Next Article in Journal
A Multi-Point Sensor Based on Optical Fiber for the Measurement of Electrolyte Density in Lead-Acid Batteries
Next Article in Special Issue
Design and Instrumentation of a Measurement and Calibration System for an Acoustic Telemetry System
Previous Article in Journal
State-of-the-Art of (Bio)Chemical Sensor Developments in Analytical Spanish Groups
Previous Article in Special Issue
Stress Sensors and Signal Transducers in Cyanobacteria
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Comparison of Environmental Effects on Michelson and Fabry-Perot Interferometers Utilized for the Displacement Measurement

1
Institute of Mechanical Engineering, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, Douliou, Yunlin County 640, Taiwan
2
Institute of Mechanical and Electro-Mechanical Engineering, No.64, Wunhua Rd., Huwei Township, Yunlin County 632, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sensors 2010, 10(4), 2577-2586; https://doi.org/10.3390/s100402577
Submission received: 29 January 2010 / Revised: 10 March 2010 / Accepted: 16 March 2010 / Published: 24 March 2010
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Transducers)

Abstract

The optical structure of general commercial interferometers, e.g., the Michelson interferometers, is based on a non-common optical path. Such interferometers suffer from environmental effects because of the different phase changes induced in different optical paths and consequently the measurement precision will be significantly influenced by tiny variations of the environmental conditions. Fabry-Perot interferometers, which feature common optical paths, are insensitive to environmental disturbances. That would be advantageous for precision displacement measurements under ordinary environmental conditions. To verify and analyze this influence, displacement measurements with the two types of interferometers, i.e., a self-fabricated Fabry-Perot interferometer and a commercial Michelson interferometer, have been performed and compared under various environmental disturbance scenarios. Under several test conditions, the self-fabricated Fabry-Perot interferometer was obviously less sensitive to environmental disturbances than a commercial Michelson interferometer. Experimental results have shown that induced errors from environmental disturbances in a Fabry-Perot interferometer are one fifth of those in a Michelson interferometer. This has proved that an interferometer with the common optical path structure will be much more independent of environmental disturbances than those with a non-common optical path structure. It would be beneficial for the solution of interferometers utilized for precision displacement measurements in ordinary measurement environments.
Keywords: environmental effects; common optical path; Fabry-Perot interferometer; displacement measurement environmental effects; common optical path; Fabry-Perot interferometer; displacement measurement

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Wang, Y.-C.; Shyu, L.-H.; Chang, C.-P. The Comparison of Environmental Effects on Michelson and Fabry-Perot Interferometers Utilized for the Displacement Measurement. Sensors 2010, 10, 2577-2586. https://doi.org/10.3390/s100402577

AMA Style

Wang Y-C, Shyu L-H, Chang C-P. The Comparison of Environmental Effects on Michelson and Fabry-Perot Interferometers Utilized for the Displacement Measurement. Sensors. 2010; 10(4):2577-2586. https://doi.org/10.3390/s100402577

Chicago/Turabian Style

Wang, Yung-Cheng, Lih-Horng Shyu, and Chung-Ping Chang. 2010. "The Comparison of Environmental Effects on Michelson and Fabry-Perot Interferometers Utilized for the Displacement Measurement" Sensors 10, no. 4: 2577-2586. https://doi.org/10.3390/s100402577

APA Style

Wang, Y.-C., Shyu, L.-H., & Chang, C.-P. (2010). The Comparison of Environmental Effects on Michelson and Fabry-Perot Interferometers Utilized for the Displacement Measurement. Sensors, 10(4), 2577-2586. https://doi.org/10.3390/s100402577

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop