taylor_1988#
A. J. Taylor, R. B. Gibson and J. P. Roberts, Opt. Lett. 13, 814 (1988)
Source record · Catalogue · Review register
DOI: 10.1364/ol.13.000814
Source kind: measurement
Recorded technique: Intensity-dependent energy transmission of thin windows at 248 nm: linearly polarized 0.7 +- 0.1 ps pulses (autocorrelation by two-photon ionisation of NO) from a KrF high-brightness laser, 20 mJ, gently focused by a 5 m mirror onto a pyroelectric detector (Gentec ED-200); the sample is moved along the beam to vary the incident intensity from 5e9 to 3e11 W/cm2, normalised by a 4 % reflection taken before the mirror. Nearly flat-topped spatial profile; a ~20 ns ASE background carries < 5 % of the energy. No small-scale self-focusing was seen.
Materials in structured entries: BaF2, CaF2, LiF, MgF2, SiO2, SrF2
Dataset quantities: band_gap, two_photon_absorption_coefficient
Contents: 18 datasets; 0 formulas.
Curation notes#
Table 1 (p. 3) is transcribed in full: the band gap, beta at 248 nm (‘2h nu = 10 eV’) and beta at 266 nm (‘2h nu = 9.36 eV’, footnote b: Liu et al., Appl. Opt. 18, 1015 (1979) and Phys. Rev. B 17, 4620 (1978)), for fused silica, BaF2, SrF2, CaF2, LiF and MgF2. Checked against the table image: all cells agree.
Definition of beta (p. 2): the pulse ‘propagates through a sample of thickness l, with reflectivity R at each surface, according to dI/dz = -beta I^2’ (linear absorption assumed negligible), with I_in = I_i exp(-(t/tau)^2) spatially uniform, so that T^-1 = sqrt(pi) (1 - R)^-2 [int dx / (alpha + exp(x^2))]^-1 with alpha = beta l (1 - R) I_i (Eqs. 1-2). Reflection losses are therefore removed (R enters explicitly); the intensity is that incident on the sample. beta is fitted to T^-1 against I_i l (Figs. 1, 2). Pulse-width broadening B = [ln(2 + alpha)/ln 2]^(1/2) (Eq. 4).
Uncertainty (p. 2 and footnote a): ‘The absolute uncertainty in beta is +-50 %, while the relative uncertainty is +-15 %’, from pyroelectric calibration, beam-profile variations and the pulse shape. ‘The measurements of beta by Liu et al. have an uncertainty of +-43 %.’ Levels not stated.
LiF and MgF2 (footnote c, p. 2): their band gaps exceed 10 eV; the weak loss ‘is consistent with a three-photon absorption process’, points above 2e11 W/cm2 (colour centres, fluorescence) are ignored, and the tabulated value is an upper bound calculated ‘for comparison purposes’. CaF2 is ‘a nearly pure sample (Optipur from Optovac)’; ‘values up to a factor of 2 higher are measured for samples of lower purity’. The fused-silica grade is not stated.
The band gaps are quoted without a source or a method; they are kept as check values (parameters.kind = ‘not stated’). The text notes that Liu et al. ‘questioned the accuracy of the reported band gap’ of BaF2 (citing Strelow and Cook, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data 2, 163 (1973)).
Checks (scratch computation, 2026-09-26): Eq. 4 gives B = 1.259 at alpha = 1 (printed 1.26); Eq. 2 gives T = 0.605 at alpha = 1, i.e. 39.5 % loss against the printed 36 %; the printed I_out/I_in = 0.44 is reproduced (0.443) if (1 - R)^2 = 0.92 (R = 0.04) is included. Fig. 3’s statements for 1.27 cm windows (I_out/I_in = 0.33 and 0.12 for fused silica, 0.66 and 0.45 for CaF2, at 3e10 and 1e11 W/cm2) are reproduced to 0.33, 0.13, 0.70 and 0.44 with the tabulated beta and R = 0.041 (silica) or 0.036 (CaF2), which confirms beta in cm/W with the definition above. The Fig. 1 caption prints beta for fused silica and BaF2 in ‘W/cm2’, a misprint for cm/W (Table 1).
The header’s ‘2h nu = 9.36 eV’ for Liu’s 266 nm is printed as such (2 x 4.66 eV = 9.32 eV); the text says 266 nm. Liu’s values at 266 nm are 30 ps measurements (p. 1); the originals are now curated (liu_1978, liu_1979): each 266-nm value is found in one of them (liu_1978 Table II: CaF2, LiF; liu_1979 Table I: fused silica, BaF2, SrF2, MgF2) and the datasets name it. The band gaps of Table 1 match those papers’ (fused silica 7.8, CaF2 10.0, LiF 11.6: liu_1978; MgF2 11.8: liu_1979; BaF2 9.1 against liu_1979’s 9.06, Strehlow and Cook’s), except SrF2 9.6, for which liu_1979 prints ‘?’.
Recorded bibliographic identity status: VALIDATED_WITH_WARNINGS. This concerns identification of the source; it does not establish the scientific correctness of its contents.
Datasets#
taylor_1988/band_gap_SiO2#
{
"id": "band_gap_SiO2",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/taylor_1988__band_gap_SiO2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "band_gap",
"unit": "eV",
"abscissa": "none",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"kind": "not stated"
}
}
Quoted without source or method.
taylor_1988/band_gap_BaF2#
{
"id": "band_gap_BaF2",
"material": "BaF2",
"file": "BaF2/taylor_1988__band_gap_BaF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "band_gap",
"unit": "eV",
"abscissa": "none",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"kind": "not stated"
}
}
Quoted without source or method; Liu et al. questioned the accuracy of the reported BaF2 gap (p. 3).
taylor_1988/band_gap_SrF2#
{
"id": "band_gap_SrF2",
"material": "SrF2",
"file": "SrF2/taylor_1988__band_gap_SrF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "band_gap",
"unit": "eV",
"abscissa": "none",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"kind": "not stated"
}
}
Quoted without source or method.
taylor_1988/band_gap_CaF2#
{
"id": "band_gap_CaF2",
"material": "CaF2",
"file": "CaF2/taylor_1988__band_gap_CaF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "band_gap",
"unit": "eV",
"abscissa": "none",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"kind": "not stated"
}
}
Quoted without source or method; ‘impurities will lower the band-gap energy’ (p. 3).
taylor_1988/band_gap_LiF#
{
"id": "band_gap_LiF",
"material": "LiF",
"file": "LiF/taylor_1988__band_gap_LiF.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "band_gap",
"unit": "eV",
"abscissa": "none",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"kind": "not stated"
}
}
Quoted without source or method.
taylor_1988/band_gap_MgF2#
{
"id": "band_gap_MgF2",
"material": "MgF2",
"file": "MgF2/taylor_1988__band_gap_MgF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "band_gap",
"unit": "eV",
"abscissa": "none",
"use": "check",
"parameters": {
"kind": "not stated"
}
}
Quoted without source or method.
taylor_1988/beta_248_SiO2#
{
"id": "beta_248_SiO2",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/taylor_1988__beta_248_SiO2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "primary",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.5,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"form": "bulk",
"technique": "intensity-dependent transmission",
"pulse_fs": 700,
"polarization": "linear"
}
}
Grade not stated. Fit of Eq. (2) to Fig. 1 (open circles).
taylor_1988/beta_248_BaF2#
{
"id": "beta_248_BaF2",
"material": "BaF2",
"file": "BaF2/taylor_1988__beta_248_BaF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "primary",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.5,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"form": "bulk",
"technique": "intensity-dependent transmission",
"pulse_fs": 700,
"polarization": "linear"
}
}
Fit of Eq. (2) to Fig. 1 (filled circles). Disagrees with Liu et al.’s 266 nm bound (p. 3).
taylor_1988/beta_248_SrF2#
{
"id": "beta_248_SrF2",
"material": "SrF2",
"file": "SrF2/taylor_1988__beta_248_SrF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "primary",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.5,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"form": "bulk",
"technique": "intensity-dependent transmission",
"pulse_fs": 700,
"polarization": "linear"
}
}
taylor_1988/beta_248_CaF2#
{
"id": "beta_248_CaF2",
"material": "CaF2",
"file": "CaF2/taylor_1988__beta_248_CaF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "primary",
"uncertainty": {
"relative": 0.5,
"level": "not stated"
},
"parameters": {
"form": "bulk",
"grade": "Optipur",
"technique": "intensity-dependent transmission",
"pulse_fs": 700,
"polarization": "linear"
}
}
Optipur (Optovac), ‘a nearly pure sample’; less pure samples gave up to twice this value (p. 2).
taylor_1988/beta_248_LiF#
{
"id": "beta_248_LiF",
"material": "LiF",
"file": "LiF/taylor_1988__beta_248_LiF.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "excluded",
"parameters": {
"form": "bulk",
"technique": "intensity-dependent transmission",
"pulse_fs": 700,
"polarization": "linear"
}
}
Printed as an upper bound (<= 1.3e-12), from a two-photon fit of loss the authors ascribe to three-photon absorption and colour centres (footnote c, Fig. 2). Not a measured beta.
taylor_1988/beta_248_MgF2#
{
"id": "beta_248_MgF2",
"material": "MgF2",
"file": "MgF2/taylor_1988__beta_248_MgF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "excluded",
"parameters": {
"form": "bulk",
"technique": "intensity-dependent transmission",
"pulse_fs": 700,
"polarization": "linear"
}
}
Printed as an upper bound (<= 1.3e-12), from a two-photon fit of loss the authors ascribe to three-photon absorption and colour centres (footnote c, Fig. 2). Not a measured beta. Crystal orientation not stated.
taylor_1988/liu_266_SiO2#
{
"id": "liu_266_SiO2",
"material": "SiO2",
"file": "SiO2/taylor_1988__liu_266_SiO2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "reproduced",
"reproduced_from": [
"liu_1979"
],
"parameters": {
"pulse_fs": 30000
}
}
The original: liu_1979 Table I prints 1.7e-5 cm/MW +- 20 % (+-43 % systematic) = 1.7e-11 cm/W: agrees. Footnote b cites both Liu papers without saying which value comes from which; dragomir_2002 Table 1 gives 1.7e-11 at 266 nm, 30 ps, to the 1979 paper (+-43 % absolute). 30 ps pulses (p. 1).
taylor_1988/liu_266_BaF2#
{
"id": "liu_266_BaF2",
"material": "BaF2",
"file": "BaF2/taylor_1988__liu_266_BaF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "excluded",
"reproduced_from": [
"liu_1979"
],
"parameters": {
"pulse_fs": 30000
}
}
The original: liu_1979 Table I prints < 4.0e-6 cm/MW = < 4.0e-12 cm/W: agrees. Reproduced upper bound (< 4.0e-12), not a measured beta.
taylor_1988/liu_266_SrF2#
{
"id": "liu_266_SrF2",
"material": "SrF2",
"file": "SrF2/taylor_1988__liu_266_SrF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "excluded",
"reproduced_from": [
"liu_1979"
],
"parameters": {
"pulse_fs": 30000
}
}
The original: liu_1979 Table I prints < 5.4e-6 cm/MW = < 5.4e-12 cm/W: agrees. Reproduced upper bound (< 5.4e-12), not a measured beta.
taylor_1988/liu_266_CaF2#
{
"id": "liu_266_CaF2",
"material": "CaF2",
"file": "CaF2/taylor_1988__liu_266_CaF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "excluded",
"reproduced_from": [
"liu_1978"
],
"parameters": {
"pulse_fs": 30000
}
}
The original: liu_1978 Table II prints < 2e-5 cm/MW = < 2.0e-11 cm/W: agrees. Reproduced upper bound (< 2.0e-11), not a measured beta.
taylor_1988/liu_266_LiF#
{
"id": "liu_266_LiF",
"material": "LiF",
"file": "LiF/taylor_1988__liu_266_LiF.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "excluded",
"reproduced_from": [
"liu_1978"
],
"parameters": {
"pulse_fs": 30000
}
}
The original: liu_1978 Table II prints < 2e-5 cm/MW = < 2.0e-11 cm/W: agrees. Reproduced upper bound (< 2.0e-11), not a measured beta.
taylor_1988/liu_266_MgF2#
{
"id": "liu_266_MgF2",
"material": "MgF2",
"file": "MgF2/taylor_1988__liu_266_MgF2.csv",
"table": "tbl_d491af0a4326",
"quantity": "two_photon_absorption_coefficient",
"unit": "cm/W",
"abscissa_unit": "nm",
"use": "excluded",
"reproduced_from": [
"liu_1979"
],
"parameters": {
"pulse_fs": 30000
}
}
The original: liu_1979 Table I prints < 2.8e-6 cm/MW = < 2.8e-12 cm/W: agrees. Reproduced upper bound (< 2.8e-12), not a measured beta.
Formulas#
No formulas are recorded.
Corrections#
No dataset errata are recorded in this source record.
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.