Influence of Reflection-Induced Retardance on the Measurement of Fabry-Perot Etalon Interval

Jiayin Yu; Jing Fan; Xuhui Lan; Xiaoyan Shen; Jing Yu

doi:10.3788/LOP57.091201

Journals >Laser & Optoelectronics Progress >Volume 57 >Issue 9 >Page 091201 > Article

Laser & Optoelectronics Progress
Vol. 57, Issue 9, 091201 (2020)

Influence of Reflection-Induced Retardance on the Measurement of Fabry-Perot Etalon Interval

Jiayin Yu¹, Jing Fan², Xuhui Lan¹, Xiaoyan Shen^1、*, and Jing Yu¹

Author Affiliations

¹College of Metrology & Measurement Engineering, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310018, China;

²Technical Monitoring Center of Changqing Oilfield Company, Xi'an, Shaanxi 710021, China

show less

DOI: 10.3788/LOP57.091201 Cite this Article Set citation alerts

Jiayin Yu, Jing Fan, Xuhui Lan, Xiaoyan Shen, Jing Yu. Influence of Reflection-Induced Retardance on the Measurement of Fabry-Perot Etalon Interval[J]. Laser & Optoelectronics Progress, 2020, 57(9): 091201 Copy Citation Text

show less

Fig. 1. Interference schematic. (a) F-P etalon interference imaging schematic; (b) flat panel enlargement

Download full size

Fig. 2. Comparison of theoretical and simulation values

Download full size

Fig. 3. F-P etalon spacing measurement experimental device

Download full size

Fig. 4. Concentric interference ring pictures. (a) Concentric interference rings of 546 nm mercury green line; (b) concentric interference rings of 577 nm and 579 nm mercury yellow lines

Download full size

Film	Material	Opticalthickness	Physicalthickness /nm
1	ZNS	λ/4	59.35
2	MGF2	λ/4	98.55
3	ZNS	λ/4	59.35
4	MGF2	λ/4	98.55
5	ZNS	λ/4	59.35
6	MGF2	λ/4	98.55
7	ZNS	λ/4	59.35
8	MGF2	λ/4	98.55
9	ZNS	λ/4	59.35

Table 1. TFCalc film system design parameters

λ_a₁=576.96607 nm $\begin{matrix} {\tilde{k}}_{01} \end{matrix}$ =6987; relative unit: 2 $\begin{matrix} \sqrt[]{2} \end{matrix}$ w			λ_a₂=579.07252 nm $\begin{matrix} {\tilde{k}}_{02} \end{matrix}$ =6961; relative unit: 2 $\begin{matrix} \sqrt[]{2} \end{matrix}$ w			λ_a₃=546.07942 nm $\begin{matrix} {\tilde{k}}_{03} \end{matrix}$ =7381; relative unit: 2 $\begin{matrix} \sqrt[]{2} \end{matrix}$ w
i	D_i	$\begin{matrix} s_{D_{i}} \end{matrix}$	i	D_i	$\begin{matrix} s_{D_{i}} \end{matrix}$	i	D_i	$\begin{matrix} s_{D_{i}} \end{matrix}$
1	678.867	0.193	1	584.772	0.033	1	691.254	0.010
2	867.039	0.211	2	796.093	0.077	2	867.746	0.012
3	1021.180	0.193	3	962.216	0.075	3	1014.056	0.017
7	1486.588	0.091	7	1447.684	0.055	7	1460.179	0.027
8	1581.844	0.080	8	1546.116	0.069	8	1552.212	0.031
9	1671.868	0.075	9	1638.089	0.058	9	1638.431	0.029

Table 2. Results of diameter and standard deviation of imaging ring obtained by F-P etalon with three wavelengths

	ε	U_ε	U_d/d	ε'	U'_ε	U'_d/d'
λ₁	0.57814	0.00841	1.2×10^-6	0.58205	0.00461	6.9×10^-7
λ₂	0.16989	0.01551	2.2×10^-6	0.17144	0.00824	1.2×10^-6
λ₃	0.73376	0.01472	2.0×10^-6	0.73612	0.00777	1.1×10^-6

Table 3. Decimal ε before and after three wavelengths correction and its uncertainty

Download Citation

Set citation alerts for the article

Tools

Set citation alerts for the article

Save the article for my favorites

Paper Information