Would a system that offered a broader bandwidth be of interest then?

I am not here to advertise but I know that SP have announced a new Mai Tai
at Neuroscience.


Craig Brideau wrote:
> 
> Yes, you always have to base your assumptions on transform limited pulses.
> (transform limited = pulse is as short as possible for its bandwidth)
> Again
> I hope to get some measurements on all this very soon.  Really, if you
> assume the availability of a compressor, that means the critical parameter
> out of an ultrafast laser is its bandwidth rather than its pulsewidth
> since
> pulsewidth can be manipulated but its very hard to add more bandwidth.
> 
> Thanks for bringing up that point!  It's definitely something I will have
> to
> consider.
> 
> Craig
> 
> 
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Sudipta Maiti
> <[log in to unmask]>wrote:
> 
>> That's not quite true, the pulses are not necessaily bandwidth limited as
>> they come out of the box. So after compressing, the 140fs pulse may
>> become
>> shorter than 100fs. For sure, Chameleon's predecessor (MIRA), had a
>> chirped
>> output that could be shortened.
>> Sudipta
>>
>> On Mon, 29 Sep 2008, Craig Brideau wrote:
>>
>>  Well you can never have pulses shorter than what you start out with. 
>> This
>>> means that the 100fs out of the MaiTai will be superior to the
>>> Chameleon's
>>> 140fs, IF YOU ARE USING DISPERSION CONTROL.  If you are NOT using
>>> dispersion
>>> control then the Chameleon's 140fs will not broaden as much so you will
>>> have
>>> better performance.  Bottom line is that pulse width is inversely
>>> proportional to dispersion sensitivity.  If you are controlling
>>> dispersion
>>> with compensation then having short pulses out of the laser is a good
>>> thing
>>> since you can keep dispersion in check.  Otherwise it will actually
>>> perform
>>> poorly.  I'm hoping to make this a lot clearer (and backed up with some
>>> data) in my paper...
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 2:16 PM, Andreas Bruckbauer <[log in to unmask]
>>> >wrote:
>>>
>>>  Thanks a lot for all who replied to my question on and off the list. It
>>>> seems that microscope and laser manufacturers now work closely together
>>>> to
>>>> optimize their systems. I came to the conclusion that the remark:
>>>> "short
>>>> pulses will broaden much more"  is not relevant for systems with
>>>> dispersion
>>>> compensation like the current Olympus FV1000 or the MaiTai Deepsee or
>>>> the
>>>> new Coherent vision. These systems have enough compensation to achieve
>>>> puls
>>>> widths out of the objective which are very close to what comes out of
>>>> the
>>>> laser. But the initial difference (140 fs for the Coherent and 100 fs
>>>> for
>>>> the Spectra Physics MaiTai HP) remains. By detuning the dispersion
>>>> compensation i can generate longer pulses on the system i am working
>>>> with
>>>> (MaiTai, Olympus FV1000 with Olympus pre-chirp), this indeed causes a
>>>> loss
>>>> in fluorescence intensity on a test sample. From this i conclude that
>>>> the
>>>> shorter pulses of the MaiTai can be an advantage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> --
>> Sudipta Maiti
>> Dept. of Chemical Sciences
>> Tata Institute of Fundamental Research
>> Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Mumbai 400005, India
>> 91-22-2278-2716
>> www.tifr.res.in/~biophotonics <http://www.tifr.res.in/%7Ebiophotonics>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://n2.nabble.com/Pulse-broadening-in-multiphoton-micoscopes-tp1121500p1513809.html
Sent from the Confocal Microscopy List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.