Talk:Optical amplifier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Physics (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

I added some factual information about the LOA, developed by Genoa, where I worked in the past. Genoa no longer exists, and the LOA is no longer fabricated. Why was my edit removed? LS

I was on vandal/POV patrol monitering huge lists of edits. It noticed the pov word "unfortunetely". Just remove that word and it will be fine. Thanks.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the vigilance. LS

Correct? The article states: "As the signal power increases, or the pump power increases, the inversion level will reduce and thereby the gain of the amplifier will be reduced"

Will the inversion level really reduce when the pump power increases? Shouldn't it be: "As the signal power increases, or the pump power decreases, the inversion level will reduce and thereby the gain of the amplifier will be reduced"

on proposed submerge of the Raman amplification into Optical Amplifier[edit]

I'd rather suggest merging Raman amplification with Raman scattering#Stimulated Raman scattering and Raman amplification article for the following reasons:

- Raman amplification currently restates Raman scattering# Stokes and anti-Stokes part of article
- Optical amplifier article is currently devoted to the telecoms, while Raman amplification generally has a wider range of applications

Mchsvosm 07:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge of EDWA into optical amplifier[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to Merge

If EDFA doesn't merit it's own page, then EDWA certainly doesn't. EDFAs are widely used; EDWAs hardly made it out of the lab. Opticalgirl (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

No disgreements or comments in over a year. I plan to go ahead with the merge then. --Opticalgirl (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


I say do it. --Srodrig

I agree, the articles should be merged. Mikes (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Vertical-cavity SOA[edit]

This sentence: "SOAs have a more rapid gain response, which is in the order of 1 to 100ps." seems a little contextually isolated as there's no mention of what the "gain response" of VCSOAs is. -- Dougher (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2012 (UTC)