milam_1998#
D. Milam, “Review and assessment of measured values of the nonlinear refractive-index coefficient of fused silica”, Appl. Opt. 37, 546-550 (1998)
Source record · Catalogue · Review register
DOI: 10.1364/ao.37.000546
Source kind: compilation
Recorded technique: A review: 24 absolute measurements of the n2 (gamma) of fused silica at 248-1550 nm from 16 references (Table 1), selected by three criteria (all parameters of the calculation measured; an uncertainty assigned; not superseded by the same authors). Best values: an error-bar weighted average of eleven values at 1053-1064 nm (Table 2; three of them translated to 1064 nm with the PERT dispersion equation), then a PERT function with its resonance moved from 1.25e5 to 1.45e5 cm^-1 scaled through the 1053-nm value and read at 527 and 351 nm.
Materials in structured entries: SiO2
Dataset quantities: nonlinear_index
Contents: 20 datasets; 0 formulas.
Curation notes#
Journal pages 546-550 = pdf pages 1-5. Identity checked against the first page.
DEFINITION (p. 546): ‘The defining relationship is n = n0 + gamma I. Here n0 is the linear refractive index and I is the intensity’ (the paper’s gamma is optmat’s n2, the self coefficient; linear polarization is not stated but is the reviewed experiments’ usual case). Units 1e-16 cm^2/W throughout (Table 1 footnote a; Figs. 1-2). The pdf’s font maps the characters: ‘6’ in the extracted text and tables is ‘+-’, ‘2’ in exponents is a minus (10216 = 10^-16), ‘~ !’ are parentheses, ‘y’ is ‘/’.
TABLE 1 (p. 547) lists each value with its reference number; the rows are recorded as one reproduced dataset per reference (the originals are not in the library except white_1984 and desalvo_1996, both curated). Technique, pulse duration, polarization and the part of the response (electronic, Raman, electrostriction) are not given per row; part is ‘unknown’. What each cited title says is in the dataset notes. Three data of Adair et al. 1992 (Opt. Mat. 1, 185; Ref. 8) were omitted ‘on the recommendation of the authors ... concern about the accuracy of the Raman standard’ (p. 547). The initial sorting ‘eliminated a few of the values that have been propagated through general reviews’ (Refs. 23-25: Chase and Van Stryland 1995; Azarenkov et al. 1993; Smith 1986).
TABLE 2 (p. 548), ‘Values used in the first of the error-bar weighted averages at 1053 nm’: the text calls them ‘the assemblage of eleven 1064-nm values’. Recorded as one dataset at 1064 nm with the printed wavelength as the column measured_nm. The 804-, 1319- and 1550-nm values are translated to 1064 nm with the PERT equation; the text (p. 548) says ‘The required scalings were -3% for the 804-nm datum and +2% for the 1550-nm datum’ (the 1319 scaling is not stated); the printed values give 2.40/2.48 = 0.968, 2.71/2.66 = 1.019, 2.87/2.79 = 1.029 (computed here), so the 1550-nm scaling is +2.9 %, not +2 %. The other eight rows repeat Table 1, except that the last 1064-nm row (2.14 +- 0.43) is attributed to Ref. 16 in Table 2 and to Ref. 4 (DeSalvo) in Table 1: Table 1 is right (DeSalvo’s 1064-nm value converted to cm^2/W is 2.1; Ref. 16 has its own row, 3.3 +- 1.0). The reference numbers are not data columns, so this is recorded here and not as an erratum. Table 2 also confirms that Table 1’s row 17 (1.73 +- 0.35, ref. 14) belongs at 1064 nm (erratum below).
BEST VALUES (the assessment; primary for this source). ‘With all 11 data included, the average was gamma = (2.56 +- 0.3) x 10^-16 cm^2/W. Data that fell outside this uncertainty range were deleted, and the average was recalculated. The result was gamma = (2.74 +- 0.17) x 10^-16 cm^2/W’ (p. 548). ‘The weight of each datum was inversely proportional to its uncertainty. The uncertainty of the average was taken to be the root mean square of the individual uncertainties’ (p. 548). The text calls this ‘the best 1064-nm value’ (p. 548) and the abstract and Section 4 the 1053-nm value; ‘it cannot distinguish values of gamma for 1053 and 1064 nm’ (p. 548): recorded at 1053 nm, as the abstract. At 527 and 351 nm: ‘gamma = (3.0 +- 0.35) x 10^-16 cm^2/W at 527 nm and gamma = (3.6 +- 0.64) x 10^-16 cm^2/W at 351 nm. The uncertainties were selected arbitrarily to be large enough to account for the majority of the data at nearby wavelengths’ (p. 549), read from the PERT curve with the resonance at 1.45e5 cm^-1 (solid curve of Fig. 2). Four data were deleted before this (p. 548): 2.5 +- 1.2 at 351 nm and 3.3 +- 1.7 at 694 nm (uncertainties too large), and 1.7 +- 0.7 at 351 nm and ‘1.72 +- 0.34 at 351 nm’ (negative dispersion); the last is Table 1’s 532-nm row 11 (Fig. 2 has no ref.-14 point), so the text’s ‘351 nm’ is a slip for 532 nm.
DISPERSION (p. 547): the PERT equation (Adair, Chase and Payne 1992, Ref. 8; a single UV resonance, computed for silica at 1.25e5 cm^-1) and the Kramers-Kronig two-band model (Sheik-Bahae et al. 1991, Ref. 26). The PERT equation is not printed here (Santran et al. 2004, Eq. 20, print it; santran_2004), so it is not recorded as a formula. ‘The PERT equation predicts that gamma decreases by approximately 5% between 804 and 1550 nm’ (p. 548).
FIGURES. Fig. 1 (p. 547): the 24 values of Table 1 with error bars against wavelength, labelled by reference. Fig. 2 (p. 548): the values kept after the selection and the two PERT curves (resonances 1.45e5, solid, and 1.25e5 cm^-1, dashed). Not digitised.
REFRACTIVEINDEX.INFO. The SiO2 ‘Milam’ n2 page (data/external/refractiveindex_info_solid.json) gives 3.6e-20, 3e-20, 2.74e-20 m^2/W at 0.351, 0.527, 1.053 um: the three best values, as here (no pulse or technique, correctly). Its SiO2 ‘DeSalvo’ page (7.82e-20, 2.41e-20, 2.24e-20, 2.14e-20 m^2/W at 266, 355, 532, 1064 nm) matches this review’s ref.-4 rows (Milam’s conversion), not the conversion with DeSalvo’s own Table II n0 (2.21 and 2.10 at 532 and 1064 nm; see desalvo_1996).
REPRODUCTIONS. DeSalvo’s four values (Ref. 4) are consistent with 40 pi n2(esu)/(c n0) applied to DeSalvo’s Table I (28, 8.5, 7.8, 7.4 x 10^-14 esu): with DeSalvo’s own n0 (Table II: 1.5, 1.48, 1.48, 1.48) the conversion gives 7.82, 2.41, 2.21, 2.10 (computed here); Milam’s 2.24 and 2.14 imply n0 = 1.460 and 1.450 at 532 and 1064 nm, so Milam converted with his own silica indices. The uncertainties scale the same way (DeSalvo’s +-6 at 266 nm gives +-1.68: the printed +-0.17 is a misprint, erratum).
Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED_WITH_WARNINGS. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.
Datasets#
milam_1998/best_1053#
{
"id": "best_1053",
"material": "SiO2",
"table": "text",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "primary",
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "rms"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
1 inline points in the source record.
The selected value (abstract, p. 546; p. 548): the error-bar weighted average of the Table 2 values after deleting those outside the first average’s range; ‘agrees with all the most precise data at 1064 nm and has been selected for use in the design in the NIF’. Uncertainty: the rms of the kept values’ uncertainties (p. 548). An assessment, not a measurement; part unknown (the averaged experiments differ).
milam_1998/best_uv_visible#
{
"id": "best_uv_visible",
"material": "SiO2",
"table": "text",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "primary",
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
2 inline points in the source record.
The selected values at 527 and 351 nm (abstract, p. 546; p. 549), read from a PERT curve with its resonance moved to 1.45e5 cm^-1 and scaled through the 1053-nm value; ‘The uncertainties were selected arbitrarily to be large enough to account for the majority of the data at nearby wavelengths’ (p. 549). An assessment; part unknown.
milam_1998/average_all_eleven#
{
"id": "average_all_eleven",
"material": "SiO2",
"table": "text",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "rms"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
1 inline points in the source record.
The first error-bar weighted average of all eleven Table 2 values, ‘gamma = (2.56 +- 0.3) x 10^-16 cm^2/W’ (p. 548), superseded by the second average (best_1053). Uncertainty: rms of the individual uncertainties.
milam_1998/table2_assembly#
{
"id": "table2_assembly",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__table2_assembly.csv",
"table": "tbl_cda7eab4b25e",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"columns": {
"measured_nm": "nm"
},
"use": "check",
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 2 (p. 548): the eleven values of the first weighted average, all standing for 1064 nm (x; the printed measurement wavelength is the column measured_nm). Rows 1, 10 and 11 (measured at 804, 1319 and 1550 nm) are Milam’s PERT translations of Table 1’s 2.48, 2.66 and 2.79 to 1064 nm; the other rows repeat Table 1 (row 9’s reference is printed 16, but it is Table 1’s DeSalvo value; source notes). Kept to document the average; never to be fitted beside the Table 1 reproductions. Its originals are those of the Table 1 datasets of this record (references 5, 22, 14, 12, 17, 6, 16, 4, 7, 10).
milam_1998/desalvo_1996#
{
"id": "desalvo_1996",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__desalvo_1996.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"desalvo_1996"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 4. Rows 3, 7, 12, 22 (266, 355, 532, 1064 nm). DeSalvo et al.’s Z-scan values (their Table I, printed in 10^-14 esu) converted by Milam to cm2/W; 40 pi n2(esu)/(c n0) with DeSalvo’s own n0 (their Table II) reproduces all four (source notes). Row 3’s printed +-0.17 is an erratum for +-1.7 (errata). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/taylor_1996#
{
"id": "taylor_1996",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__taylor_1996.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"A. J. Taylor, G. Rodriguez, and T. S. Clement, 'Measurement of n2 for KDP and fused silica at 800 nm and 400 nm,' Attachment 1 in Effort in Support of Core Science and Technology Plan for Indirect-Drive Inertial Confinement (ICF) Fusion, LA-UR-96-2689 (Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1996)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 5. Rows 9 and 14 (402, 804 nm). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/shimada_1995#
{
"id": "shimada_1995",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__shimada_1995.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"T. Shimada, N. A. Kurnit, and M. Shiek-Bahae, 'Measurements of nonlinear index by a relay-imaged top-hat Z-scan technique,' in Laser-Induced Damage in Optical Materials, Proc. SPIE 2714, 52-60 (1995)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 6. Rows 8 and 20 (355, 1064 nm). A top-hat Z-scan (the cited title). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/kim_1994#
{
"id": "kim_1994",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__kim_1994.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"K. S. Kim, R. H. Stolen, W. A. Reed, and K. W. Quoi, 'Measurement of the nonlinear index of silica-core and dispersion-shifted fibers,' Opt. Lett. 19, 257-259 (1994)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 7. Row 23 (1319 nm). A fibre measurement (the cited title). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/ross_1990#
{
"id": "ross_1990",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__ross_1990.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"I. N. Ross, W. T. Toner, C. J. Hooker, J. R. M. Barr, and I. Correy, 'Nonlinear properties of silica and air for picosecond ultraviolet pulses,' J. Mod. Opt. 37, 555-573 (1990)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 9. Rows 1 and 2, two values at 248 nm (5.6 +- 0.8 and 3.4 +- 1.6); Milam does not say how they differ. Picosecond pulses (the cited title). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/kato_1995#
{
"id": "kato_1995",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__kato_1995.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"T. Kato, Y. Suetsugu, M. Takagi, E. Sasaoka, and M. Nishimura, 'Measurement of the nonlinear refractive index in optical fiber by the cross-phase-modulation method with depolarized pump light,' Opt. Lett. 20, 988-990 (1995)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 10. Row 24 (1550 nm). Cross-phase modulation in a fibre; Milam (pp. 547-548): ‘It employed a cw pump beam that was modulated at 7 Mhz, and there is some possibility that the observed phase shift was partially caused by electrostriction.’ Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/kim_hutchinson_1989#
{
"id": "kim_hutchinson_1989",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__kim_hutchinson_1989.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"Y. P. Kim and M. H. R. Hutchinson, 'Intensity-induced nonlinear effects in UV window materials,' Appl. Phys. B 49, 469-478 (1989)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 11. Row 4 (308 nm). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/vasileva_1985#
{
"id": "vasileva_1985",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__vasileva_1985.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"M. A. Vasileva, Yu. Vischakas, and V. Gulbinas, 'Measurements of the nonlinear refractive index of laser active media doped with Nd3+,' Sov. J. Quantum Electron. 15, 656-659 (1985)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 12. Row 18 (1064 nm). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/white_1984#
{
"id": "white_1984",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__white_1984.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"white_1984"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 13. Row 6: 2.5 +- 1.2, printed at 351 nm here and in the text (p. 548); White et al. measured at 355 nm (their title and Table 1). Value and uncertainty are theirs; the wavelength is Milam’s error of reproduction, left as printed (it is not a misprint of this table). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/williams_1985#
{
"id": "williams_1985",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__williams_1985.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"W. E. Williams, M. J. Soileau, and E. W. Van Stryland, 'Simple direct measurements of n2,' in Laser-Induced Damage in Optical Materials, Natl. Bur. Stand. (U.S.) Spec. Publ. 688, pp. 522-531 (1985)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 14. Rows 11 (1.72 +- 0.34 at 532 nm) and 17 (1.73 +- 0.35, printed at 532 nm and corrected to 1064 nm by an erratum: Table 2 lists it at 1064 nm, Table 1 is otherwise in wavelength order and row 17 sits among the 1053-1064 nm rows, and Fig. 1 plots a ref.-14 point near 1050 nm at about 1.7). The text’s ‘1.72 +- 0.34 at 351 nm’ (p. 548) is row 11, at 532 nm. Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/altshuler_1977#
{
"id": "altshuler_1977",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__altshuler_1977.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"G. B. Altshuler, A. I. Barbashev, V. B. Karasev, K. I. Krylov, V. M. Ovchinnkov, and S. F. Sharlai, 'Direct measurement of the tensor elements of the nonlinear optical susceptibility of optical materials,' Sov. Tech. Phys. Lett. 3, 213-215 (1977)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 16. Row 21 (1064 nm). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/milam_weber_1976#
{
"id": "milam_weber_1976",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__milam_weber_1976.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"milam_1976"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 17. Row 19 (1064 nm). Time-resolved interferometry: milam_1976 Table I, fused silica (Dynasil 4000), gamma = 2.73 +- 0.27 x 10^-16 cm^2/W, linearly polarized 125-ps pulses, electronic and Raman parts (agrees to the digit). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/smith_1975#
{
"id": "smith_1975",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__smith_1975.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"W. L. Smith, J. H. Bechtel, and N. Bloembergen, 'Dielectric-breakdown threshold and nonlinear-refractive index measurements with picosecond pulses,' Phys. Rev. B 12, 706-714 (1975)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 18. Row 5 (351 nm). Picosecond pulses (the cited title). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/stolen_ashkin_1973#
{
"id": "stolen_ashkin_1973",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__stolen_ashkin_1973.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"R. H. Stolen and A. Ashkin, 'Optical Kerr effect in glass optical waveguides,' Appl. Phys. Lett. 22, 294-297 (1973)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 19. Row 10 (514 nm). Optical Kerr effect in fibres (the cited title). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/veduta_1968#
{
"id": "veduta_1968",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__veduta_1968.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"A. P. Veduta and B. P. Kirsanov, 'Variation of the refractive index of liquids and glasses in a high intensity field of a ruby laser,' Sov. Phys. JETP 27, 736-738 (1968)"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 21. Row 13 (694 nm, ruby laser). Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
milam_1998/perry#
{
"id": "perry",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/milam_1998__perry.csv",
"table": "tbl_ee3c0e192f6c",
"quantity": "nonlinear_index",
"unit": "cm2/W",
"scale": 1e-16,
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"M. D. Perry, Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. (personal communication), Ref. 22 of this review"
],
"uncertainty": {
"column": true,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"part": "unknown",
"coefficient": "self"
}
}
Table 1 (p. 547), reference 22. Rows 15 and 16, two values at 1053 nm (2.77 +- 0.14 and 2.83 +- 0.14): ‘Measurements of intensity-dependent frequency broadening, one in a thin window of silica and one in a silica fiber’ (Ref. 22, p. 549; which value is which is not said). Unpublished: this review is the only printed copy, so this reproduction is the best copy available. Milam’s gamma, n = n0 + gamma I (p. 546); technique, pulse and polarization are not in the table; part unknown.
Formulas#
No formulas are recorded.
Corrections#
[
{
"dataset": "desalvo_1996",
"row": "3",
"column": "sigma",
"printed": "0.17",
"corrected": "1.7",
"reason": "Misprint of the uncertainty of DeSalvo et al.'s 266-nm value (7.8 +- 0.17): a factor of 10 too small.",
"evidence": "DeSalvo et al. 1996 Table I (desalvo_1996) print 28 +- 6 (x 1e-14 esu) at 266 nm, a 21 % uncertainty; converted with the same factor that gives Milam's 7.8, +-6 becomes +-1.68 (computed here); Milam's other three ref.-4 rows carry 20 % (0.48/2.41, 0.46/2.24, 0.43/2.14); and Fig. 1 (p. 547) draws the ref.-4 point at 266 nm with an error bar from about 6.1 to 9.5, i.e. +-1.7."
},
{
"dataset": "williams_1985",
"row": "17",
"column": "x",
"printed": "532",
"corrected": "1064",
"reason": "Misprinted wavelength: Williams et al.'s 1.73 +- 0.35 is their 1064-nm value (their 532-nm value is row 11, 1.72 +- 0.34).",
"evidence": "Table 2 (p. 548), the eleven values at 1053-1064 nm, lists 1.73 +- 0.35 at 1064 nm, ref. 14; the text (p. 548) counts eight experiments at 1053 or 1064 nm, which with Table 2's layout includes this one; Table 1 is otherwise in increasing wavelength and row 17 is printed among the 1053-1064 nm rows; Fig. 1 (p. 547) plots a ref.-14 point near 1050 nm at about 1.7 besides the one at 532 nm."
}
]
Formula corrections, where recorded, appear with their formulas above. Curation notes may also discuss corrections or unresolved interpretation. Consult the review register for the checks and decisions.