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.

© 2006 Optical Society of America

Full Article  |  PDF Article

References

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Citation lists with outbound citation links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Cited By

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Cited by links are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription

Metrics

You do not have subscription access to this journal. Article level metrics are available to subscribers only. You may subscribe either as an OSA member, or as an authorized user of your institution.

Contact your librarian or system administrator
or
Login to access OSA Member Subscription