1 / 51

Comparison of Fiber Reference and Zernike Filter Self Referencing Interferometers

Comparison of Fiber Reference and Zernike Filter Self Referencing Interferometers . Kavita Chand, M.S., M.Tech, and Justin Mansell, Ph.D. MZA Associates Corporation Troy Rhoadarmer Air Force Research Laboratory Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, NM. Introduction.

hasana
Download Presentation

Comparison of Fiber Reference and Zernike Filter Self Referencing Interferometers

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Comparison of Fiber Reference and Zernike Filter Self Referencing Interferometers Kavita Chand, M.S., M.Tech, and Justin Mansell, Ph.D. MZA Associates Corporation Troy Rhoadarmer Air Force Research Laboratory Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, NM

  2. Introduction • Self-referencing interferometers (SRIs) have been proposed to provide feedback for adaptive optics systems in directed energy applications. • We performed wave-optics analysis in WaveTrain to compare two types of SRI: • Fiber-reference SRIs and • Zernike filter SRIs.

  3. Fiber SRI 0 Aberration Lens π/2 Light π Splitter 3π/2

  4. WaveTrain FiberSRI

  5. æ ö - I I ç ÷ - f = 1 90 270 tan ç ÷ - - DF * I I I è ø 0 90 270 Zernike SRI -π/2 Aberration Light Lens and Splitter π/2 • Denominator factor of 6.0 is best for weaker aberration. • Denominator factor of 2.0 is best for stronger aberrations.

  6. WaveTrain Zernike SRI

  7. System-Level Parametric Studies • Types of Aberrations • Single Phase Screen Zernike Polynomials • Multi-Screen Distributed Atmosphere • Types of Tests • Intensity Debalancing • Image Misregistration • Tilt Rejection • Camera Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR) • Metric • Used measured wrapped wavefront to compensate the beam. • Measured Peak Strehl Ratio (PSR) • Ratio of peak intensity in the far-field for aberrated to that for a perfect beam

  8. System-Level Parametric Studies

  9. System-Level Parametric Studies

  10. System Studies with Zernike Polynomial Phase Aberration Input

  11. Zernike SRI Intensity Debalancing Used Zernike aberrations with an amplitude factor of 2λ -π/2 x (1-x)*y Aberration Light (1-x)*(1-y) Lens and Splitter π/2 Adjusted the splitting ratio of the light into the three arms using the variables x and y. DF=2.0

  12. Fiber SRI Intensity Debalancing 0 Lens π/2 Light π Splitter Aberration 3π/2 3:1 splitting ratio x Used Zernike aberrations with an amplitude factor of 0.7λ (1-x)*y (1-x)*(1-y)(1-z) (1-x)*(1-y)*z Adjusted the splitting ratio of the input light into the four arms using the variables x, y, and z.

  13. PSR for 90° Astigmatism for Zernike SRI

  14. PSR for 90° Astigmatism for Fiber SRI

  15. PSR for Various Zernikes for Zernike SRI Results for 2nd and 3rd order Zernikes (astigmatism, focus, coma, and trefoil)

  16. PSR for Various Zernikes for Fiber SRI 90 astigmatism 45 astigmatism y trefoil focus x trefoil y coma x coma PSR axis is from 0.5 to 1.0

  17. Intensity Debalancing Conclusions • Zernike SRI is very sensitive to intensity debalancing • PSR varied by about 40% for a 4% change in the balancing of the 50/50 beam splitter. • Fiber SRI is fairly insensitive to intensity debalancing • PSR varied by about 1% for a 10% change in the balancing of the 50/50 beam splitter.

  18. Zernike SRI Image Misregistration Used Zernike aberrations with an amplitude factor of 2λ -π/2 Aberration Light Lens and Splitter π/2 Adjusted the position of the images relative to the normally centered position to simulate cameras motion DF=2.0

  19. Fiber SRI Image Misregistration 0 Lens π/2 Light π Splitter Aberration 3π/2 Used Zernike aberrations with an amplitude factor of 0.7λ Adjusted the position of the images relative to the normally centered position to simulate cameras motion

  20. PSR for 90° Astigmatism for Zernike SRI

  21. PSR for 90° Astigmatism for Fiber SRI

  22. PSR for Various Zernikes for Zernike SRI Results for 2nd and 3rd order Zernikes (astigmatism, focus, coma, and trefoil)

  23. PSR for Various Zernikes for Fiber SRI 90 astigmatism focus 45 astigmatism x coma y trefoil y coma PSR axis is from 0.6 to 1.0 x trefoil

  24. Image Misregistration Conclusions • Zernike SRI is sensitive to image misregistration of a single image. • Although some Zernike aberrations seemed to be more robust, most of the Zernikes saw a 20% reduction in Strehl ratio for a motion of 2% of the beam diameter • The Fiber SRI is fairly insensitive to image misregistration of a single image for all the Zernikes. • Most of the Zernikes saw a 2% reduction in Strehl ratio for a motion of 2% of the beam diameter. • 2% of the beam diameter corresponds to 160 μm on an 8-mm diameter beam

  25. Setup with Camera Noise • Number of Realizations = 30 • Input Aberration is 90 degree astigmatism • Maximum Count Value = 10e9 • Eliminates effect of discretization

  26. Zernike SRI - Camera SNR Analysis

  27. Fiber SRI - Camera SNR Analysis

  28. SNR Conclusions • Zernike SRI seems to be very sensitive to camera noise. • The result might be due to the lack of frames over which to average • Maybe a 4-bin Zernike SRI would have better noise performance • The fiber SRI seems to be very tolerant of noise. • The PSR dropped to 80% when the SNR was around 1.0

  29. System Studies with Distributed Atmosphere

  30. Zernike SRI Image Misregistration for Atmospheric Aberrations Setup • We are using tilt-removed model of the atmosphere. • D / r0 = {1,2,3,4,5} • Range = 2.0 m • Fresnel Number = 5 • Denominator Factor • 6 for D / r0 = 1, 2, and 3 . • 2 for D / r0 = 4, and 5 . • Number of screens = 3 • Number of Realizations = 9

  31. Zernike SRI Image Misregistration 1 0.9 Average Peak Strehl Ratio 0.8 D / r0 = 5 DF = 2 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 -0.01 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.04 0 0.03 0.02 dy/Dbeam Error bars are standard deviation

  32. Fiber SRI Image Misregistration 1 0.9 0.8 Average Peak Strehl Ratio 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 DoverR0: 5 0.1 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 -0.02 0 0.12 dy/Dbeam Error bars are standard deviation

  33. DF = 6 DF = 6 DF = 6 Error bars are standard deviation D/r0 =3 D/r0 =2 D/r0 = 1 DF = 2 DF = 2 D/r0 = 5 Zernike SRI Image Misregistration PSR is averaged over 9 realizations D/r0 =4

  34. D/r0 =1 D/r0 =2 D/r0 =3 PSR is averaged over 9 realizations D/r0 =5 D/r0 =4 Fiber SRI Image Misregistration

  35. Image Misregistration Conclusions • For Zernike SRI, image misregistration effect increases with increasing turbulence. • Again, the fiber SRI seems to be very insensitive to the misalignment of a single detector.

  36. Zernike SRI Setup with Camera Noise • Number of Realizations = 30 • D/r0 = 5 • Range = 2 m • Fresnel number = 5 • Maximum Count Value = 10e9 • Eliminates the effect of discretization

  37. Zernike SRI - Camera Noise D / r0 = 5

  38. Fiber SRI - Camera Noise D / r0 = 5

  39. Atm. Camera Noise Conclusions • The Zernike SRI is sensitive to noise, but not as bad as with the astigmatism term tested earlier. • Again the noise performance seems to be better for the fiber SRI than for the Zernike SRI.

  40. System-Level Parametric Studies

  41. SRI Comparison Overview • In almost every comparison between the 3-bin Zernike SRI and the 4-bin fiber SRI, the fiber SRI had better performance. • Future Work: • Compare a 4-bin fiber SRI to a 4-bin Zernike SRI. • Complete rigorous AO study with both devices.

  42. Questions? (505) 245-9970 x137

  43. Backup Slides

  44. Peak Strehl Ratio

  45. Wrong DF Right DF DF = 2 DF = 6 DoverR0: 2 DoverR0: 1 DoverR0: 1 DoverR0: 4 DoverR0: 5 Intensity Debalancing DoverR0: 3

  46. Mesh Parameters for FiberSRI Effective Focal Length = 37.4 mm Fiber Waist = 5.2 µm Wavelength = 1.55 μm Aperture diameter = 8 mm NOTE: Determined using Steve Coy’s theory of mesh parameters.

  47. Mesh Parameters for Zernike SRI Effective Focal Length = 1 m Turbulence Strength = 2.6 Wavelength = 1.55e-06 m Aperture diameter = 8mm NOTE: Determined using Steve Coy’s theory of mesh parameters.

  48. New Test System Components • Ideal Compensator • Used to apply the conjugate of the measured phase to the beam. • Operates like an ideal deformable mirror. • Peak Strehl Ratio Meter • Used to calculate the ratio of the peak intensity of the far-field spot with the residual aberration remaining after ideal compensation to that without any aberration. • We also used on-axis Strehl ratio which was calculated using the discrete version of the integral form.

  49. Fiber SRI Intensity Debalancing for Atmospheric Aberrations Setup • We are using tilt-removed model of atmosphere • Range = 3.45 m • Frenel number = 3 • Number of Screens = 3 • Number of Realizations = 8 • Data is recorded for low ,medium and high turbulence. - D/r0 = {1,2,3,4,5}

  50. Fiber SRI Intensity Debalancing Conclusions • Often saw increase in performance by adjusting splitting ratios. • Saw a similar result with Zernike SRI • More investigation needs to be done here to determine the reason for this effect.

More Related