{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015833333333333335, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.887254901960785, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Analysis of a phase reversal quasi-phase matching device for the dual peak second harmonic response

Phase reversal quasi-phase matching devices are fairly capable of yielding a dual peak second harmonic spectral response. However, it does suffer from uneven intensity and overlapping of the peaks. In this paper, we analyze the effect of the errors to which these devices are prone. Such unavoidable errors are bound to happen during the poling process even under controlled conditions. The second harmonic spectral response is analyzed by introducing two sorts of possible errors in an ideal phase reversal quasi-phase matching device. Initially, the aperiodic domain is kept fixed at the center of the device and its width is altered to determine the intensity variation of the peaks. When the width of the aperiodic domain is not equal to twice the periodic domain width, an unequal peak response is observed. Secondly, the aperiodic domain width is kept constant while the aperiodic domain is moved along the length of the device to determine the interference between the peaks. If the aperiodic domain is not positioned exactly at the center, a disturbance of the peaks’ intensities is noticed.