Table 2
Comparison of two similar dual FPI systems.
| FPI system | Conventional Improved | |
|---|---|---|
| Input parameters | ||
| Cavity separation d1 (mm) | 0.787 | 0.787 |
| Cavity separation d2 (mm) | 0.300 | 0.300 |
| Reflectivity FP1 (%) | 93 | 93 |
| Reflectivity FP2 (%) | 93 | 86 |
| Prefilter FWHM (nm) | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| Assumed rms cavity error (nm) | 2 | 2 |
| Calculated performance parameters | ||
| Strehl from pupil apod. at 500 nm (%) | 90.9 | 94.5 |
| Transmission at peak λ (%) | 81.4 | 93.5 |
| rms Integrated transmission (%) | 15.4 | 6.4 |
| Broadened FWHM at 630 nm (pm) | 6.5 | 6.7 |
| rms FWHM (pm) | 0.44 | 0.064 |
| rms wavelength shift (pm) | 1.5 | 1.6 |
| rms asymmetry (pm) | 0.87 | 0.55 |
| Parasitic light (%) | 0.25 | 0.79 |
| rms Parasitic light (%) | 0.055 | 0.062 |
Notes. The first column corresponds to an FPI system with a low-resolution etalon that has high reflectivity, and the second column to a system with a low-reflectivity low-resolution etalon; all other input parameters are identical for the two systems. The system with low reflectivity for the low-resolution etalon demonstrates superior performance compared to the other system. Calculations are made with input parameters for CRISP2, which are very close to those of the EST-V FPI system.
Current usage metrics show cumulative count of Article Views (full-text article views including HTML views, PDF and ePub downloads, according to the available data) and Abstracts Views on Vision4Press platform.
Data correspond to usage on the plateform after 2015. The current usage metrics is available 48-96 hours after online publication and is updated daily on week days.
Initial download of the metrics may take a while.