2011
DOI: 10.1364/ao.50.004376
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Gaussian content as a laser beam quality parameter

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…3(b) is partially similar to the rectangular and top-hat type of beam profiles as described in Ref. 50 (see Table 1 [50]. Considering reference to these values, M 2 -parameter for this beam must lie between 1 and infinity (see Table 1 of Ref.…”
Section: +supporting
confidence: 61%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…3(b) is partially similar to the rectangular and top-hat type of beam profiles as described in Ref. 50 (see Table 1 [50]. Considering reference to these values, M 2 -parameter for this beam must lie between 1 and infinity (see Table 1 of Ref.…”
Section: +supporting
confidence: 61%
“…Such a non-basic Gaussian mode carries far-field divergence larger than the far-field divergence of a basic Gaussian mode provided beam waist radii are constant. Beam-divergence of the laser beam at far-field can be characterized quantitatively using the M 2 -parameter which has been computed for this case following the approach illustrated by Ruschin et al [50]. The intensity profile of our beam (with blue colour) shown in Fig.…”
Section: +mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…x 4π • Δx rms • Δθ rms ∕λ put too much emphasis upon distant wings of distributions I 0 x and I 1 θ x , e.g., [4][5][6][7]. This includes an experimental paper by Lantigua et al [7].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A variety of measures of beam quality have been presented in the literature to describe the deviation of a beam from that of an ideal Gaussian beam. For example, Ruschin et al propose using the overlap integral of the field with that of an optimally defined Gaussian [2] , while Kaim et al study a variety of metrics [3] . However, the most common measure is the M 2 parameter, or "beam quality factor" [4] .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%