2022
DOI: 10.1109/jlt.2022.3186721
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Angle-Spliced SMF to Hollow Core Fiber Connection with Optimized Back-Reflection and Insertion Loss

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

1
9
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
1
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This represents a situation previously published. 25 Here, we see that the coupling efficiency is severely reduced (to 28% in our case) with significant cross-coupling into the LP 11 mode, as expected for a launch in which the input beam is not colinear with the HCF axis. Introducing an optimized offset of 5.7 μm for the considered cleave angle of 6°(as follows from Figure 4), Figure 5c, the low coupling loss is restored, with the coupling efficiency reaching 96% and the cross-coupling into the LP 11 being negligible within the simulation error (below −50 dB, <0.001%).…”
Section: ■ Designsupporting
confidence: 76%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This represents a situation previously published. 25 Here, we see that the coupling efficiency is severely reduced (to 28% in our case) with significant cross-coupling into the LP 11 mode, as expected for a launch in which the input beam is not colinear with the HCF axis. Introducing an optimized offset of 5.7 μm for the considered cleave angle of 6°(as follows from Figure 4), Figure 5c, the low coupling loss is restored, with the coupling efficiency reaching 96% and the cross-coupling into the LP 11 being negligible within the simulation error (below −50 dB, <0.001%).…”
Section: ■ Designsupporting
confidence: 76%
“…Previously, we investigated this trade-off in detail, enabling us, for example, to achieve a moderate level of back-reflection of −40 dB with an acceptable level of coupling loss of 1.3 dB. 25 Here, we suggest a method that resolves the abovementioned trade-off, enabling for a spliced SMF−HCF connection that simultaneously has both low loss and low back-reflection. It uses a GRIN mode field adapter, to which the SMF is spliced, with an offset that compensates for the refraction at the angle-cleaved interface.…”
Section: ■ Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Fresnel back-reflection can be suppressed by SSMF tapering [18], [20], deposition of anti-reflective (AR) coating [13], [21] and angle-cleaving [22]- [24]. Back-reflection suppression to -27 dB over 390 nm bandwidth (from 1260 nm to 1650 nm) was demonstrated through tapering [18], below -40 dB over 60 nm using AR coating [13], and below -40 dB using 2 • angled interface [24].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The Fresnel back-reflection can be suppressed by SSMF tapering [18], [20], deposition of anti-reflective (AR) coating [13], [21] and angle-cleaving [22]- [24]. Back-reflection suppression to -27 dB over 390 nm bandwidth (from 1260 nm to 1650 nm) was demonstrated through tapering [18], below -40 dB over 60 nm using AR coating [13], and below -40 dB using 2 • angled interface [24]. The angled interface lowers the back reflection but does not reduce the insertion loss (IL), as the otherwise back-reflected light is deflected out of the waveguides and thus not collected by the HCF.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation