Abstract
We show that the Comment of Albert et al. [Opt. Lett.31, 2990 (2006)], although being only marginally relevant to the content of the original paper [Opt. Lett.31, 1456 (2006)], misinterprets our results and leads to a wrong conclusion: that the rotation of the second crystal in the double-crystal scheme is unimportant. On the contrary, it follows from the Comment itself as well as from our experiment that the crystal rotation is the main factor in improving the efficiency.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
