Multiple-phonon nonradiative relaxation: Experimental rates in fluoride crystals doped withEr3+andNd

EPR of Gd3+-Doped La0.9Nd0.1F3Crystal: Spin-Phonon Interactions and Spin-Lattice Relaxations

“…This statement can be confirmed by optical measurements [33], implying a larger amplitude of zero vibrations of the lattice in LaF3 (469 x 10 -3 nm) versus LiYF4 (3.77 x 10 -3 nm).…”

Oxysulfide optical ceramics doped by Nd3+ for one micron lasing

“…(9)) and r p ðDE J 0 J ÞZ p for the advanced theory accounting the whole spectrum of crystal lattice vibrations (see Eqs. (13,21)). Neglecting the influence of Z parameter for the multi-frequency model of lattice vibrations one can observe that the multiphonon relaxation rate depends on the energy gap DE of electronic transition and an extent of phonon spectrum.…”

“…For correct estimation the results of the nonlinear theory of MR relaxation can be used [11][12][13][14][15][16][17]. In the frame of nonlinear theory of MR the total p-phonon transition probability W J 0 !J p ð Þ between the two J manifolds can be written in a form similar to the Judd-Ofelt expression for an electro-dipole radiative transition probability between the same manifolds [18,19]:…”

Polarized spectroscopic properties of Ho3+-doped LuLiF4 single crystal for 2μm and 2.9μm lasers

“…The following experiment factors may lead to a deviation of calculated J-O parameters: (1) the optical quality of the Ho:LuLF single crystal which has effects on the accuracy of the absorption spectra; (2) the determination of the concentration of Ho 3+ ions in the sample used to obtain polarize absorption spectra; (3) the orientating, cutting and polishing of the crystal may introduce direction errors to the sample; (4) different spectrophotometers may give polarized absorption spectra with some difference even though the same sample is used due to the stability of the apparatuses. We noticed these factors and made an effort to minimize experiment errors from crystal growth to the polarized absorption spectrum measurement ) [23]. The discrepancy between the measured fluorescence lifetime (s f = 16 ms) and the calculated radiative lifetime (s r = 15.2 ms) may be caused by the effect of radiative trapping and excitation trapping [24,25].…”