Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T15:52:39.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimization of Reverse Saturable Absorber Limiters: Material Requirements and Design Considerations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2011

D. J. Hagan ,
T. Xia ,
A. Dogariu ,
A. A. Said  and
E. W. Van Stryland
D. J. Hagan
Affiliation:
Center for Research and Education in Optics and Lasers (CREOL) University of Central Florida, Orlando FL 32816
T. Xia
Affiliation:
Center for Research and Education in Optics and Lasers (CREOL) University of Central Florida, Orlando FL 32816
A. Dogariu
Affiliation:
Center for Research and Education in Optics and Lasers (CREOL) University of Central Florida, Orlando FL 32816
A. A. Said
Affiliation:
Center for Research and Education in Optics and Lasers (CREOL) University of Central Florida, Orlando FL 32816
E. W. Van Stryland
Affiliation:
Center for Research and Education in Optics and Lasers (CREOL) University of Central Florida, Orlando FL 32816
Get access

Abstract

We present numerical beam-propagation simulations of optimized reverse-saturable absorption (RSA) based optical limiters where the depth of focus of the input beam is much smaller than the thickness of the nonlinear material. The optimization is achieved by allowing the molecular concentration to vary along the propagation path, allowing the entire length of the limiter to reach the maximum possible nonlinear absorption before eventual damage to the limiter. We review in detail the analytic model originally derived by Miles [1] to determine the design and performance of such limiters. This model requires the usual 5-level model used in the numerical solution to be approximated by a quasi-three-level system. We show that this effective 3-level excited-state cross section is both pulsewidth and fluence dependent. The numerical propagation output shows that there is considerable diffractive beam distortion, which cannot be accounted for in the analytic model. The end result is that while there is qualitative agreement with numerical results, the magnitude of the limited output can be an order-of-magnitude underestimated. We determine that the fluence level at all parts of the limiter must be at least ten times the saturation fluence to efficiently utilize the nonlinear absorption. We further describe how the optimized distribution of molecular density is the limit of the multi-element tandem limiter for an infinite number of elements. By carefully accounting for saturation over the entire length of each individual element, we show how a multi-element limiter may be designed to closely approach the performance of the optimized distribution for as few as four elements. With current materials technology the damage threshold of solid hosts needed to vary the molecular density is much lower than that of glass cuvettes used for liquid based limiters. Therefore, a multi-element liquid based tandem limiter can be used in full saturation so that better limiter performance should be obtained. Ultimately, however, the operation of all RSA-based limiters involves a strict trade-off between performance and linear transmittance.

Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 374: Symposia ZB – Materials for Optical Limiting , 1994 , 161
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Miles, P. A., Appl. Opt. 33, 6965 (1994).Google Scholar
2. Wei, T. H., Hagan, D. J., Sence, M. J., Van Stryland, E. W., Perry, J. W., and Coulter, D. R., Applied Physics B54, 46–51 (1992).Google Scholar
3. Coulter, D. R., Miskowski, V. M., Perry, J. W., Wei, T. H., Van Stryland, E. W., and Hagan, D. J., SPIE 1105, 42–51 (1989).Google Scholar
4. Shirk, J. S., Pong, R. G. S., Bartoli, F. J., and Snow, A. W., Applied Physics Letters 63, 1880–1882 (1993).Google Scholar
5. Mansour, K., Van Stryland, E. W., and Soileau, M. J., SPIE 1105, 91–102 (1989).Google Scholar
6. Hagan, D. J., Van Stryland, E. W., Wu, Y. Y., Wei, T. H., Sheik-Bahae, M., Said, A., Mansour, K., Young, J., and Soileau, M. J., SPIE 1105, 103–113 (1989).Google Scholar
7. Said, A. A. et al., SPIE 1692, 37, (1992).Google Scholar
8. Hagan, D. J., Xia, T., Said, A. A., Wei, T. H., and Van Stryland, E. W., International J. Nonlinear Optical Physics 2, 483–501 (1993).Google Scholar
9. Mansour, K., Chen, C. T., Marder, S. R., Perry, J. W., and Miles, P., CLEO'94, CFGI.Google Scholar
10. McCahon, S. W. and Tutt, L W, US patent 5,080,469 Jan 14 1992.Google Scholar
11. Said, A.A., Wamsley, C., Hagan, D.J., and Van Stryland, E.W., Mansour, K., Alvarez, D., Marder, S.M., and Perry, J.W., Annual meeting of the Optical Society of America, Toronto, Canada, 1993, paper MHH8.Google Scholar
12. Feit, M. D. and Fleck, J. A. Jr., Optics Letters 14, 662–664(1989).Google Scholar
13. Sheng, S.C., Ginzton Laboratory Report, No. 3106, (Stanford University, 1980)Google Scholar
14. A. A. Said et al., Submitted to Appl. Opt..Google Scholar
15. Soileau, M.J., Williams, W.E. and Van Stryland, E.W., IEEE J. Quantum Electron., 19, 731 (1983)Google Scholar