Accuracy of an Optical Spectrum Analyzer (OSA)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the accuracy of an Optical Spectrum Analyzer (OSA), specifically questioning the reported level accuracy of 0.4 dB. The user expresses confusion about how this accuracy translates to measurements near 1 mW versus much lower power levels, noting that the relative error appears to vary significantly. Clarifications reveal that accuracy specifications can be linear with input levels, and the choice of expressing accuracy in dB versus absolute measures can depend on the measurement context. The minimum detectable power for the OSA is confirmed to be -65 dBm, and the conversation highlights the importance of understanding how accuracy specifications relate to different power levels. Ultimately, recognizing the linear relationship between accuracy and input levels resolves the user's concerns.
zambadeos
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hey!
I've a simple (and maybe stupid) question about the accuracy of an OSA. The datasheet report a level accuracy of 0.4 dB but this seems quite strange to me. Indeed level measurements are done in dBm thus, as long as dB measures a relative power, I assume that even the 0.4 dB are referred to 1 mW as in the case of dBm. Am I correct?
If yes what sounds strange to me is that if I measure a power near to 1 mW than the relative error will be quite high (I'm measuring something like 0 dBm) and as the power that I'm measuring decreases also the relative error decreases.
An example to explain my problem:
1) P=0.4 dBm, the relative error is equal to 100%. Expressed in mW means that I'm measuring a power of 1.096 mW
2) P=-65 dBm (the minimum detectable level for my OSA), the relative error is equal to 0.6%. Expressed in watt: P= (0.316 \pm 0.002)~nW, that would mean an accuracy of 2 pW: quite amazing!

So where is the bug in my reasoning?

Thanks to everyone
 
Science news on Phys.org
Hello
It might be a good idea to give a reference to that particular data sheet. I agree that what you seem to have read is a bit confusing. There should be some indication of the lowest power value it can register, at least.
 
Ok, my OSA is MS9710C from Anritsu, you can find the datasheet here (appendix A).
In any case the minimum detectable power should be -65 dBm as i wrote above (for the sake of completeness i have to say that it changes accordingly to the wavelength range in which you are working, but we can focus on that value). Maybe my example is not correct because I'm working at the lower limit of my detector but the conceptual problem is still present even if we consider an higher value.
Moreover I've read datasheets from some other osa and i saw that is quite common to express accuracy in terms of dB, so there must be an error in my reasoning!
In any case thank you for the answer!
 
It's been a while since I've used this type of instrument, but the level specification (page A-3) is given as +/- 0.4 dB with an input level of -23 dB. Since the linearity spec is +/- 0.05 dB with input levels between -50 and 0 dB, I expect the accuracy spec to be approximately linear with changing input levels- curse you, log scales!
 
  • Like
Likes zambadeos
zambadeos said:
that is quite common to express accuracy in terms of dB,
...and why not? It's only an alternative to percentage for showing the ratio. On a dB scale, it'd really just what you want, I would have thought. You could argue that, in many measurements, the uncertainty is often the same, whatever scale you are using - so it would be more appropriate to use an absolute measure of accuracy. In the end, the choice would depend upon what is being measured and the method being used.
 
Thank you very much for the answers.
Andy Resnick you get the solution to my problem, i didn't thought about a linear relation between the accuracy and the input level but it seems to be the right answer :wink::wink:
 
Thread 'A quartet of epi-illumination methods'
Well, it took almost 20 years (!!!), but I finally obtained a set of epi-phase microscope objectives (Zeiss). The principles of epi-phase contrast is nearly identical to transillumination phase contrast, but the phase ring is a 1/8 wave retarder rather than a 1/4 wave retarder (because with epi-illumination, the light passes through the ring twice). This method was popular only for a very short period of time before epi-DIC (differential interference contrast) became widely available. So...
I am currently undertaking a research internship where I am modelling the heating of silicon wafers with a 515 nm femtosecond laser. In order to increase the absorption of the laser into the oxide layer on top of the wafer it was suggested we use gold nanoparticles. I was tasked with modelling the optical properties of a 5nm gold nanoparticle, in particular the absorption cross section, using COMSOL Multiphysics. My model seems to be getting correct values for the absorption coefficient and...
Back
Top