Theory of Isoperibol Calorimetry for Laser Power and Energy Measurements

1970 ◽  
Vol 41 (6) ◽  
pp. 2705-2712 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. D. West ◽  
K. L. Churney
Keyword(s):  
Laser Power ◽  
Isoperibol Calorimetry ◽  
Power And Energy

Paper 7: Laser Power and Energy Measurement by Photoelectric Techniques

1968 ◽  
Vol 183 (4) ◽  
pp. 34-37
Author(s):  
K. Firth ◽  
M. B. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Output Power ◽  
Laser Power ◽  
Energy Measurement ◽  
Power And Energy ◽  
Photoelectric Devices

The use of photoelectric devices for measuring the output power and energy of pulsed and c.w. lasers is well established. This paper describes the principles, limitations, and advantages of the method. The precautions which must be taken to ensure accurate and reproducible results are also discussed in some detail.

scholarly journals Optical Power Scale Realization by Laser Calorimeter after 45 Years of Operation

2021 ◽  
Vol 126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew T. Spidell ◽  
Anna K. Vaskuri
Keyword(s):  
Laser Power ◽  
Thermal Modeling ◽  
Optical Power ◽  
Radiant Flux ◽  
Optical Coupling ◽  
Expanded Uncertainty ◽  
Power Scale ◽  
Power And Energy ◽  
Uncertainty Contribution ◽  
Uncertainty Level

To calibrate laser power and energy meters, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) uses several detector-based realizations of the scale for optical radiant flux; these realizations are appropriate for specific laser power/energy ranges and optical coupling configurations. Calibrations from 1 μW to 2 W are currently based upon calorimeters. Validation by comparisons against other primary representations of the optical watt over the last two decades suggests the instruments operate well within their typical reported uncertainty level of 0.86 % with 95 % confidence. The dominant uncertainty contribution in the instrument is attributable to light scattered by the legacy window, which was not previously recognized. The inherent electro-optical inequivalence in the calorimeter’s response was reassessed by thermal modeling to be 0.03 %. The principal contributions to the overall inequivalence were corrected, yielding a shift in scale representation under 0.2 % for typical calibrations. With updates in several uncertainty contributions resulting from this reassessment, the resulting combined expanded uncertainty (k = 2) is 0.84 %, which is essentially unchanged from the previous result provided to calibration customers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document