Talk:Frequency-resolved optical gating

SPIDER deserves it's own page and is not a FROG technique. -- Erik Zeek 20:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've moved what had been written to spectral interferometry for direct electric field reconstruction. Do you think that Grennouille deserves it's own article also?  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 20:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I was wondering why I got a conflict on the SPIDER page.  GRENOUILLE is a FROG technique, while SPIDER isn't so GRENOUILLE could also live on the FROG page.  The GRENOUILLE device could use its own page because of the interesting way it works.  I'm not ready to write it yet though. -- Erik Zeek 20:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's an interesting technique, but unfortunately, I don't feel comfortable writing anything significant on it right now. I suppose we don't really have to worry about it unless it someday starts to take over this article, and then it can be spun out.  In the meantime I've put in a redirect.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 21:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I can do a pretty substantial write-up on GRENOUILLE if desired.Patrick Berry 22:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The diagram is of a multishot SHG FROG, not a single-shot FROG. Erik Zeek 17:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I started the page on GRENOUILLE. It will take some time, but it is at least started.Patrick Berry 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop changing the diagram caption from multi-shot to single-shot. It is obviously not single shot because it depicts an autocorrelator section.Patrick Berry 02:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone want to write up the 'magic step'? I have moved it into the comments for now. --Chuck Sirloin 17:27, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Rick thought that the FROG page needed updating. He wrote a new version, which I have used to replace the current page. Please feel free to discuss this new version of the FROG entry. --Peter M Vaughan, Department of Physics, Gerogia Tech (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

In the 1st equation of the section "FROG", there is a variable S_sig(t,\tau). Should that be an E_sig(t,\tau)? --User:Xfig —Preceding undated comment added 18:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC).

Yes, this should have read E_sig. Thank you.--Peter M Vaughan, Department of Physics, Gerogia Tech —Preceding undated comment added 20:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC).

I'm no expert on FROG but the controversy section is a mess, shouldn't it be removed?! Dstuck (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Currently in the process of rewriting large sections of the FROG pageMichelleAld (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)