Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 29 references

A Simple and Novel Passive Double-Sensitivity Optical Gyroscope Based on Non-Reciprocal Polarization Techniques

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A fiber-optic gyroscope with no active modulator can be biased at two quadrature points at once, and its simulated angular random walk is up to 50x below a conventional double-sensitivity gyroscope.

desk verdict The analytical core is clean and the double-pass passive-bias architecture is genuinely new, but the headline 50x ARW improvement is an unsupported simulation result that should be treated with caution. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.03498 v1 pith:WRWZC6PH submitted 2025-06-04 physics.app-ph physics.optics

Onder Akcaalan , Melike Gumus Akcaalan This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.app-phphysics.optics PACS 42.81.Pa
keywords interferometricfiberopticgyroscopepassivephasebiasingnon-reciprocalpolarizationshifterdoublesensitivityquadraturedetectionangularrandomwalkSagnaceffectnoisecancellation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper claims that an interferometric fiber-optic gyroscope (IFOG) can be made double-sensitive and fully passive at the same time, replacing the standard active phase modulator with a non-reciprocal polarization-dependent phase shifter (NRPPS) in a double-pass sensing coil. The shifter biases the two counter-propagating beams at two quadrature points at once, $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$, which the paper says yields continuous rotation readout and built-in noise cancellation with no moving or electronically driven parts. If the claim is right, precision navigation gyroscopes could shed their most failure-prone and power-hungry component, the modulator, along with its control electronics and thermal stabilization. The evidence is an analytic Jones-matrix model plus a simulation reporting angular random walk (ARW) values 15x to 50x lower than a conventional double-sensitive IFOG depending on coil length, and these numbers are not yet backed by a built prototype.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing component is the Non-Reciprocal Polarization-Dependent Phase Shifter (NRPPS): a chain of collimators, polarization-rotation elements, and a quarter-wave retarder placed between two polarization beam splitters in the double-pass loop. Its Jones-matrix action rotates the CW beam from vertical to horizontal polarization and the CCW beam from horizontal to vertical as they pass, and the retarder, oriented at $R_1 = 45^\circ$, contributes a phase $\phi_r = \pi/2$ that enters with opposite sign for the two propagation directions—a reciprocal element made effectively non-reciprocal by the geometry. The double-pass coil multiplies the Sagnac phase by two, while the two outputs PD2 (which carries an extra $\pi$ from the 2×2 coupler) and PD3 land at $3\pi/2$ and $\pi/2$, delivering quadrature readings of the same rotation signal. The remaining mechanism is a tunable fiber delay, set to 3 m in the simulation, between the two detector paths; the simulation uses this delay so that combining PD2 and PD3 cancels noise that is common to both quadrature readings.

What would settle it

Build the DS-NRPPS-IFOG with a 2000 m coil on a rate table and measure the Allan deviation of the rotation output next to a conventional DS-IFOG using the same source, coil, and detectors. The central claim fails if the measured ARW is far from the simulated 0.000008°/√hr, or does not clearly beat the DS-IFOG's 0.000410°/√hr, or if scanning the PD2–PD3 delay from 3 m to 100 m does not reproduce the monotonic degradation reported in Table 2. A cheaper check: re-run the simulation with identical two-cycle averaging applied to both designs; if the reported 50x ratio collapses, the sampling assumption is carrying the result.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the DS-NRPPS-IFOG is the first double-sensitivity IFOG with a fully passive $\pi/2$ phase bias, operating simultaneously at the quadrature points $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$. In the proposed layout the clockwise and counter-clockwise beams each traverse the sensing coil twice and pass through a non-reciprocal polarization phase shifter whose quarter-wave retarder imposes a relative phase $\phi_r=\pi/2$; because the two beams meet the shifter in opposite directions, the bias adds rather than cancels. The two output ports then carry the same Sagnac signal at complementary quadratures, PD2 sitting at $3\pi/2$ and PD3 at $\pi/2$, and can be read individually or combined. The paper reports simulated ARW values of 0.00025°/√hr at 200 m, 0.00002°/√hr at 1000 m, and 0.000008°/√hr at 2000 m, which it states are roughly 15x, 40x, and 50x lower than the conventional DS-IFOG at the same lengths, and it argues that a tunable temporal offset between the two detector outputs suppresses common noise without active electronics.

Load-bearing premise

The claimed noise advantage rests on two unmeasured assumptions made in the simulation section: that this design may legitimately sample once per coil pass while the comparison DS-IFOG must average over two passes, and that a tunable 3 m fiber delay between the PD2 and PD3 signals cancels their common noise without canceling the rotation signal—and the noise model itself is inherited from the authors' earlier NRPPS-IFOG simulation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At a 2000 m coil, the DS-NRPPS-IFOG simulates an ARW of 0.000008°/√hr, roughly 50x below the conventional DS-IFOG's 0.000410°/√hr.
  • Because a measurement is extracted from each coil pass, the gyroscope yields continuous rotation readout instead of one averaged sample every two cycles.
  • Dual quadrature detection at $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$ cancels detector noise without active electronics, removing the modulator, its driver circuitry, its power draw, and its drift and failure modes.
  • Performance degrades monotonically as the PD2–PD3 delay grows—ARW rises from 0.000008°/√hr at 3 m to 0.000045°/√hr at 100 m—so the delay is a tunable design parameter.
  • The same passive non-reciprocal bias is proposed as a replacement for active modulation in other optical gyroscopes, and the two orthogonal polarizations in the coil are cited as a route to suppressing Shupe thermal and Faraday magnetic bias errors.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A rate-table experiment that records PD2 and PD3 simultaneously and combines them with a scanned delay would test the noise-cancellation premise directly; the simulated gain depends on the two paths' noise being genuinely common-mode.
  • Because the double-pass section only adds a PBS, a 90° splice, and the NRPPS to the standard minimum configuration, the architecture could be retrofitted into existing DS-IFOGs as an upgrade path rather than requiring a new instrument family.
  • The monotonic ARW penalty with longer delay suggests the offset is a noise-correlation knob: short delays keep the two quadrature readings correlated, long delays decorrelate them, and an experimental ARW-versus-delay curve would locate the optimum that the simulation does not scan finely.
  • A dual-polarization variant, built as the paper hints, makes a concrete testable prediction: drift under a thermal gradient and under a magnetic field should shrink relative to a single-polarization DS-IFOG made from the same parts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a passive interferometric fiber-optic gyroscope architecture, the DS-NRPPS-IFOG, in which a non-reciprocal polarization-dependent phase shifter and a quarter-wave retarder provide a π/2 phase bias while the sensing coil is double-passed for increased sensitivity. The authors present intensity equations for two photodetector outputs, a Jones-matrix derivation of the bias, and simulations comparing the angular random walk (ARW) of the proposed design with a conventional DS-IFOG for 200 m, 1000 m, and 2000 m fiber coils. The reported ARW improvements range from about 15x to 50x, with the largest improvement depending on a tunable temporal offset between the two detector signals.

Significance. If the analytic phase-bias derivation is correct, the idea of obtaining simultaneous quadrature outputs without active modulation is a useful contribution; the intensity equations (1)-(8) are algebraically correct, and the Jones-matrix result (17)-(22) is consistent with a passive π/2 bias. The paper also clearly identifies the potential advantage of eliminating active modulators. However, the headline quantitative claim of 15x-50x ARW improvement is entirely a simulation result whose key assumptions are not derived or independently validated. No experimental data are presented, and the simulation relies on a custom MATLAB code and a noise model inherited from a self-cited preprint, making the central performance claim difficult to assess and currently unsupported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Simulation section (Table 1)] The claimed 15x-50x ARW improvement rests on the unexplained assertion that the conventional DS-IFOG obtains one averaged data point per two coil cycles while the DS-NRPPS-IFOG obtains one per coil cycle. Because both systems use the same double-pass coil and the stated sampling interval is 'consistent across all system configurations,' the physical origin of this factor-of-two sampling advantage is not apparent and is not derived from the optical propagation. This sampling asymmetry directly enters the ARW comparison, so the comparison is not a controlled one unless the authors provide a first-principles derivation of the attainable sampling rate for each architecture.
  2. [Table 2 and adjacent text] The temporal offset between PD2 and PD3 is varied from 3 m to 100 m, and the ARW changes by about a factor of 5.6 (from 0.000008 to 0.000045 deg/sqrt(hr) for the 2000 m coil), with the best value at the shortest offset. No physical criterion is given for choosing the 3 m delay, no signal-processing formula is provided for how the two detector signals are combined, and no explanation is given for how a 3 m fiber delay cancels noise. Reporting only the best-case offset as the headline ARW is therefore a tuning result, not a demonstrated property of the architecture.
  3. [Simulation methods (noise model)] The simulation uses a custom MATLAB code and a noise model whose details are said to be 'already given in NRPPS-IFOG paper [23],' a self-cited preprint that is not reproduced or summarized here. Since the entire performance comparison is a simulation output, the lack of a self-contained description of the noise model, detector parameters, source parameters, and signal-processing chain prevents independent reproduction or verification. The paper should either include the full noise model and parameters or provide the simulation code so that the ARW values can be checked.
  4. [Jones derivation and detection model] The Jones calculation in Eqs. (17)-(22) computes only the polarization and phase-bias behavior of the CW and CCW fields; the Sagnac phase φ_i is not included in that calculation. The intensity equations (1)-(8), on the other hand, are written separately and assume equal amplitudes and a particular phase relationship. The connection between the Jones-derived bias and the two-detector intensities is asserted rather than derived, leaving a gap between the analytic model and the simulation. A complete derivation should show how the Sagnac phase enters the two outputs of the actual component sequence, including the effect of the double pass.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] There are several typos and grammatical errors, for example 'comparion' in the Introduction, 'first double sensitivite IFOG configuration,' and 'an quarter-wave plate.' These should be corrected.
  2. [Eq. (11)] The Jones matrix for the PBS is given as the identity matrix, which does not represent a polarization splitter. The authors should clarify whether this is an idealized model in which each PBS port transmits only one polarization and define the port-specific projection matrices explicitly.
  3. [Eqs. (18) and (21)] The matrix multiplication notation in Eqs. (18) and (21) is difficult to read because of the repeated 'JP BS∗' factors and the lack of brackets. Please rewrite these products with clear grouping and define the order of multiplication along the optical path.
  4. [Table 2 caption] The caption of Table 2 reads 'Rotation Rates' but the table lists ARW values as a function of temporal offset, not rotation rates. The caption should be changed to reflect the actual content.
  5. [Simulation section] The phrase 'one data point per modulation cycle after averaging over the entire cycle' is ambiguous. The authors should define what a 'cycle' means in terms of coil transit time and clarify how 'averaging over the entire cycle' is consistent with capturing 'a single data sample at approximately 1/c intervals.'
  6. [References] The paper relies heavily on the authors' own preprint [23] for the noise model and prior results. To make the manuscript self-contained, the key parameters and assumptions from that work should be summarized in this paper rather than referenced only.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The 50x ARW improvement is not a derived prediction: it is the best result of tuning the PD2-PD3 temporal offset (Table 2) and relies on a noise model and DS-IFOG baseline inherited from the authors' own prior preprint [23].

  1. fitted input called prediction [Simulation section, temporal-offset paragraph and Table 2 (offset sweep for the 2000 m coil)]
    "Furthermore, the ability to fine-tune the temporal offset between the outputs of PD2 and PD3 allows for improved noise suppression. Our simulation results highlight that the system’s overall performance is highly sensitive to this temporal offset, as detailed in Table 2. ... ARW − 3m. 0.000008◦/√hr; ARW − 20m. 0.000020◦/√hr; ARW − 50m. 0.000032◦/√hr; ARW − 100m. 0.000045◦/√hr."

    The headline up-to-50x ARW improvement is taken from the 3 m row of Table 2, which is the best of the four offsets tabulated. The paper gives no physical criterion for choosing 3 m; it only states that the offset can be 'fine-tuned' and that performance is 'highly sensitive' to it. The reported ARW is therefore an optimized value of a swept simulation parameter, not a quantity predicted by the optical model. Presenting this best-case tuning outcome as the validated performance of the architecture makes the claimed improvement an artifact of the tuning, i.e., the parameter is selected to minimize the very ARW value that is then reported as the result. No experimental or independent first-principles check of the noise cancellation is provided.

  2. self citation load bearing [Simulation section, paragraphs on custom MATLAB code and baseline comparison]
    "The simulations were conducted using a custom MATLAB code, which was also utilized in the previous study on NRPPS-IFOG and the details for the optical source is already given in NRPPS-IFOG paper [23]. ... Additionally, for comparison of the results between the conventional IFOG and DS versions, one can check it from our previous paper [23]."

    The quantitative comparison supporting the central claim is not derived or reproduced in this paper. The optical source and noise model in the custom code, the temporal-offset noise-cancellation mechanism, and the DS-IFOG baseline ARW values used to form the 15x/40x/50x ratios are all deferred to reference [23], a preprint by the same two authors. The paper's own Jones-matrix derivation (Eqs. 17-22) establishes only the quadrature outputs; it does not establish the ARW difference. Since the load-bearing performance claim rests on that unverified self-cited simulation rather than on an external benchmark, code reproduction, or experiment, the central result is supported by a self-citation chain.

full rationale

The analytic phase-bias derivation is self-contained: given the retarder setting φr = π/2, the Jones calculus yields outputs at quadrature (Eqs. 17-22), so that part of the paper is not circular. The circularity is confined to the performance simulation. Table 2 reports that ARW improves as the PD2-PD3 temporal offset is reduced, and the headline 50x figure is the best 3 m row of that sweep; because no independent criterion selects 3 m, the improvement is an optimized output of the swept parameter rather than an architectural prediction. In addition, the simulation's noise model, source parameters, the temporal-offset noise-cancellation idea, and the DS-IFOG baseline used to compute the 15x/40x/50x ratios are all deferred to the authors' own prior preprint [23], which is not independently reproduced. The sampling-rate asymmetry asserted in the same simulation paragraph (one averaged point per two coil cycles for DS-IFOG versus one per cycle for DS-NRPPS-IFOG) is an unsupported modeling assumption rather than a circular reduction, so it is flagged here as a correctness risk but not counted as a separate circular step. Overall, the dual-quadrature phase-bias contribution is independent, while the central quantitative claim is partially forced by tuning and by self-citation, hence the score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central phase-bias result relies on standard interferometry and ideal-component assumptions. The ARW improvement relies on the authors' unpublished simulation noise model and on an assumed sampling advantage. The temporal offset is a tunable parameter adjusted to minimize ARW. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • Temporal offset between PD2 and PD3 signals = 3 m (range 3-100 m tested)
    The ARW is highly sensitive to this offset (Table 2); the best value is used for the headline 50x claim.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Standard Jones calculus and interference laws apply to all components
    Used in Eqs. (1)-(8) and (17)-(22) to compute output intensities and polarizations.
  • domain assumption All optical components are ideal (lossless, perfect polarization extinction, no cross-coupling)
    The Jones matrices in Eqs. (11)-(16) assume ideal components; nonidealities could perturb the π/2 phase bias and reduce performance.
  • domain assumption The noise model from the authors' prior work [23] accurately represents both DS-IFOG and DS-NRPPS-IFOG
    The simulation details are deferred to ref [23]; there is no independent validation of this noise model.
  • ad hoc to paper The DS-NRPPS can sample once per coil cycle while the conventional DS-IFOG must average over two cycles
    This sampling difference is asserted without physical or electrical justification and heavily influences the ARW improvement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Simple and Novel Passive Double-Sensitivity Optical Gyroscope Based on Non-Reciprocal Polarization Techniques." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WRWZC6PH

@misc{pith2026250603498,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Simple and Novel Passive Double-Sensitivity Optical Gyroscope Based on Non-Reciprocal Polarization Techniques},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WRWZC6PH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.03498}
}
abstract

This paper presents a novel interferometric fiber optic gyroscope (IFOG) architecture, the Double-Sensitive Non-Reciprocal Polarization Phase Shifter IFOG (DS-NRPPS-IFOG), which introduces for the first time a fully passive phase biasing scheme capable of simultaneous operation at two quadrature points $\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$. Building upon prior passive biasing techniques, this design uses a Non-Reciprocal Polarization-Dependent Phase Shifter (NRPPS) combined with a double-pass sensing coil arrangement to achieve both passive $\pi/2$ phase modulation and enhanced measurement sensitivity. The system utilizes polarization manipulation and a quarter-wave retarder to create a double-sensitive response while eliminating the need for active modulators. Simulation results demonstrate significant performance improvements, with Angular Random Walk (ARW) values up to 50x lower than those of conventional DS-IFOG systems, depending on fiber length. Moreover, the architecture enables continuous rotation measurements and offers spontaneous noise suppression by leveraging dual quadrature detection. These findings mark a major advancement toward low-power, highly stable, and compact passive optical gyroscopes for precision navigation applications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.03498 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The minimum configuration of DS-IFOG setup [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A Non-Reciprocal Polarization Phase Shifter based DS-IFOG system called DS-NRPPS-IFOG. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Output signals of PD2 and PD3 section for DS-NRPPS-IFOG which is similar to NRPPS-IFOG, while rest [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: CW and CCW beam paths for Double Sensitive Non-Reciprocal Polarization Phase Shifter Design [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

  1. [23]

    Phase Biasing System for Optical Gyroscope Using Passive Non-Reciprocal Polarization Techniques

    Onder A. and Melike G. A. Phase biasing system for optical gyroscope using passive non-reciprocal polarization techniques. arXiv, 2505.19331, 2025

    work page Pith review arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Fiber optic gyros for space, marine, and aviation applications

    Glen A Sanders, Bogdan Szafraniec, Ren-Young Liu, Clarence L Laskoskie, Lee K Strandjord, and George Weed. Fiber optic gyros for space, marine, and aviation applications. Fiber Optic Gyros: 20th Anniversary Conference, 2837:61–71, 1996

    work page 1996

  3. [2]

    The fiber-optic gyroscope: Challenges to become the ultimate rotation-sensing technology

    Hervé C Lefèvre. The fiber-optic gyroscope: Challenges to become the ultimate rotation-sensing technology. Optical Fiber Technology, 19(6):828–832, 2013

    work page 2013

  4. [3]

    Interferometric closed-loop fiber-optic gyroscopes

    Y N Korkishko, V A Fedorov, Victor E Prilutskii, V G Ponomarev, I V Morev, and S M Kostritskii. Interferometric closed-loop fiber-optic gyroscopes. In Third Asia Pacific Optical Sensors Conference , volume 8351, pages 810–817. SPIE, 2012

    work page 2012

  5. [4]

    Fiber optic sensor technology: an overview

    Kenneth TV Grattan and T Sun. Fiber optic sensor technology: an overview. Sensors and Actuators A: Physical, 82(1-3):40–61, 2000

    work page 2000

  6. [5]

    L’éther lumineux démontré par l’effet du vent relatif d’éther dans un interféromètre en rotation uniforme

    Georges Sagnac. L’éther lumineux démontré par l’effet du vent relatif d’éther dans un interféromètre en rotation uniforme. CR Acad. Sci., 157:708–710, 1913

    work page 1913

  7. [6]

    The fiber-optic gyroscope

    Herve C Lefevre. The fiber-optic gyroscope. Artech house, 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [7]

    Research on multiple-integrated- optic-chip of re-entrant fiber optic gyro

    Xianhui Mao, Qian Tian, Enyao Zhang, Liqun Sun, Yunhe Teng, and Jinjiang Liu. Research on multiple-integrated- optic-chip of re-entrant fiber optic gyro. In Opto-Ireland 2005: Optical Sensing and Spectroscopy, volume 5826, pages 636–644. SPIE, 2005. 8 arXiv Template A PREPRINT

    work page 2005

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    The compensation of y waveguide temperature drifts in fog with the thermal resistor

    Ying Li Wang, Li Yong Ren, Jin Tao Xu, Jian Liang, Meng Hua Kang, Kai Li Ren, and Nian Bao Shi. The compensation of y waveguide temperature drifts in fog with the thermal resistor. Advanced Materials Research, 924:336–342, 2014

    2014

  2. [9]

    Temperature dependence of the polarization, dielectric constant, damping constant and the relaxation time close to the ferroelectric-paraelectric phase transition in linbo3

    A Kiraci and HASAN Yurtseven. Temperature dependence of the polarization, dielectric constant, damping constant and the relaxation time close to the ferroelectric-paraelectric phase transition in linbo3. Optik, 132:183– 191, 2017

    2017

  3. [10]

    Influence of the modulation phase error on bias error in interferometric fiber optic gyroscope

    Ran Bi, Xuan She, Xiaowu Shu, and Cheng Liu. Influence of the modulation phase error on bias error in interferometric fiber optic gyroscope. Optical Engineering, 57(8):087104–087104, 2018

    2018

  4. [11]

    Study of modulation phase drift in an interferometric fiber optic gyroscope.Optical Engineering, 49(11):114401–114401, 2010

    Wei Wang and Junlong Wang. Study of modulation phase drift in an interferometric fiber optic gyroscope.Optical Engineering, 49(11):114401–114401, 2010

    2010

  5. [12]

    Study on the drift of modulated phase in interference fiber optic gyroscope

    Feng Sun, Lihui Wang, Gang Wang, and Gang Liu. Study on the drift of modulated phase in interference fiber optic gyroscope. J. Comput., 5(3):394–400, 2010

    2010

  6. [13]

    Simultaneous suppression of thermal phase noise and relative intensity noise in a fiber-optic gyroscope

    Nobuyuki Takei, Martin Miranda, Yuki Miyazawa, and Mikio Kozuma. Simultaneous suppression of thermal phase noise and relative intensity noise in a fiber-optic gyroscope. IEEE Sensors Journal, 23(3):2249–2254, 2023

    2023

  7. [14]

    Modeling of thermal phase noise in a solid core photonic crystal fiber-optic gyroscope

    Ningfang Song, Kun Ma, Jing Jin, Fei Teng, and Wei Cai. Modeling of thermal phase noise in a solid core photonic crystal fiber-optic gyroscope. Sensors, 17(11):2456, 2017

    2017

  8. [15]

    Passive fiber optic gyroscope

    Gert F Trommer, Hans Poisel, Wolfhardt Buhler, Engelbert Hartl, and Reinhard Muller. Passive fiber optic gyroscope. Applied optics, 29(36):5360–5365, 1990

    1990

  9. [16]

    Passive fog imu for short-range missile application: from qualification toward series production

    Gert F Trommer, R Mueller, and S Opitz. Passive fog imu for short-range missile application: from qualification toward series production. In Fiber Optic Gyros: 20th Anniversary Conference, volume 2837, pages 124–131. SPIE, 1996

    1996

  10. [17]

    Fiber-optic gyroscope with [3 × 3] directional coupler

    Sang K Sheem. Fiber-optic gyroscope with [3 × 3] directional coupler. Applied Physics Letters, 37(10):869, 1980

    1980

  11. [18]

    Single polarization optical fiber and its applications

    H Kajioka and H Matsumura. Single polarization optical fiber and its applications. Hitachi review, 33(4):215–218, 1984

    1984

  12. [19]

    Passively biased fiber-optic gyroscope and current sensor, March 16 2010

    Hung-chia Huang. Passively biased fiber-optic gyroscope and current sensor, March 16 2010. US Patent 7,679,753

    2010

  13. [20]

    A kind of implementation method of pi/2 phase bias of optical fiber interferometer, 2009

    Bo Jia. A kind of implementation method of pi/2 phase bias of optical fiber interferometer, 2009. CN-101608930- A

    2009

  14. [21]

    Passive topologically biased sagnac interferometer as a rotational sensor capable of sensing magnitude and direction of rotation, November 21 2024

    Farhad Hakimi and Hosain Hakimi. Passive topologically biased sagnac interferometer as a rotational sensor capable of sensing magnitude and direction of rotation, November 21 2024. US Patent App. 18/198,230

    2024

  15. [22]

    Energy-efficient optic gyroscope devices, November 29 2016

    Xiaotian Steve Yao. Energy-efficient optic gyroscope devices, November 29 2016. US Patent 9,506,759

    2016

  16. [24]

    Dual-polarization interferometric fiber optic gyroscope with shupe effect compensation

    Yuwen Cao, Lanxin Zhu, Fangshuo Shi, Yanjun Chen, Xinyu Cao, Wenbo Wang, Huimin Huang, Xiangdong Ma, and Zhengbin Li. Dual-polarization interferometric fiber optic gyroscope with shupe effect compensation. Applied Physics Letters, 123(1), 2023

    2023

  17. [25]

    Drift suppression in a dual-polarization fiber optic gyroscope caused by the faraday effect

    Pan Liu, Xuyou Li, Xingxing Guang, Zhenlong Xu, Weiwei Ling, and Hanrui Yang. Drift suppression in a dual-polarization fiber optic gyroscope caused by the faraday effect. Optics Communications, 394:122–128, 2017

    2017

  18. [26]

    Fiber-optic gyroscope for the suppression of a faraday-effect-induced bias error

    Aylin Yertutanol, Önder Akçaalan, Serdar Ö˘güt, Ekmel Özbay, and Abdullah Ceylan. Fiber-optic gyroscope for the suppression of a faraday-effect-induced bias error. Optics Letters, 46(17):4328–4331, 2021

    2021

  19. [27]

    Fiber gyroscope with a double sensitivity employing a polarization splitter

    Kejiang Zhou, Shuming Pan, Shujun Liu, and Keke Hu. Fiber gyroscope with a double sensitivity employing a polarization splitter. Optics Letters, 38(8):1337–1339, 2013

    2013

  20. [28]

    Open-loop fiber-optic gyroscope with a double sensitivity employing a polarization splitter and faraday rotator mirror

    Weiran Wu, Kejiang Zhou, Chengjie Lu, and Tuohua Xian. Open-loop fiber-optic gyroscope with a double sensitivity employing a polarization splitter and faraday rotator mirror. Optics Letters, 43(23):5861–5864, 2018

    2018

  21. [29]

    A novel approach to double the sensitivity of polarization maintaining interferometric fiber optic gyroscope

    Dengwei Zhang, Cui Liang, and Nan Li. A novel approach to double the sensitivity of polarization maintaining interferometric fiber optic gyroscope. Sensors, 20(13):3762, 2020. 9

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.