CERN | AMS | Aerogel News

2.2 Optical measurements and choice of manufacturer

2.2.2 Comparison of optical quality


In order to compare the measurements of transmission between the two samples (i.e. Matsushita Electric and Novosibirsk) we calculate the absorption coefficient m (eq.2-3). Since, both samples have very low indices of refraction, the correction due to surface reflectivity is negligible. Indeed, the reflectivity on any surface is given by:

. . . 2-4

Then, the measured transmission (T) relates to the corrected transmission (t) by:

. . . 2-5

The fact that neither transmission curve exhibits strong absorption bands at the wavelength range measured, leads us to believe that the light absorption is not due to chemical absorption but, rather, due to a continuous scattering mechanism. Therefore, we treat both samples as having the same composition but we scale for the difference in density (~ 60% higher density of the Novosibirsk sample). Figure 2-3 shows the absorption coefficient for both samples as a function of wavelength. In this plot, we have used the transmission curves measured in August 1996, since the transmission of the Novosibirsk sample was significantly higher (curve (A) of fig. 2-2)

Figure 2-3 Absorption coefficient as a function of wavelength. The Novosibirsk sample was measured in August 1996.


Issue: Draft - Revision: 04 - Last Modified: 20 April 1997