Full text loading...
(a) Schematic of the XPWG experiment. (b) Comparison of plane-wave XPWG efficiencies for the two cuts (right scale-thick lines). Comparison of the phase shift between fundamental wave and XPW for the two cuts (left scale-thin lines). [(c) and (d)] XPWG efficiency as a function of angle for different normalized input intensities for -cut (c) and for -cut (d). For all curves (Ref. 3 ). .
[(a) and (b)] single crystal setup as in Fig. 1(a) . (a) XPW signal as a function of angle for  orientation for two different input energies. The lines are theoretical curves (see text). Each of the experimental curves is normalized to the average value of the “highest” three maxima. (b) XPWG efficiencies for the two cuts. The lines are eye guides. Inset: input FB spatial beam shape. (c) XPWG energy (circle) and efficiency (square) for two crystal scheme with two holographic cut crystals. Inset: output XPW spatial beam shape.
Nonlinear coupling coefficients used in Eqs (1) and (2) for both -cut and holographic cut. stands for , .
Article metrics loading...