Talk:Optical amplifier: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:07, 3 August 2023

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Optical amplifier article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Physics B‑class Mid‑importance

	Physics portal 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.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications B‑class Mid‑importance

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications 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.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

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 All^T|@|ESP 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the vigilance. LS

(just passing by, & can't help but note the irony of you 'monitering' for a pov word that was also incorrectly spelled)

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

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)[reply]

Merge of EDWA into optical amplifier

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I say do it. --Srodrig

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

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

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vertical-cavity SOA

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)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Optical amplifier/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

What is "inhomogenous"? Shouldn't that be "heterogenous"? 203.153.233.5 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 01:55, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :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.'''[[User:Voice of All(MTG)|<font color="blue">Voice</font><font color="darkblue"> of </font><font color="black">All</font>]]'''<sup>[[user_talk:Voice_of_All|<font color="blue">T</font>]]|[[Special:Emailuser/Voice of All|@]]|[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="darkgreen">ESP]]</font></sup> 21:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 ::Done. Thanks for the vigilance. LS
+(just passing by, & can't help but note the irony of you 'monitering' for a pov word that was also incorrectly spelled)
 Correct?