Encyclopedia … combined with a great Buyer's Guide!

Sponsorship opportunity: support this popular resource, which serves the whole photonics community, and get recognition!

Stronger Focusing Avoids SESAM Damage

Posted on 2008-07-02 as a part of the Photonics Spotlight (available as e-mail newsletter!)

Permanent link: https://www.rp-photonics.com/spotlight_2008_07_02.html

Author: , RP Photonics Consulting GmbH

Abstract: A curious phenomenon is that a SESAM for passive mode locking of a solid-state laser sometimes lives longer when being operated with a more tightly focused resonator mode. The article explains this on the basis of Q-switching instabilities, which are then more firmly suppressed.

Dr. Rüdiger Paschotta

Ref.: encyclopedia articles on semiconductor saturable absorber mirrors, passive mode locking

The following curious situation can sometimes be observed when trying passive mode locking of a solid-state laser with a semiconductor saturable absorber mirror (SESAM): the SESAM works fine when operated with a relatively strongly focused laser beam, but is quickly destroyed when the resonator design is modified such that the mode area on the SESAM becomes larger. This is really against all intuition: weaker focusing should lead to lower optical intensities, and thus reduce rather than increase the risk of damage!

The reason behind this peculiarity is that for too weak focusing on the SESAM, the mode-locking process can exhibit Q-switching instabilities. Here, the pulse energy undergoes strong fluctuations, and some of the pulses are much more intense than the average. Therefore, the peak intensity on the SESAM becomes even higher, despite the larger mode area.

This article is a posting of the Photonics Spotlight, authored by Dr. Rüdiger Paschotta. You may link to this page and cite it, because its location is permanent. See also the RP Photonics Encyclopedia.

Note that you can also receive the articles in the form of a newsletter or with an RSS feed.

How do you rate this article?

Click here to send us your feedback!

Your general impression: don't know poor satisfactory good excellent
Technical quality: don't know poor satisfactory good excellent
Usefulness: don't know poor satisfactory good excellent
Readability: don't know poor satisfactory good excellent

Found any errors? Suggestions for improvements? Do you know a better web page on this topic?

Spam protection: (enter the value of 5 + 8 in this field!)

If you want a response, you may leave your e-mail address in the comments field, or directly send an e-mail.

If you enter any personal data, this implies that you agree with storing it; we will use it only for the purpose of improving our website and possibly giving you a response; see also our declaration of data privacy.

If you like our website, you may also want to get our newsletters!

If you like this article, share it with your friends and colleagues, e.g. via social media: