4.5 Article

Optimal design and validation of atom trapping and atomic storage time for active hydrogen maser

期刊

REVIEW OF SCIENTIFIC INSTRUMENTS
卷 92, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/5.0037945

关键词

-

资金

  1. Space System Department of China [QTGJYZX01]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [11772202]
  3. State Administration for Science, Technology, and Industry for National Defense of China [JCKY2017130C304]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study determined the optimal atomic storage time for a hydrogen maser by adjusting the atomic beam intensity and optimizing collisional relaxation times. Under specific conditions, a high frequency stability of 0.95 x 10(-15) was achieved at 1000 seconds.
From microwave atomic clocks to light clocks, atomic or ionic clocks often rely on atom or ion trapping or manipulation technology. Trapping hydrogen (H) atoms in atomic storage bulbs (ASBs) is one of the key technologies of H atomic clocks. H atoms remain in an ASB for some time during which they undergo several relaxation processes (including spin-exchange collision relaxation, atom-wall collision relaxation, and magnetic-field inhomogeneity relaxation) and interact with the electromagnetic field within the resonant cavity in the TE011 mode, giving rise to continuous atomic transitions and self-oscillations. In this study, an optimal atomic storage time T-b for a H maser was determined by optimizing various collisional relaxation times of the atomic ensemble and reducing the width of the atomic resonance line through the continuously adjustable length and radius of the opening of an ASB at various atomic beam intensities xi (which is the number of atoms in the atomic beam), namely, 3 x 10(12) atoms/s, 4 x 10(12) atoms/s, and 5 x 10(12) atoms/s, while keeping the structural properties and physical conditions of the H maser unchanged. For xi = 5 x 10(12) atoms/s and T-b approximate to 0.8 s, a frequency stability of 0.95 x 10(-15) could be achieved at 1000 s.

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

4.5
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