User talk:Pgabolde

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:


 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type &#126;&#126;&#126; (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

I'm going to start an article on frequency-resolved optical gating that you might be interested in working on. Laura Scudder 00:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure. Please start.  I'll try to spend some time on it... Pgabolde 15:23, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I managed to put it off long enough for someone else to do it. There's also now an article on SPIDER, which I know nothing about.  If you happen to, please take a look.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 21:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pgabolde. The graph of finesse vs. reflectivity you just added to the page on Fabry-Perot etalons is wrong. As noted in the text of the page, the commonly-used expression for finesse as a function of reflectivity is an approximation, valid only for large R. It's close enough for R>0.5 or so. Can you either modify the graph to only show finesse for R>0.5, or change it to use the correct expression

$$\mathcal{F}=\frac{\pi}{2 \arcsin(1/\sqrt F)}$$, where $$ F= \frac{4R}$$.

Note that the correct expression does not produce values of finesse less than 1, consistent with the fact that a finesse of less than one has no clear physical interpretation.

It would also be useful if the y-axis label did not use a roman F as the symbol for finesse. The symbol for finesse is usually a script F. The roman F is used for the 'coefficient of finesse', which is a different quantity.--Srleffler 17:35, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I guess it depends on the definition of finesse we use in the article.  Siegman, for example, in Lasers, defines the finesse as I did in the graph, as later shows it approximates  FSR/linewidth for R ~ 1.  It's just a technicality so I only graphed the finesse for 0.5 < R < 1 as you suggested.  I also changed the font.  How does it look now? -- Pgabolde 15:38, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the new graph looks great. I wasn't aware of the discrepancy in how finesse is defined by different authors. I followed Hecht, who defines finesse to be the ratio of FSR to FWHM. He gives the usual formula for finesse without noting that it only approximately meets his definition. I have done a lot of work with low-finesse etalons, where the discrepancy is relevant. I wonder if there is a consensus in the field as to which definition is correct. Most people are probably not aware that there is a conflict between the definition in terms of FSR/FWHM and the standard formula. --Srleffler 21:06, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

OTF by Autocorrelation : Polar Co-ordinates
Hi,

This is regarding T(w) by Autocorrelation given at the end of the article Optical autocorrelation.

If T(w) can be given when f(x,y) is chosen in terms of polar co-ords say f(r), it would be very helpful in some applications.

I do not know the transformation, If you or some expert knows that, kindly post it.


 * I just made some formatting changes to that section, unfortunately I don't know much about OTFs. Sorry!  -- Pgabolde 15:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pgabolde, I have one question on the field autocorrelation figure
Hi, in the figure of the field autocorrelation under the optical autocorrlation term, it says that the chirped pulse (b) has greater bandwidth than the unchirped pulse (a). however I though it should be narrower, please kindly help me to make this clear. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisapphire (talk • contribs) 21:59, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Optical-field-autocorrelation.png
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ here].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:41, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Optical-intensity-autocorrelation.png
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ here].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:Optical-interferometric-autocorrelation.png
Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as own, amending the information added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add  to the Media by uploader or Presumed self tag(s) if  present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the information where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created [ here].

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)