Yue Shi1,2, Xiong Luo1,3,*, Peiyu Sun2, Jihui Dong1,4,**..., Lei Tang5, Jie Zhou1,3, Ke Wang1,3, Chunli Chen1,3, Yunshi Wang1,3 and Dingfu Zhou1,3,4,***|Show fewer author(s)
Author Affiliations
1Southwest Institute of Technical Physics, Chengdu 610041, China2Science College, Civil Aviation Flight University of China, Guanghan 618307, China3Lidar and Device Laboratory, Southwest Institute of Technical Physics, Chengdu 610041, China4Key Laboratory of Laser Device Technology of China North Industries Group Corporation Limited, Chengdu 610041, China5China Research and Development Academy of Machinery Equipment, Beijing 100089, Chinashow less
DOI: 10.3788/COL202523.011203
Cite this Article
Set citation alerts
Yue Shi, Xiong Luo, Peiyu Sun, Jihui Dong, Lei Tang, Jie Zhou, Ke Wang, Chunli Chen, Yunshi Wang, Dingfu Zhou, "Real-time synchronous detection of wind and aerosol using a coherent lidar," Chin. Opt. Lett. 23, 011203 (2025)
Copy Citation Text
show less
Fig. 1. The composition chart of the CL.
Fig. 2. Data processing procedure of wind, cloud height, extinction coefficient, visibility, and aerosol concentration.
Fig. 3. Experimental scene.
Fig. 4. Aerosol extinction coefficients in (a) a hazy day, (b) an overcast and rainy day, and (c) a foggy day.
Fig. 5. SNRs in (a) a hazy day, (b) an overcast and rainy day, and (c) a foggy day.
Fig. 6. October 11-13, 2022, Chengdu. (a) Data fusion of extinction coefficient, cloud height, and wind field. (b) SNR.
| Symbol | Parameter | Value |
|---|
| Detector responsivity (A/W) | 1 | | G | Electronics conversion gain (V/A) | 30000 | | RL | Impedance (Ω) | 50 | | SR | Signal sampling rate (MHz) | 400 | | N | Number of sampling points | 512 | | PL | Power of the local oscillator signal (mW) | 0.5 | | F | Focal length (m) | 5000 | | at | Telescope radius (mm) | 50 | | E | Pulse energy (µJ) | 150 | | B | Receiving bandwidth (MHz) | 200 |
|
Table 1. System Parameters of the CL
| System | CL | AL |
|---|
| Wavelength (nm) | 1550 | 532 | | Detection mode | Coherent detection | Direct detection | | Range (km) | 10 | 15 | | Antenna | T-R combine, 100 mm | T-R separate, 160 mm | | Pulse energy (µJ) | 150 | 20 | | Pulse repetition rate (kHz) | 10 | 2 | | Range resolution (m) | 15–200 (adjustable) | 15 | | Wind speed accuracy (m/s) | 0.5 | — | | Wind direction accuracy (deg) | 3 | — | | Azimuth scanning range (deg) | 0–360 | — | | Zenith scanning range (deg) | 0–90 | 90 | | Weight (kg) | 60 | — | | Data product | Wind; extinction coefficient; aerosol concentration; visibility; cloud height | Extinction coefficient; visibility; PM10; PM2.5; depolarization ratio | | Advantage | Without geometric factor; eye-safe; high sensitivity; high time resolution | Visible light; closer to human visibility | | Disadvantage | Secondary data acquisition time; invisible light; data conversion required | Long acquisition time; not eye-safe; blind zone; geometric factor correction required |
|
Table 2. Comparison of the CL and AL
| Item | Weather | Figure | Aerosol concentration |
|---|
| 2022/3/24 | Hazy day | (a) | Closely aligned | | 2022/3/30 | Overcast and rainy day | (b) | Congruent; during precipitation events (21:00-0:00), data from CL were missing, while AL continued, although its reliability is not high due to the rain | | 2022/4/5 | Foggy day | (c) | Propinquity; the data gaps between 0:00 to 9:00 in AL may be caused by geometric factors |
|
Table 3. Comparison of the Aerosol Concentration and SNR
