Strange. I thought the new result became twice of the first result. i.e. w0=32um or so.
Can you explain why the waist raidus is estimated to be three times of the last one?
Can you explain why the measured radius @~70mm is not 0.8mm, which you told us last time,
but is 0.6mm?
The measurements have been done at the outside of the Rayleigh range.
This means that the waist size is derived from the divergence angle
theta = lambda / (pi w0)
At the beginning you used diameter instead of radius. This means you used twice larger theta to determine w0.
So if that mistake is corrected, the result for w0 should be just twice of the previous wrong fit.
| Quote: |
|
I recalculated the fits using the radius of the beam instead of the diameter of the beam at 13.5% full-width with the following results:
For the vertical beam profile:
reduced chi^2 = 3.25
x0 = (-86 ± 1)mm
w0 = (46.01 ± 0.38)µm
For the horizontal beam profile:
reduced chi^2 = 2.05
x0 = (-81 ± 1)mm
w0 = (45.50 ± 0.28)µm
|
|