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.

© 2006 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article


  • View by:
  • |
  • |
  • |

  1. S. M. Saltiel, O. Albert, A. Jullien, J. Etchepare, S. Kourtev, and N. Minkovski, Opt. Lett. 31, 2990 (2006).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Y. Chvykov, P. Rosseau, S. Reed, G. Kalinchenko, and V. Yanovsky, Opt. Lett. 31, 1456 (2006).
    [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. A. Jullien, O. Albert, G. Cheriaux, J. Etchepare, S. Kourtev, N. Minkovski, and S. M. Saltiel, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B 22, 2635 (2005).

2006 (2)

2005 (1)

Albert, O.

Cheriaux, G.

Chvykov, Y.

Etchepare, J.

Jullien, A.

Kalinchenko, G.

Kourtev, S.

Minkovski, N.

Reed, S.

Rosseau, P.

Saltiel, S. M.

Yanovsky, V.

Cited By

OSA participates in CrossRef's Cited-By Linking service. Citing articles from OSA journals and other participating publishers are listed here.

Alert me when this article is cited.