Generation of Microwave Comb

with Pure Electronic Feedback in

the Laser Terminal Voltage

MD SHARIFUL ISLAM1,2
GREGOIRE COGET2

1 School of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, USA.
2Photonics and Terahertz Group, UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS, Metz, France.
Microwave Comb with Electronic Feedback
1. The Setup
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm
5. Linewidth
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop OUT 30 dB IN
7. Previous Result 1 Amp
8. Previous Result 2 RF Laser Beam Photo
9. What Else? Splitter Splitter
10. Discussion
Diode Detector
30 dB
11. Conclusion OUT
Amp
IN 18 dB
The Electronic Loop Amp

Optical OSC and RF

Spectrum Spectrum

The Setup

Slide # 2 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
MC from 115 cm Delay Line
1. The Setup
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm 𝜏 = 6.47 𝑛𝑠
5. Linewidth 𝑓𝜏 = 154 𝑀𝐻𝑧
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1 𝑓𝐿 = 463 𝑀𝐻𝑧
8. Previous Result 2 Note: In the RF spectrum, we are
9. What Else?
10. Discussion limited by the 18 dB Amp which ahs a
11. Conclusion upper cutoff at 20 GHz.

Fig. 1: 115 cm delay line

Slide # 3 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
MC from 87.5 cm Delay Line
1. The Setup
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm 𝜏 = 5.433 𝑛𝑠
5. Linewidth 𝑓𝜏 = 183 𝑀𝐻𝑧
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1 𝑓𝐿 = 632 𝑀𝐻𝑧
8. Previous Result 2 Note: In the RF spectrum, we
9. What Else?
10. Discussion are limited by the 18 dB Amp
11. Conclusion which ahs a upper cutoff at 20
GHz.

Fig. 2: 87.5 cm delay line

Slide # 4 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
MC from 80 cm Delay Line
1. The Setup
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm 𝜏 = 4.83 𝑛𝑠
5. Linewidth 𝑓𝜏 = 207 𝑀𝐻𝑧
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1 𝑓𝐿 = 1.25 𝐺𝐻𝑧
8. Previous Result 2 Note: In the RF spectrum, we are
9. What Else?
10. Discussion limited by the 18 dB Amp which
11. Conclusion ahs a upper cutoff at 20 GHz.

Fig. 3: 80 cm delay line

Slide # 5 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
Comparison of Linewidth
1. The Setup
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm
5. Linewidth
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1
8. Previous Result 2
9. What Else?
10. Discussion
11. Conclusion

Fig. 5: 115 cm delay line first Fig. 6: 87.5 cm delay line first Fig. 7: 80 cm delay line first
peak. LW ~10 kHz. peak. LW ~4 kHz. peak. LW ~3 kHz.

Slide # 6 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
MC from 115 cm Delay Line with Black Amp in Loop
1. The Setup
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm
5. Linewidth
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1
8. Previous Result 2
9. What Else?
10. Discussion
11. Conclusion

Fig. 8: 80 cm delay line 18 dB Newport Amp

installed. Suspicious?

Slide # 7 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
 LC characterization
LIMIT CYCLE CHARACTERIZATION - 30 MILLI AMPERE

Phase Noise
Floor at 120 dBc/Hz
115dBc\Hz @ 10^7 Hz
CURRENT STATE OF OEO STABILIZATION

Zoomed Electrical Spectra and corresponding

Bifurcation diagram without OE stabilization.
Phase noise from our measurements after OE
The current was 91.81 mA and Cavity length
stabilization.
~ 25 cm.

10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS

LIMIT CYCLE CHARACTERIZATION - COMPARISON (JQE 2017)
LW Reduction by NOT using the Black Amp
1. The Setup
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm
5. Linewidth
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1
8. Previous Result 2
9. What Else?
10. Discussion
11. Conclusion

LW Reduces to 20 kHz. RBW-300 Hz, VBW-

200 Hz.

Slide # 11 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
What Else?
1. The Setup • Dual feedback (optical+ Electronic): No change in the dynamics. We
2.
3.
MC for 115 cm
MC for 87.5 cm
conclud that since the electronic feedback is too strong, the dynamical
4. MC for 80 cm states can’t be disturbed by the optical feedback.
5.
6.
Linewidth
The 18 dB Amp in Loop • (we need a tunable attenuator to find the lowest amplification required to
7.
8.
Previous Result 1
Previous Result 2
generate the combs. Then we can again check if the optical feedback
9. What Else? have some effect)
10. Discussion
11. Conclusion • In some literature they used Microwave synthesizer and higher injection
power from the synthesizer to increases the flatness. If optical feedback
in our case can show something similar , that would be good.

L 𝝉 𝒇𝝉 𝒇𝑳 Attenuator Comb
60 cm × × × × No
80 cm 4.83 ns 207 MHz 1.25 GHz × Yes
80 cm 4.83 ns 207 MHz 1.25 GHz -20 dB Yes
87.5 cm 5.433 ns 183 ns 632 MHz Splitter (3 dB) Yes
115 cm 6.47 ns 154 MHz 463 MHz × Yes
125 cm × × × -20 dB No
Slide # 12 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
Discussion on Setup
1. The Setup • We have discrete tunability
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm • Microwave isolator. (right model yet to find. Most of the models don’t
4.
5.
MC for 80 cm
Linewidth have wide BW. We need something from 10 MHz- 25 Ghz)
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1 • Tunable Attenuator: Keysight 8495H Programmable Attenuator, 18
8.
9.
Previous Result 2
What Else? GHz, 70dB, 10 dB steps.
10.
11.
Discussion
Conclusion • Pulsed Inverter: We may also want to check if changing the polarity of
the feedback has some effect on the combs. We have the quote for
INV0026.
• For tuning the delay length continuously we can use programmable delay
line but this equipment is very expensive.

Slide # 13 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
CONCLUSION
1. The Setup • Simple design, flatness and large BW are the pros.
2. MC for 115 cm
3. MC for 87.5 cm
4. MC for 80 cm
5. Linewidth • Discrete tunability (which still needs some work to be sure) might limit
6. The 18 dB Amp in Loop
7. Previous Result 1 us.
8. Previous Result 2
9. What Else?
10. Discussion
11. Conclusion

Slide # 14 10/8/2019 Photonics and Terahertz Group @UMI 2958 Georgia Tech-CNRS
!!! THANK YOU FOR Your PATIENCE !!!