Advertisement

Signal Averaging Limitations in Heterodyne- and Direct-Detection Laser Remote Sensing Measurements

  • N. Menyuk
  • D. K. Killinger
  • C. R. Menyuk
Part of the Springer Series in Optical Sciences book series (SSOS, volume 39)

Abstract

The use of laser remote sensing to determine the concentration of molecular species in the atmosphere by differential-absorption LIDAR (DIAL) requires the measurement of the average transmission of laser signals through the atmosphere at two or more different wavelengths. The accuracy with which the average transmission value, and hence the molecular concentration, may be determined is limited in many cases by the presence of large atmosphere-induced pulse-to-pulse fluctuations in the LIDAR returns.

Keywords

Temporal Correlation Average Transmission lIDAR Signal Heterodyne Detection Lidar Return 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    N. Menyuk and D. K. Killinger, “Temporal Correlation Measurements of Pulsed Dual CO2 LIDAR Returns,” Opt. Lett. 6; 301 (1981).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. A. Pincus, M. E. Fossey, J. F. Holmes and J. R. Kerr, “Speckle Propagation Through Turbulencer: Experimental,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. 68, 760 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. M. Hardesty, R. J. Keeler, M. J. Post and R. A. Richter, “Characteristics of Coherent LIDAR Returns from Calibration Targets and Aerosols,” Appl. Opt. 20, 3763 (1981).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    N. Menyuk, D. K. Killinger and W. E. DeFeo, “Laser Remote Sensing of Hydrazine, MMH, and UDMH Using a Differential-Absorption CO2 LIDAR,” Appl. Opt. 21, 2275 (1982).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. M. Hardesty, “A Comparison of Heterodyne and Direct Detection CO2 DIAL Systems for Ground-Based Humidity Profiling,” NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL WPL-64, (October 1980).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Brockman, R. V. Hess, L. D. Staton and C. H. Bair, “DIAL with Heterodyne Detection Including Speckle Noise: Aircraft/Shuttle Measurements of O3, H2O, and NH3 with Pulsed Tunable CO2 Lasers,” NASA Tech. Paper 1725, (August 1980).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    N. Menyuk, D. K. Killinger and C. R. Menyuk, “Limitations of Signal Averaging Due to Temporal Correlation in Laser Remote Sensing Measurements,” Appl. Opt. (to be published, September 15, 1982).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. K. Killinger, N. Menyuk and W. E. DeFeo, (to be published).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. G. Kjelaas, P. E. Nordal and A. Bjerkestrand, “Scintillation and Multiwavelength Coherence Effects in a Long-Path Laser Absorption Spectrometer,” Appl. Opt. 17, 277 (1978).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. H. Shapiro, B. A. Capron and R. C. Harney, “Imaging and Target Detection with a Heterodyne-Reception Optical Radar,” Appl. Opt. 20, 3292 (1980).ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    When the measurement accuracy limitation due to the fluctuations of the signal returns is significantly greater than the limitations due to the detection capability of the system, as is the case in the measurements presented here, the signal-to-noise ratio is defined as the mean value of the LIDAR return signals divided by the standard deviation of those signals. This is equivalent to the inverse of the normalized standard deviation values used throughout this paper. The ratio of the mean value of the signal to the mean value of the noise (defined as the carrier-to-noise ratio in Ref. 10) is an equally important factor in establishing system capabilities. In general, for a given energy level, this ratio for a heterodyne-detection system can be expected to be 3 to 4 orders of magnitude greater than for a direct-detection system.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • N. Menyuk
    • 1
  • D. K. Killinger
    • 1
  • C. R. Menyuk
    • 2
  1. 1.Lincoln LaboratoryMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyLexingtonUSA
  2. 2.Laboratory for Plasma and Fusion Energy StudiesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations