4.6 Article

Power Balance and Temperature in Optically Pumped Spasers and Nanolasers

期刊

ACS PHOTONICS
卷 5, 期 9, 页码 3695-3703

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsphotonics.8b00705

关键词

plasmonics; spasing; gain saturation; nanoparticle heating; power balance; light extraction efficiency; Kapitza resistance; core-shell spheroids

资金

  1. European Research Council (ERC) [257158]
  2. DARPA/DSO Extreme Optics and Imaging (EXTREME) Program [HR00111720032]
  3. Office of Naval Research Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative (ONR MURI) Grant Novel Nonlinear Optical Processes in Active, Random and Nanostructured Systems [MUM N00014-13-0649]
  4. project ADAPT
  5. Linz Institute of Technology (LIT)
  6. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [P 29603]
  7. Austrian Marshall Plan Foundation
  8. Internationalisierungsprogramm fur Studierende of Upper Austria

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spasers and nanolasers produce a significant amount of heat, which impedes their realizability. We numerically investigate the farfield emission and thermal load in optically pumped spasers with a coupled electro-magnetic/thermal model, including additional temperature discontinuities due to interfacial Kapitza resistance. This approach allows to explore multiple combinations of constitutive materials suitable for robust manufacturable spasers. Three main channels of heat generation are quantified: metal absorption at pumping and spasing wavelengths and nonradiative relaxations in the gain material. Out radiated power becomes comparable with absorption for spasers of realistic dimensions. Two optimized spaser configurations emitting light near 520 nm are compared in detail: prolate metal-core/gain-shell and an oblate gain-core/metal-shell. The metal-shell design, which with the increasing size transforms into a metal-clad nanolaser, achieves an internal light-extraction efficiency of 22.4%, and stably operates up to several hundred picoseconds, an order of magnitude longer than the metal-core spaser.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据