Full text loading...
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Construction, calibration, and testing of a four‐detector photopolarimeter
1.R. M. A. Azzam, Opt. Lett. 10, 309 (1985). In this paper, Eq. (11) should read det
2.W. Budde, Appl. Opt. 18, 1555 (1979).
3.W. Budde, Appl. Opt. 22, 1780 (1983).
4.These choices of angles are not critical as will be shown elsewhere. For example, if the angles between planes of incidence are changed by around the optimum value of 45°, the determinant of the instrument matrix will decrease from its maximum by 25%. Likewise, the angles of incidence may be taken in the range of 50°‐80° without substantially affecting the instrument performance.
5.P. S. Hauge, J. Opt. Soc. Am. 68, 1519 (1978).
6.See, for example, R. M. A. Azzam and N. M. Bashara, Ellipsometry and Polarized Light (North‐Holland, Amsterdam, 1987), Sec. 1.8.
7.R. M. Azzam and N. M. Bashara, Ellipsometry and Polarized Light (North‐Holland, Amsterdam, 1987), p. 236.
8.For broadband spectral applications, it is preferable to use the thinnest oxide layer that is adequate for electrical passivation. This is because interference effects in half‐wave and quarter‐wave films, such as we have used here, lead to oscillatory behavior of the instrument matrix that is accompanied by singularities at a few discrete wavelengths. This will also be discussed elsewhere.
9.A. Moritani and J. Nakai, Appl. Opt. 21, 3231 (1982);
9.A. Moritani and C. Hamaguchi, Appl. Phys. Lett. 46, 746 (1985).
10.G. E. Jellison, Jr and D. H. Lowndes, Appl. Opt. 24, 2918 (1985);
10.G. E. Jellison, Jr and D. H. Lowndes, Appl. Phys. Lett. 47, 718 (1985).
11.G. E. Jellison, Jr., Opt. Lett. 12, 766 (1987).
Article metrics loading...