• Korean Journal of Optics and Photonics
• /
• v.16 no.3
• /
• pp.182-190
• /
• 2005

The fiber Raman amplifier(FRA) is a distinctly advantageous technology. Due to its wider, flexible gain bandwidth, and intrinsically lower noise characteristics, FRA has become an indispensable technology of today. Various FRA modeling methods, with different levels of convergence speed and accuracy, have been proposed in order to gain valuable insights for the FRA dynamics and optimum design before real implementation. Still, all these approaches share the common platform of coupled ordinary differential equations(ODE) for the Raman equation set that must be solved along the long length of fiber propagation axis. The ODE platform has classically set the bar for achievable convergence speed, resulting exhaustive calculation efforts. In this work, we propose an alternative, highly efficient framework for FRA analysis. In treating the Raman gain as the perturbation factor in an adiabatic process, we achieved implementation of the algorithm by deriving a recursive relation for the integrals of power inside fiber with the effective length and by constructing a matrix formalism for the solution of the given FRA problem. Finally, by adiabatically turning on the Raman process in the fiber as increasing the order of iterations, the FRA solution can be obtained along the iteration axis for the whole length of fiber rather than along the fiber propagation axis, enabling faster convergence speed, at the equivalent accuracy achievable with the methods based on coupled ODEs. Performance comparison in all co-, counter-, bi-directionally pumped multi-channel FRA shows more than 102 times faster with the convergence speed of the Average power method at the same level of accuracy(relative deviation < 0.03dB).

• Progress in Medical Physics
• /
• v.9 no.4
• /
• pp.267-276
• /
• 1998

Any detector inserted into a phantom should have such a geometry that it caused as small as possible perturbation of the electron fluence. Plane parallel chambers meet this requirement better than other chambers of configurations. IAEA protocol recommends the use of plane parallel chambers for this reason. However, the cylindrical chambers are widely used for convenient. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the absorbed dose due to the differences of four different dosimetry protocols such as IAEA protocol using cylindrical chamber, TG 21 protocol using cylindrical chamber, Markus protocol using plane parallel chamber, and TG 39 report for the calibration of plane parallel chamber in electron beams. Depth-ionization measurements for the electron beams of nominal energy 6, 9, 12, 15, and 18 MeV from Siemens accelerator with a 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size were made using a radiation field analyser with 0.125 cc ion chamber. Dosimetric measurements by IAEA and TG 21 protocol were made with a farmer type ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. Dosimetric measurements by Markus protocol were made with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. The cavity-gas calibration factor for the plane parallel chamber was obtained with the use of 18 MeV electron beam as guided by TG 39 report. Dosimetric measurements by TG 39 were performed with a plane parallel ionization chamber in solid water for each electron energy, respectively. For all the energies and protocols, measurements were made along the central axis of the distance of 100 cm (SSD = 100 cm) with 10$\times$10 cm$^2$ field size at the depth of d$_{max}$ for each electron beam, respectively. In the case of 18 MeV, the discrepancy of 0.9 % between IAEA and TG 21 was found and the two protocols were agreed within 0.7 % for other energies. In the case of 18 MeV and 6 MeV, the discrepancies of $\pm$ 0.8 % between Markus and TG 39 was found, respectively and the two protocols were agreed within 0.5 % for other energies. Since the discrepancy of 1.6 % between cylindrical and plane parallel chamber was found for 18 MeV, it is suggested to get the calibration factor using other method as guided. by TG 39.9.