Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry

Download statistics - Document (COUNTER):

Zhao, M.; Tao, Y.; Weber, K.; Kaune, T.; Schuster, S. et al.: Method Comparison for Simulating Non-Gaussian Beams and Diffraction for Precision Interferometry. In: Sensors 23 (2023), Nr. 22, 9024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/s23229024

Repository version

To cite the version in the repository, please use this identifier: https://doi.org/10.15488/16944

Selected time period:

year: 
month: 

Sum total of downloads: 2




Thumbnail
Abstract: 
In the context of simulating precision laser interferometers, we use several examples to compare two wavefront decomposition methods—the Mode Expansion Method (MEM) and the Gaussian Beam Decomposition (GBD) method—for their precision and applicability. To assess the performance of these methods, we define different types of errors and study their properties. We specify how the two methods can be fairly compared and based on that, compare the quality of the MEM and GBD through several examples. Here, we test cases for which analytic results are available, i.e., non-clipped circular and general astigmatic Gaussian beams, as well as clipped circular Gaussian beams, in the near, far, and extremely far fields of millions of kilometers occurring in space-gravitational wave detectors. Additionally, we compare the methods for aberrated wavefronts and their interaction with optical components by testing reflections from differently curved mirrors. We find that both methods can generally be used for decomposing non-Gaussian beams. However, which method is more accurate depends on the optical system and simulation settings. In the given examples, the MEM more accurately describes non-clipped Gaussian beams, whereas for clipped Gaussian beams and the interaction with surfaces, the GBD is more precise.
License of this version: CC BY 4.0 Unported
Document Type: Article
Publishing status: publishedVersion
Issue Date: 2023
Appears in Collections:An-Institute

distribution of downloads over the selected time period:

downloads by country:

pos. country downloads
total perc.
1 image of flag of United States United States 1 50.00%
2 image of flag of Germany Germany 1 50.00%

Further download figures and rankings:


Hinweis

Zur Erhebung der Downloadstatistiken kommen entsprechend dem „COUNTER Code of Practice for e-Resources“ international anerkannte Regeln und Normen zur Anwendung. COUNTER ist eine internationale Non-Profit-Organisation, in der Bibliotheksverbände, Datenbankanbieter und Verlage gemeinsam an Standards zur Erhebung, Speicherung und Verarbeitung von Nutzungsdaten elektronischer Ressourcen arbeiten, welche so Objektivität und Vergleichbarkeit gewährleisten sollen. Es werden hierbei ausschließlich Zugriffe auf die entsprechenden Volltexte ausgewertet, keine Aufrufe der Website an sich.

Search the repository


Browse