join date : 2008-11-05

Back to top Go down

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum