2021
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2106.08304
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Understanding photodetector nonlinearity in dual-comb interferometry

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

1
0

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(3 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…5 which shows no spectral artifacts left at 40 MHz and 60 MHz. This suggests that the third order nonlinearity falling directly on the band of interest around 20 MHz has also been corrected and that the gain error [30] due to second order nonlinearity has been corrected. In this case, the algorithm converged to 1 ppm in 29 iterations…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…5 which shows no spectral artifacts left at 40 MHz and 60 MHz. This suggests that the third order nonlinearity falling directly on the band of interest around 20 MHz has also been corrected and that the gain error [30] due to second order nonlinearity has been corrected. In this case, the algorithm converged to 1 ppm in 29 iterations…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each overlapped successive impulse response whose shape is power-dependent has a contribution from the previous pulse that may not be proportional to it, making it impossible to determine the incident power on the detector. Here, since the impulse responses remain separated even for the most saturated samples measured, this dynamic NL effect is negligible and the static nonlinearity model presented in [30] remains valid.…”
Section: Experimental Methodsmentioning
confidence: 94%
See 1 more Smart Citation