PT~CAL
-
ELSEVIER
1,
E. Snitzer
Rutgers University, Fiber Optics Materials Research Program, Piscataway, NJ 08855, USA
Abstract
The physical properties of R
20-ZnO-TeO2 glasses have been studied for their feasibility for fiber drawing and rare earth doping. A telluriteglass3~,
fiber
with
less athan
1 dB/m
has been
by the rod-in-tube
method.
The spectroscopic
properties of
Nd3~,
Er3~,
nd Tm3~)
inloss
tellurite
glass made
are discussed
and compared
with silica,
fluoride and chalcogenide
rare earthions (Pr
glasses.
1. Introduction
The first glass laser was obtained in a barium silicate glass [1]. This result initiated a new application
for glass. It is clearly evident that silicate glass has
been most extensively studied as a laser host because
ofits excellent glass stability, chemical durability, and
good fluorescence properties. However, with the
widespread use of optical components for telecommunications, sensors and medical applications, new
glass hosts have emerged for special usage. They indude the less common oxides, halides and chalcogenide glasses. Furthermore, with the success of fiber
technology for optical communication, a variety of
research efforts have been undertaken in glass and
glass fibers. This diversity includes new applications,
such as the use of ultraviolet-induced photo-refractive gratings, and new glass families, particularly,
those that can be fabricated into fiber waveguides with
low loss. One of the very important advantages of
glass is its ability to be fabricated into a fiber with
ultra low light attenuation. This also made fiber optic
telecommunication possible and growing.
Recently there has been considerable attention
_______
~,
188
due to the low quantum efficiency (3%) of this praseodymium-doped fluoride glass. More recently,
Dejneka et al. [8] has found another fluoride glass
host for Pr3 based on Pb-In-Ga-Zn-F [9], to have
longer measured lifetime. The fluorescence rate of
Pr3~in La-Ga-S glass has also been reported [10],
although there has been no report to date on their
~,
fiberization.
Although many fiber lasers and fiber amplifiers
have been studied for both silica-based and fluoridebased glasses, the former suffer, in some cases, from
their inherent high phonon energy and the latter from
their poor glass stability and chemical durability. On
the other hand, chalcogenide glasses have not been
much studied. One of the major difficulties is their
low solubilities for rare earths. However, Wei et al.
[11] have recently demonstrated that the Ge-Ga-S
based glasses can be made with only a yellow tint and
with a high rare earth solubility.
Tellurite glasses combine the attributes of (i) a
linear properties and the desirable fluorescence properties associated with their low energy phonon spectrum and high indices of refraction. Our goal is to
fabricate active tellurite glass fiber devices based on
compositions [15] and investigating the spectroscopic properties of various rare earth ions in tellurite glasses [16]. In this paper, the emphasis is placed
on the material properties of the TeO
2-based glasses
and fibers, and the unique spectroscopic properties
in the near infrared for fiber laser oscillators and
amplifiers.
and silicate glasses. A comparison of the selected optical properties among tellurite, silica, fluoride and
chalcogenide glasses is shown in Table 1. The high
nonlinear refractive index and the low phonon energy make the tellurite glass fibers uniquely suitable
for nonlinear and laser applications. For example, the
lower phonon energy results in a lower nonradiative
transition rate between adjacent rare earth energy
levels, leading to fluorescence and laser emission from
additional energy levels that are not possible for silicate glasses. The longest fluorescent wavelengthsthat
could be observed are about 2.8 jim, 2.2 jim, 4.4 jim,
and 7.4 jim for tellurite, silica, fluoride and chalcogenide glasses, respectively. This is due to difference
in the highest phonon energy for different glass hosts,
as shown in Table 2.
With lower phonon energy, Te02-based glasses intrinsically could have higher quantum efficiencies and
could provide more fluorescent emissions than silica-basedglasses. This implies that new fiber laser and
2. Experimental procedure
2.1. Preparation ofbulk glass
High-purity commercial oxides (99.999% and
99.99% pure) were used as the starting materials.
Powders of these materials, weighed to conform to
the oxide molar percentages as indicated in the text,
were mixed and than transferred to a gold crucible.
The crucible was heated to 8000 C in a resistance furnace, and held in an air atmosphere for 2 hours. Melts
were cast into preheated cylindrical brass molds and
allowed to cool to room temperature. Samples 0.51
cm long were cut from these glasses, and the faces were
polished to a 0.5 jim finish.
189
Table 1
A comparison ofselected properties for tellurite, silica, fluoride and chalcogenide glasses.
Property
Optical properties (typical values)
Refractive index (n)
Abbenumber(v)
2/W)
Nonlinearrefractive index (n
Transmission range (ism) 2, m
Highest phonon energy (cm)
Longest fluorescent wavelength (i.tm)
Bandgap(eV)
Acousto-optical figure of merit,
p2n6/rv3 (10_li ~3/g)
Physical properties (typical values)
Glass transition (Tg, 0 C)
Thermalexpansion(107C)
Density (g/cm3)
Dielectric constant (~)
Fiberloss
Tellurite
Silica
Fluoride
Chalcogenide
1.82.3
1020
2.5x i0~
0.45.0
800
2.8
~3
24
1.46
80
1.5
60110
2.83
0.22.5
1000
2.2
~l0
119
0.27.0
500
4.4
1000
5
2.2
4.0
0.2 dB/km
(1.5 ~m)
ionic-covalent
<l0~
300
150
5.0
300
120-170
5.5
1335
Bonding
Solubilityinwater
covalent-ionic
<102
Table 2
Highest phonon energy (hw) for various glasses [48,49].
Glasses
hw [cm-]
Borate
Phosphate
Silicate
Germanate
Tellurite
Fluoride
13501480
11001350
10001100
800975
600850
500600
Chalcogenide
l020
l0_21
higher
0.816
300
7.4
13
300
140
4.51
1525 dB/km
(1.52.75 ~m)
ionic
soluble
0.4 dB/km
6.5 ~tm
covalent
The fluorescence spectra were obtained at 90 degrees to the incident pump beam, so that there would
be a minimum interference of the pump with the
measurements. Fluorescent lifetimes were measured
on glasses using a similar experimental setup. The
fluorescent intensity decay was sensed by a detector
.
200300
located 90with respect to the pumping light. To ensure detection of only the fluorescent intensity, appropriate band pass filters were placed in front of the
detector. The lifetime measurements were made with
175
LaBr
3
eterdetector combination.
3 at 1.3For
jim,short
it waslifetimes,
essentialsuch
that
as
obtained
from
Pr
the chopper wheel be placed in the focal plane of a
microscope objective and a second lens used to illuminate the sample. The chopper wheel then was able
to cut the beam on or off by displacement of only 5
jim which could be done in approximately 5 jis. A
Tektronix Model 41 05A console/monitor coupled
with a 4041 microcomputer was used to store the lifetime acquisition and manipulation program and control a Tektronix Model 7854 oscilloscope. The fluorescent intensity decay was thus recorded, digitized
and time averaged sequentially in a Tektronix Model
7854 oscilloscope. The decay trace and three e-folding times [17] were visualized directly on the oscil-
190
loscope screen. Six hundred scans were routinely averaged in making the measurements.
3.1.1. Viscosity
Since drawing fiber is a process involving a dynamic deformation at high temperature, it is necessary to determine the relationship between viscosity
and temperature in the glass. Fig. 1 shows the viscosity data obtained through the use of the parallel plate
viscometer, which is suitable for measuring viscosities ranging from 1 0~to 1 0~poise. A stable glass is
191
Table 3
Properties ofselected tellurite glasses.
(l00x)%Te0
2+x%X
X=
UVedge (nm)
Durability (H20)
Rareearth
solubility
good
good
poor
good
good
good
good
good
good
poor
good
good
(mol%)
15%BaO
30%W03
1015% alkali oxides
28%ZnO
20%ZnO+5%Na20
20% ZnO+5% K20
487
458
370
373
370
365
CAta5 cm
Temperature
~
.4
10000~
9.000
384
W03-Te02
374
364
354
(C)
Temperature (C)
~ Na20-ZnO
I
334 Te02
_______
324
314
8000
8~7
-o
10.000
7000
677
Na2O.SI~,,,J
4
7.000
13000
577
____
6.000
1.5
____
____
____
____
________
,,,IZBLAL
________
4000
,..,...,,..........
1.54
Na20-zno ?2
1.58
1.62
1 000/T(K(
1 66
1.7
characterized by rapid but smooth changes in viscosity in the entire region from 102 to 1014 poise. A vis
cous flow curve exhibiting a discontinuity or unsmooth variation may be attributed to structure
change, perhaps devitrification, in the glass.
The temperature dependence of the viscosity is
shown for Na20-ZnO-Te02, Na20-SiO2, and ZBLAN
glasses in Fig. 2. There are two important parameters
we can derive from viscosity-temperature curve: (i)
the temperature corresponding to fiber drawing viscosity and (ii) the slope of te viscosity-temperature
curve in the low temperature region. Hu et al. [19]
have proposed that glasses with a flat viscosity-ternperature curve are more resistant to crystallization
than glasses with steep one in the low temperature
range. Although the viscosity required for the fiber
drawing in the silicate glass is around 10~poise, it
could be slightly higher, around 1 ~ to 1065 poise,
for the fluoride and tellurite glasses.
The temperature dependence of the viscosity can
be roughly represented by the exponential equation
08
1,2
16
1 000/T)K)
1~=1~oexp(E~/RT)
,
(1)
192
Table 4
Fitting parameters for Eq. (1) in variousglasses.
Glass
ii=,~oexp(E~/RT)
Na
W020-ZnO-Te02
3-Te02
ZBLAN
Na20-Si02
1.6x10
l.6x i0~
5
4.4x 10~2
6.5X10
E,, (kcal/mole)
lo
33.6
i.4X 1021
E~(kcal/mole)
41.4
31.8
37.6
l.3x 1021
6.2x108
8.9x i0~~
7.9
1.9
49
103.6
30.
_-
25.
mote%Na
20
20
15.
~,
to mole%Nu20
0
200
mule%Na20
10
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
Temperature (C)
193
Table 5
The Tg, T~and (T~ Tg) of tellurite glasses.
Glass(Mole%)
l0%P
205-90%Te02
10% P205-90% Te02-l wt% Er203
28%ZnO-72% Te02
28%ZnO-72% Te02-1 wt% Er203
5% Na20-20% ZnO-75% Te02
5% Na20-20% ZnO-75% Te02- 1 wt% Er203
15%W03-85%Te02
15%WO3-85%Te02-0.5w1%Er203
1l%BaO-89%Te02
10%BaO-20%ZnO-70%Te02
6%Na20-94%Te02
Tg(C)
T~(C)
TxTg
347
330
324
330
299
304
343
357
325
339
294
494
431
420
425
417
432
467
505
468
495
338
147
101
96
95
118
128
124
148
143
156
44
Table 6
The Tg, T~and (T. Tg) of rare earth doped tellurite glasses.
Glass(Mole%)
Tg(C)
T~(C)
T~T~
5%Na20-20%ZnO-75%Te02
+lwt%Pr203
+lwt%Er203
+lwtkTm2O3
+lwt%Yb203
299
302
304
298
303
417
452
432
424
430
118
150
128
126
127
5% Na~O-20%ZnO-75% Te02
5% Na~O-20%ZnO-75% Te02-1 wt% Er203
5% Na20-20% ZnO-75% Te02-3.9 wt% Er203
5% Na20-20% ZnO-75% TeO2-7.5 wt% Er203
299
304
311
324
417
432
447
443
118
128
136
119
6 7w1% Nd 0
I
25
20
2 7w1% Nd203
15
1 4wt% Nd203
/\
O5~%Nd 0
/\
200
. .
Temperature )~C)
194
~2
where HR (Hrubys Ratio) is a measure of glass stability. The closer T1 is to T~(the maximum ofexotherm), the better is the glass stability. Nd2O3 addition
not only increases (Ti Tg) but also decreases
(T1 T~)for 5Na2O-2OZnO-7 5TeO2 glasses, both of
which are favorable to improving glass stability. Note
the different roles of Nd203 and Na2O play in increasing glass stability. The former may participate
in prohibiting crystalline formation whereas the latter act mainly as network breaking agents to decrease
the liquidus and glass transition temperatures.
a0=A0(l/..t )+B0exp(B1/).)+C0exp(C1/A),
(3
,~
,,~
195
Table 7
Fitting parameters for Eq. (3) in various glasses.
Glass [Ref.]
Rayleigh scattering
loss (dB/km)
4
Te0
2 [this work]
0.29/A
5i0
2 [50]
BaF
2-GdF3-ZrF4[23]
GeS
3 [23]
Ultraviolet absorption
loss (dB/km)
Infra-red absorption
loss (dB/km)
Projected minimum
loss (dB/km)
(atA [jim])
6.47x l06
exp(9.84/A)
5.75x 1015
3.5x l0~
exp(
3.4x 1011
2.56x10
exp(6.76/A)
5.26x l0~
exp(15.2/A)
exp(31.4/A)
2.82xl06
exp(163/A)
5.63X 1012
exp(l64/A)
0.70/A
4
0.112/A
4
3.97/A
126.67/A)
(3.02 jim)
l.2xl0~
(1.55 jim)
l.1x103
(3.44 jim)
1.1 X 102
(4.54 jim)
16
Fundamental Lattice Vibratiorr
Table 8
Comparison of fiber strengths of various glasses in two-point
b d
12
OH Absorption
8
1k
Film
_______________
~~Ik
.4
2,
3
Log(Wavelength, 5m(
0.2
10
30
Fracture strain
Tellurite glass
Silica
Fluoride glass
(%)
fiber
1.4%
fiber
67%
fiber
0.42%
(5)
where /3 is a constant characteristic of the host material, LiE is the energy gap between two successive 1evels, and a is expressed by
a=(hw)_i(ln
p
l
\. g(n+l)
3500
.3000
E
~25OO
__---
~ 2000
iooo
~
.~
~ma=
500
_~
~__
0
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
Wavelength )nm)
1500
(hw)~ln(e)
(6)
-~7;;~
~z~
1500
1600
Fig. 6. The absorption spectraof tellurite glass fibers. Core: Nd2O31 .5Bi2O3-6Na2O-l 5.5ZnO-77TeO2. Cladding: 5Na2O-2OZnO75TeO2. (a) Core diameter 45 jim, fiber OD 85 jim. (b) Core
diameter 5 jim, fiber OD 155 jim.
n = [exp(hw/kT)
1]
(7)
196
fl(s~)
a(cm)
hw(cm~)
Phosphate
Silicate
Germinate
Tellurite
Fluoride
Chalcogenide
5.4x 1012
4.7X
1.4x1012
3.4x101
6.3x lOb
l.88x10
lxlO6
l0~
4.7x103
4.9xl03
1200
1100
900
0.0037
0.0057
0.013
47x l0~
700
0.037
10~
2.9x103
500
350
0.056
0.36
5.77X
J.S. Wangeta!. /
12
Optical Materials 3
..---
trend: silicate (32 nm) > tellurite (27nm) > phossult implies that tellurite glass has less multiple-sites
34 and/or less crystal field splitbroadening
for Nd
phate
(21silicate
nm)
> fluoroberyllate (19 nm). This reting
than
glass. TheJudd-Ofelt parameters and
calculated lifetimes for the 4F
312 level are listed in Table 11. Again, the more covalent the glass, the greater
spectroscopic and laser properties among various
is its radiative transition rate. The comparisons of
Ibi
610.
6
197
(1994) 18 7203
2
~
1200
1250
3H
1300
13521400
Wavelength nm)
1450
1500
34 in (a) 5Na
fluoride glass to 1.33 jim in tellurite and chalcogenide glasses due to the nephalauxetic effect. As
Jrgensen et al. [34] described, the Q2 parameter is
strongly affected by covalent chemical bonding and
the Q4 and Q6 parameters are related to the rigidity
of the medium in which the ions are situated. Therefore, a large Q2 indicates a greater degree of covalency and longer emission wavelength, as indicated
in Table 11 and Table 12.
34
3.3.2.
2. Spectroscopic
ofNd1.3 jim amplifiAlthough
our goal isproperties
to optimize
cation, we began with the 1.06 jim characterization
ofNd34-doped tellurite glass, since numerous results
on both materials and devices with Nd3 + operating
at 1.06 jim are widely available. A comparison of
4F
41
312e 1112 emission among several typical glasses,
including Na2O-Te02 glass, is shown in Fig. 9. Their
emission peak wavelengths are quite different: 1046
nm for fluoroberyllate, 1052 nm for phosphate, 1062
nm for silicate, and 1065 nm for tellurite glasses. Additionally, their emission full widths at half maximum height are also different with the following
Table 10
TheJudd-Ofelt parameters, calculated and measuredlifetimes,
Glass
Q
(pm2)
(pm2)
2 2)
24
Q6
(pm
ZnNaTe
8.7
9.1
8.7
ZBLAN
1.4
4.2
4.9
LaGaS
9.8
2.8
5.5
(jis)
i,,,~
ratio
Branching
(cm2)
~x
1021
Ref.
460
3240
500
22
110
300
63%
64%
8.7
3.48
10.5
[this work]
[6]
[10]
198
Fluoride
0.8
~P
0.6
..
0,2
0
1200
1500
12501300135014001450
Wavelength (nrc)
Fig. 8. The G
did not
.~
0,4
I13/2e~Iis,2transition
Chalcoge ide
3H
2
GLS
24
(pm2)
Q6
(pm2)
Tmnan
(ms)
(pm
2.0
4.5
4.0
3.0
4.5
3.0
0.5
0.4
abilities there appears to be a three-fold improvement for tellurite glasses against the detrimental ESA
5.8
6.65
4.9
4.39
5.8
4.67
0.14
0.1
2)
Q2
Fluoride
Silicate
BaO-TeO
~I,i,2
ED2
~I,3,2
~I,i,2
ZnTe
~I,3,2
~Ibb,2
113/2
GLS
111/2
113/2
1039
1306
1060
1340
1060
1340
1077
1370
3.57
1.27
4.73
14.5
PBLA 34PbF
2-24ZnF2-35GaF3-2A1F3-3YF3-2NdF3 (mole%) [51].
ED2 60SiO2-27.5Li2O-lOCaO-2.5A12O3-0. 1 6CeO2-2.0 I 2wt%Nd2O3 [17].
ZnTe 35ZnO-65TeO2-2 wt%Nd203 [51].
GLS 3Ga2S3-0.85LaS3-O.1 5Nd2S3 [52].
AA
o~<l0_20
(nm)
(cm2)
33.0
65.0
27.8
64.4
29.0
73.0
2.75
0.85
2.9
0.72
3.6
0.76
7.95
3.60
199
1,2
0.8-
I:
j:~
08
_____
1020
1040
1060
1080
Wavelength (nm(
1100
Absorption
Emission
1120
011ev
4F
41, 1/2 fluorescence spectrum ofNd3 in differFig. 9. The
ent glasses at 5,2-.
295K;fluoroberyllate (A), phosphate (x); silicate () [30]; and tellurite glasses.
1500
1600
Wavelength
1700
-
(crc)
1.212
1430
1480
1530
1580
Wavelength (nm)
1630
1680
04
1400
1500
1600
Wavelength
1700
(nnli
Fig. 13. Absorption cross section, emission cross section and their
difference for Er203 and 5Na2O-2OZnO-75TeO2 glass.
________
5.
~Silicate
\~
_______
_______
________
________
________
Tellarite~
_______
-_______
ii
6
Er 0, vrvi hr
. .
Fig. 11. Lifetimes for the Ii3/2~ 115/2 transition at 1.54 jim as a
function of the Er203 concentration in Na20-2SiO2 [41] and
5Na2O-2OZnO-75TeO2 glasses.
14 presents the fluorescence spectra ofEr3~in tellurite, silicate and fluoride glasses. It indicates the sensitivity of fluorescence spectra on hosts, not only in
the fluorescence
wavelength buthave
alsobeen
the peak
width.
More thanpeak
50 compositions
prepared and their emission spectra were investigated.
A few typical samples are shown in Fig. 15. Unlike in
the silicate glasses, which show a great variety of
explain the smaller dependence on the glass modifiers. Note that the emission width in most tellurite
glasses is wider than in silicate based glasses.
3.3.2.4. Spectroscopic
Tm~4
34,properties
Nd34 andof
Pr34,
thulium (III)
Er earth ion, which has been intenionInisaddition
anothertorare
sively studied for use in optical amplifiers [41,421.
Both 2.3 jim (3H
3H
3F
3H
4~
5)and 1.88forjimchemical
( 4e sen6)
3
are attractive
emissions
in Tm
sing,
medical
and atmosphere transmission applications, and the 1.47 jim emission is near the third telecommunication window ofsilica fiber. Additionally,
Tm34 has a strong absorption band around 0.79 jim
200
Table 13
3 on glass composition.
Lifetime dependence of ~I,3,2~I,5f2
transition of Er
Composition (mole%);
Er
203 (wl%)
e, (ms)
(l00x)%Te02+x%;X=
e2 (ms)
e3 (ms)
PbO-B203-W03-La203
l5%B203
5%Nb205
lO%P2O5
l0%Ge02
25%W03
15%TiO2
0,99
1.29
1.15
0.1
1.22
1,19
1.65
2.64
3.08
3.91
4,03
4.10
5.29
5.74
2.59
3,13
4.15
4.49
4.22
6.14
5.88
2.64
3.22
4.42
5.05
4.42
6.51
6.08
7%La2O3
1.03
6.25
6.66
7.03
l0%Na20-lO%TiO2
18%Bi2O3
10%Bi203-l0%Ti02
1.29
1.42
1.04
6.45
6.98
7.15
6.45
7,13
8,06
6.49
7.37
9.03
30% BaO
1.16
7.88
7.37
7.62
12-
~~
0.8.
,,,,,,,,,,,
06
~ 54.
______
______
______
______
______
02-
01420 ~
1470
1~0
I ..
1670
1620~-,..
lb
3 in tellurite (x
), silicate
Fig.
(A) 14.
andThe
fluoride
fluorescence
glasses spectra
(0). of Er
1 4
______
_______
______
1.2
21 08
______
06
04
4)(
~
/ I
7,I
/
______
______
______
______
~-~
-.,~
0 ~
1430
N~
0.2
~
~
1480
1530
1580
Wavelength (om)
1630
1680
20-ZnO-Te02
glasses, R=Rb (l),Li (2), Cs (3),K(4), and Na (5).
3H
3F
( 6e 4) which is a convenient pumping wavelength for 3-doped
A1GaAs semiconductor
diode
Alsilica fiber lasers
[43]lasers.
and fluothough Tm
from
It
is clear
3H that the
3F dependencies on the concentration
creased
4 of
and
the
4 levels
0.2,as
0.4,
the0.8
concentration
and 1.6 wt%was
[46].
in34in
theorder
3H
3F
of Tm
4 and 4 emission intensities
are
3H
in opposite directions, that is, the relative 4 emission intensity decreases
3F with increasing Tm2O3 concentration,
theto the
4 emission
intensity
increases.
The
reason but
is due
existence
of a cross-relaxation process occurring between 3H 3F
4-+ 4 and
3H 3F
4. This3Fprocess results in two ions remaining
in 6.
the excited
tion of the 3H 4 state at the expense of the popula4 state and is usually referred to as the
two-for-one conversion,
illustrated in Fig.
16. Fig.
3asconcentration
increases
in
1 7 shows
the
order 0,that
0.2,the
0.4,Ho
0.8 and 1.6 wt% [46], while the
Tm3 concentration is held at 0.2 wt%. All peaks are
normalized with respect to the 1.47 jim peak. It is
clear that 1.8 jim Tm3 emission decreased remarkedly due to the increase ofthe Ho
2O3 concentra__________________________________
________________________________
1300
1400
1500
1600
1700 1800
Wavelength nm)
1900
2000
2100
3 at various concentrations in
BaO-Te0
Fig. 16. Emission spectra of Tm
2 glasses (1=0.2, 2=0.4, 3=0.8, 4= 1.6 wt% Tm203)
[46].
201
1
0,9
0,8
~O,7
.06
-~ 0.5
0 0.4
0,2
01300 1400
Silicate ~
09
__________
_______
__________
~Tellu6te
Emission
0.6
______
83
__________
1300
__________
__________
3F 3H 2200
Fig. 18 The3
absorption
andand
emission
in tellurite
silicatespectra
glasses.ofthe 4 6 transition ofTm
202
Table 14
Judd-Ofelt parameters, Q2= 5.7 0.4,
Q4=
1.40.3,
Q6=
3 in BaO-Te0
2 glass.
tr~d~abivn,
J.tS
)~(emission), nm
1800
2300
1470
800
Transition
3F 3H
3H4 3H6
3H,,3F
4 5
3H 3H4
4 6
4. Conclusions
Tellurite glasses possess (i) a reasonably wide
transmission region (0.355 jim), (ii) good glass
stability and corrosion resistance, (iii) a relatively low
phonon energy spectrum among oxide glass formers,
and (iv) high linear and nonlinear refractive indices.
We have studied the glass formation and properties
of rare earth ion doped tellurite glasses. Glass cornpositions based on Na20-ZnO-TeO2 showed excellent properties in terms of UV edge, chemical durability, rare earth solubility, stability, viscosity and
fiberization. Tellurite glass fiber with a loss less than
1 dB/m has been achieved by using the rod-in-tube
fabrication method. As compared with silicates, rare
earth elements in tellurite glass generally have lower
nonradiative decay rates, larger values of the radiative cross section (or transition strength), shorter
fluorescent lifetimes, and a red shift of the radiative
transitions. The emission spectra seem less sensitive
to glass modifiers
in tellurite glass than in silicate
3, Er3.
glass, i.e. Nd
Acknowledgement
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of
the Fiber Optic Materials Research Program at Rutgers and the New Jersey Commission on Science and
Technology.
References
[1] E. Snitzer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 7 (1961) 444.
[2] E. Snitzer and R. Woodcock, AppI. Phys. Lett. 6 (1965) 45.
[3]J.C.
Stone and CA. Burrus, Appi. Phys. Lett. 23 (1973)
388.
Branching ratio
1.00
0.015
0.086
0.899
1879
290
(1993).
[9] T. Miyajawa and DL. Dexter, Phys. Rev. B 1 (1970) 2961.
[10] P.C. Becker, MM. Broer, V.G. Lambrecht, A.J. Bruce and
G. Nykolak, Topical Meeting on Optical Amplifiers and
Their Applications, Santa Fe, NM, PDP5, (1992),
[11] K. Wei, D.P. Machewirth, J. Wenzel, E. Snitzer and G.H.
Sigel Jr., J. Non-Cryst. Solids (to be published).
[12] J.E. Stanworth, J. Soc. Glass Technol. 36 (1962) 217.
[13] N. Spector, R. Reisfeld and L. Boehm, Chem. Phys. Lett.
49 (1977) 49.
[l4]R. Reisfeld and L. Boehm, Chem. Phys. Lett. 49 (1977)
251.
115] J.S.
Wang,Society
EM. Vogel,
E. Snitzer
and
J.G.H. Sigel,
Ceramic
Annual
Meeting,
Cincinnati,
OHAmerican
(1993).
[161 J.S.
Wang,
Snitzer and G.H.J. Sigel, MRS Symp. Proc.,
Boston
MA E.(1991).
[l7]S.E. Stokowski, R.A. Saroyan and M.J. Weber, (ed), in:
Laser Glass Nd-Doped Glass Spectroscopic and Physical
Properties, M-95, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore (1981).
[18] E,H. Fontana, Am. Ceram. Soc. Bull. 49 (1970) 594.
[19] H. Hu and J.D. Mackenzie, J. Non-Cryst. Solids 54 (1983)
241.
[20] CT. Moynihan, DL. Gavin, K.H. Bruce, A.J. Drexhage and
OH, El-Bayoumi, Glas. Tech. Ber., 56K (Bd.2) (1983) 862.
[21] CT. Moynihan, A.J, Easteal, D.C. Tran, J.A. Wilder and
E.P. Donovan, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 59 (1976) 137.
[22] MG. Drexhage, O.H. El-Bayoumi, CT. Moynihan, A.J.
Bruce, K.H. Chung, DL. Gavin and iT. Loretz, J. Am.
Ceram. Soc. 65 (1982) c168.
[23] S. Shibata, M. Horiguchi, M. Jinguji, S. Mitachi, T,
Kanamori and T. Manabe, Electron. Lett. 17 (1981) 775.
[24] i.E. Townsend, S.B. Poole and D.N. Payne, Electron. Lett.
23(1987)329,
[251R. Tumminelli and E. Snitzer, US Patent 4, 826, 288.
203
[41 ] A.E. Neeves, A.J. Bruce, WA. Reed, EM. Rabinovich, W,H.
Grodkiewicz, NA. Kopylov, A. Lidgard and D.i,
DiGiovanni, Proceeding of the Symposium on Solid-State
Optical Materials, Cincinati, OH (1991).
[42] iN. Carter, R.G. Smart, AC. Tropper and D.C. Hanna, 7th
International Symposium on Halide Glasses, Lorne,
Victoria, Australia, Monash Univ., Clayton, Victoria,
Australia (1991).
[43] D.C. Hanna, R.M. Percival, R.G. Smart and AC. Tropper,
Optics Comm. 75 (1990) 283.
[44] G.H. Rosenblatt, R. Finther, J.R.C. Stone and L. Esterowitz,
OSA Proc. Tunable Solid State Laser Conference, Cape Cod,
Mass., p. 373 (1989).
[45]R. Pafchek, J. Aniano, E. Snitzer and G.H. Sigel Jr., MRS,
(1989).
[46] iS. Wang, E. Snitzer, EM. Vogel and i.G.H. Sigel, ICL93,
Connetict(l993).
[47] B. Cole and E. Snitzer, Fiber optical Materials Research
Fall
Meeting,
Piscataway,
NJ (1993).
[48] Program,
C.B. Layne,
W.H.
Lowdermilk
and Mi.
Weber, Phys. Rev.
B16 (1977) 10.
[49]M.Eyal,Chem.Phys.Lett.
117(1985)108.
[50] D.A. Pinnow, T.C. Rich, F.W. Ostermayer and M.
DiDomenico, Appl. Phys. Lett. 22 (1973) 527.
[51] R. Reisfeld, M. Eyal, M. JOrgensen, A.H. Guenther and B.
Bendow, Chimia 40 (1986) 403.
[52] A. Bornstein and R. Reisfeld, i. Noncryst. Solids 50 (1982)
23.
[53] Dumbaugh, Optical Engineering 24 (1985) 257,