NAT'L INST OF STAND & TECH

A111D7 DITDMD

NI8T

PUBL!CAT!0N8;

NIST Measurement Services: nist

cw Laser Power and Energy o^uf^'* ^ , a 11^-^ Publication

Calibrations at NIST 250-75

Joshua Hadler

Christopher L. Cromer

John H. Lehman

<3C

ioo

•^57 TNational Institute of Standards and Technology • Technology Administration • U.S. Department of Commerce
rheNational Institute of Standards and Technology was established in 1988 by Congress to "assist industry in the development of technology ... needed to improve product quality, to modernize manufacturing processes, to ensure product reliability ... and to faciHtate rapid commercialization ... of products based on new scientific discoveries." NIST, originally founded as the National Bureau of Standards in 1901, works to strengthen U.S. industry's

competitiveness; advance science and engineering; and improve public health, safety, and the environment. One of the agency's basic functions is to develop, maintain, and retain custody of the national standards of measurement, and provide the means and methods for comparing standards used in science, engineering, manufacturing, commerce, industry, and education

with the standards adopted or recognized by the Federal Government.

As an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department's Technology Administration, NIST conducts basic and applied research in the physical sciences and engineering, and develops measurement techniques, test methods, standards, and related

services. The Institute does generic and precompetitive work on new and advanced technologies. NIST's research facilities are located at Gaithersburg, MD 20899, and at Boulder, CO 80303. Major technical operating units and their principal

activities are listed below. For more information visit the NIST Website at http://www.nist.gov, or contact the Publications

and Program Inquiries Desk, 301-975-3058.

Office of the Director

•National Quality Program

•International and Academic Affairs Technology Services

•Standards Services

•Technology Partnerships •Measurement Services

•Information Services

•Weights and Measures

Advanced Technology Program

•Economic Assessment

•Information Technology and Applications

•Chemistry and Life Sciences

•Electronics and Photonics Technology

Manufacturing Extension Partnership

Program

•Regional Programs

•National Programs

•Program Development

Electronics and Electrical Engineering

Laboratory

•Microelectronics

•Law Enforcement Standards

•Electricity

•Semiconductor Electronics

•Radio-Frequency Technology'

•Electromagnetic Technology'

•Optoelectronics'

•Magnetic Technology'

Materials Science and Engineering

Laboratory

•Intelligent Processing of Materials

Ceramics

•Materials Reliability'

•Polymers

•Metallurgy

•NIST Center for Neutron Research

Chemical Science and Technology

Laboratory

•Biotechnology

•Process Measurements

•Surface and Microanalysis Science

•Physical and Chemical Properties"

•Analytical Chemistry

Physics Laboratory

•Electron and Optical Physics

•Atomic Physics

•Optical Technology

•Ionizing Radiation

•Time and Frequency'

•Quantum Physics'

Manufacturing Engineering

Laboratory

•Precision Engineering

•Manufacturing Metrology

•Intelligent Systems

•Fabrication Technology

•Manufacturing Systems Integration

Building and Fire Research Laboratory

•Applied Economics

•Materials and Construction Research

•Building Enviroimient

•Fire Research

Information Technology Laboratory

•Mathematical and Computational Sciences^

•Advanced Network Technologies

•Computer Security

•Information Access

•Convergent Information Systems

•Information Services and Computing

•Software Diagnostics and Conformance Testing

•Statistical Engineering

'At Boulder, CO 80305 'Some elements at Boulder, CO
NIST Special Publication 250-75

NIST Measurement Services:

cw Laser Power and Energy Calibrations at NIST

Joshua Hadler

Christopher L. Cromer

John H. Lehman

Optoelectronics Division

Electronics and Electrical Engineering Laboratory

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Boulder, CO 80305

July 2007

U.S. Department of Commerce

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary

Technology Administration

Robert Cresanti, Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of Standards and Technology

William A. Jeffrey, Director
Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identified in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identification is not intended to imply

recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose.

National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 250-75

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 250-75, 32 pages (July 2007)

CODEN: NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 2007

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402-9325
Contents

Page

1. Introduction 1

2. Calibration Service Summary 1

3. Theory of Measurement 2

3.1 System Basics and Measurement Principle 2

3.2 Measurement Equations 3

3.3 Data Analysis 4

4. Measurement System 7

4. 1 Measurement Standards 7

4.2 Laser Sources 7

4.3 Optical Setup 8

4.4 Data Acquisition 9

5. Standard Operating Procedures 10

5.1 System Startup 10

5.2 Optical Alignment 10

5.3 DUT Alignment 1

1

5.4 Data Acquisition 1 5.5 Data Analysis 12

6. Uncertainty Evaluation 13

6.1 Measurement Standard Uncertainties 13

6.2 Measurement System Uncertainties 16

7. Quality Control 18

8. Summary 18

9. Glossary 19

10. References 21

Appendix A. System Uncertainties 22

A.l Injection Time (Type B) 22

A.2 Laser Pointing Stability 22

A.3 Laser Power Drift 23

Appendix B. Sample Calibration Report 25

iii

cw Laser Power and En&rgy Calibrations atNIST

Joshua A. Hadler, Christopher L. Cromer, and John H. Lehman

National Institute of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, Colorado 80305

This document describes a calibration service for absolute laser power and energy measurements of laser power meters and detectors used with ccntinuous wave lasers at laser wavelengths between 325 nm and

1550 nm. In addition to a summary of the calibration procedure, a theoretical discussion of the

imcertainty analysis and an overview of the measurement system are presented. A sample calibration

report is included in this document that is similar to that provided to the customs. The calibration report

contains an absolute calibration factor and a summary of the uncertainty assessment for the device under

test.

Keywords: laser energy; laser metrology; laser power; optical detector calibration

1. Introduction

This calibration service provides absolute responsivity measurements for low power cw

(continuous wave) laser power meters that are traceable to System Internationale (SI) units [1,2]

through electrical standards. The service IDs for calibration services discussed in this document

include 421 1 OCA and 421 1 ICA. High power cw calibration services (Power > 1 W) are discussed elsewhere [3].

2. Calibration Service Summary

In addition to a summary of the calibration procedure, a thecretical basis for the uncertainty

assessment as well as an overview of the measurement system and operating procedures are given. A sample calibration report is included in this document that is similar to that provided to the customer. The calibration report supplies the customer with a correction factor (calibration

factor) that is to be applied to the output of the customer's laser power meter.

The provision of calibration services (or measurement services in this document) is an essential

element of the work of the Sources, Detectors, and Displays Group (as part of the Electronics and

Electrical Engineering Laboratory) in fulfillment of its mission. In the conduct of this vital work,

as in all its efforts, the group is committed to performance excellence characteristic of a global

leader in measurements and standards. Our goal is to provide measurement services that meet

the needs of our customers and, through continuous improvement, to anticipate their needs,

exceed their expectations, and deliver outstanding value to the nation.

Within the ranges listed in Table 2.1 (see also Table 4 of the NIST Technology Service's General

Information m Optical Radiation Measurements fcr Lasers and Optoelectronic Components

Used with Lasers (currently available at http://ts.nist.govAs/htdocs/230/233/calibrations/

optical-rad/laseroptoelectronic.htm). NIST can perform calibrations at the power (or energy) and

wavelength specified by the customer. These ranges are determined by the combined limits of

our standards and available laser sources. For these measurements, the customer's meter, or

1
device under test (DUT), is sent to NIST, where it is then compared to the appropriate laboratory

standard using a cahbrated beamspUtter measurement system.

The DUT may simply be a standalone detector, or it may be an integrated system with an

independent display. Customers' meters are measured in the configuration that NIST receives.

Detector/meter combinations are measured as a system and are not measured separately.

Normally the response of the DUT is characterized, but no physical adjustments are made to the

customer meter.

At the completion of the calibration measurements, the DUT and a calibration report are sent to the customer. The calibration report summarizes the results of the measurements and provides a

list of the associated measurement uncertainties. The laboratory standards used as references for

these measurements were designed and built at NIST. All of the critical parameters (electrical

calibration coefficient, absorptivity, window transmittance, etc.) for the laboratory standards

have been evaluated at the laser wavelengths and power levels for which they are used.

Table 2.1. Laser power and energy measurement capabilities.

Wavelength

(nm)

Power range Typical relative

expanded uncertainty

yt=2 (%)

325 100 nWto 10 mW 1 to 2

488 1 nW to 1 W 0.5 to 1

514 1 nW to 2 W 0.5 to 1

532 1 nW to 20 mW 0.5 to 1

633 1 nW to 20 mW 0.5 to 1

830 1 nW to 20 mW 0.5 to 1

1064 1 nW to 2 W 0.5 to 1

1319 1 to 10 mW 0.5 to 1

1550 1 ^Wto 10 mW 0.5 to 1

More information can be found in NIST Optoelectronics Division Quality Manual (QM-II) for

descriptions of NIST, the NIST Optoelectronics Division, and their quality systems.

3. Theory of Measurement

5. 1 System Basics and Measurement Principle

The principal method used in this service is outlined by West, Case, Rasmussen and Schmidt [4].

This method, described as direct substitution, is the fundamental basis for the measurements

provided by this service. While the types of devices that are measured may differ, and the

procedures may vary, the fundamental method used in these measurements is essentially

unchanged from the method described in the aforementioned publication.

2
Two calibrated detectors (standards) are used to calibrate the DUT by substitution of the DUT

for one of the standards. A wedge beamsplitter is positioned to direct a reflected beam to one

standard and the transmitted beam to a second standard. The optical properties of the wedge

beamsplitter allow predictable attenuation control by multiple reflections from the beamsplitter.

Utilizing different transmitted and/or reflected beams or by changing the beamsplitter material,

different attenuation levels may be selected.

Figure 3.1. Beamsplitter/detector arrangement.

The beamsplitter ratio of the transmitted to the reflected beam power can be accurately

determined by measuring both the transmitted and reflected beams simultaneously with the

standards. By substituting the DUT for one of the standards, the DUT response can be observed

with a known incident laser power. The other standard serves to monitor the power incident upon

the DUT during the measurement. During the measurement of the DUT, this standard will be

referred to as the monitor. This process is referred to as Direct Substitution, and is depicted

above in Fig. 3.1.

3.2 Measurement Equations

For the purposes of discussing the general measurement theory of this service, we will be

assuming an ideal detector having uniform response as a function of wavelength, position,

temperature, etc. Specific issues such as uniformity, spectral response, linearity, and others will

be discussed in more detail in the uncertainty section (Section 6) of this document.

For a detector with a measured output ofX, responsivity of S, and incident laser power/energy of

O, we can write

X = 5-0. (3.1)

Xmight be a voltage, current, or a numerical reading from an analog or digital meter. In practice,

the calibration factor is determined by measurement of both the incident laser power (or energy)

and the response of the detector. If the output is the raw voltage or current measured from the

DUT, then the calibration factor is the responsivity of the detector. Otherwise, if the output is the

observed reading from a meter, the calibration factor is to be applied to the meter readings to provide agreement between the DUT and NIST standards. This calibration factor, C, is given by

3
(3.2)

The value of the beamspHtter ratio can be determined by simultaneously measuring both the

transmitted and reflected beams incident on the standard detectors. This gives us the beamsplitter

ratio R in terms of the laser power measured by each standard.

^ = --^- (3.3)

Once the beamsplitter ratio is determined, the calibration factor, C, of the DUT can be

determined by substituting the DUT for either the transmitted side or reflected side standard.

From Eqs. (3.2) and (3.3) we can express the calibration factors of the DUT in either case as

^'~R

X

^R

(3.4a)

C,=R

or X

(3.4b)

In Eq. (3.4), the laser power or energy values are those measured during the measurement of the

DUT. The value of the laser power or energy used during the measurement of the DUT can be

significantly different from that used to determine the beamsplitter ratio, giving a much larger

dynamic range available for calibrations. The materials selected for use as beamsplitters are chosen from known materials with linear optical properties. This allows for a much broader

range of wavelengths and power levels to be utilized using the same beamsplitter.

3.3 Data Analysis

With the measurement principles outlined in section 3.2, we can discuss the actual data analysis

used for the calibrations. In general, measurements of the DUT and standards are performed at discrete intervals in time. The shutter is used to turn the laser on and off during the

measurements. During each measurement of the DUT, the dark (background) output is sampled

with the shutter closed both before and after the measurement.

Beamsplitter ratio measurements are performed before and after the DUT measurements. The

standards can be both power or energy type detectors and the beamsplitter ratio should be

independent of the type of standard used.

Given the nature of the service, measurements are made across a wide range of power and

energy levels and often with a combination of detector types. For the purpose of this discussion,

we will look at the three basic analytical methods as they apply to the nature of the detectors

and/or meters used in this service: power, energy, and calorimetery.

3.3.1 Power Meters

The process for calibration of a laser power meter begins by sampling the DUT background

output before the shutter is open for a duration called the first rating period. This is followed by

4
a shutter-open period, during which the laser impinges on the DUT. Laser power meters

generally have an output that reaches an equilibrium value some time after the shutter is opened,

which is called the settling time.

The detector's setthng time is derived from the thermal and electrical time constants, which are determined largely by the detection mechanism and related electronics, respectively [5]. In general, the settling time is the temporal difference between the instant of optical input and the

time at which the detector has achieved steady state, and may be evaluated on a case by case

basis. We typically define the settling time as seven times the dominant (longest) time constant

of the detection system. Using this definition, the magnitude of the detector output will be at 99.9

% (as defined hyx-e~^) of the theoredcal maximum x. In Fig. 3.2, the settling time is shown

graphically as the duration between the "shutter open" condition and the starting point of the

"measurement period."

After the settling time, n number of readings of the DUT output are acquired and then averaged.

The shutter is closed for another period while the DUT settles to the background level. A second

set of samples of the background output is acquired from the DUT, which is called the second

rating period. The interval between the shutter opening and shutter closing is referred to as the

injection period. The signal from the DUT can then be calculated by subtracting the average

background for both rating periods from the average DUT output with the laser on. If the DUT

has an analog or digital display, then visual readings may be recorded by the operator during this

process.

The standard is used to measure the laser power incident on the DUT during the measurement. If

the standard is an energy type of detector, then the injection period is used to calculate the

average power during the measurement.

Detector Output

Rating

period Measurementperiod

Rating

period

Figure 3.2. Example of laser power detector output vs. time.

3.3.2 Energy Meter

The sequence of events for measurement of energy meters is fundamentally the same as that of

power meter measurements, although the data analysis may vary. There are many types of

energy meters that might require calibration. Some may have an output that is similar to that in

Fig. 3.2, but the analysis may be performed differently, depending on the specifics of the DUT.

The baseline is still determined from the rating periods before and after the injection period. The

average baseline is subtracted first from the entire waveform. The waveform is then numerically

5
integrated from the data acquired during the period defined by the opening of the shutter to the

end of the setthng time after the shutter is closed. Other types of energy meters may require a measurement of the peak output from the DUT as the output to use in the caHbration. If the DUT

has an analog or digital meter, then visual readings may be recorded by the operator during this

process.

For energy meter calibrations, the standard used will determine the total energy incident on the

DUT during the measurement. If the standard is a power meter, then the integrated power from

the standard must be used along with the total shutter open period to determine the total laser

energy incident on the DUT.

3.3.3 Calorimeter (Energy) Meter

Laser calorimeters are a special type of energy meter described by E.D. West and K.L. Chumey

in Theory ofIsoperibol Calorimetryfor Laser Power and Energy Measurements [6]. Calorimeter

theory is a mature field, and the discussion by West and Chumey still forms the basis of current

calorimeter measurement theory. A waveform in the figure below is typical of the raw output of

a laser calorimeter.

Figure 3.3. Example of calorimeter output versus time.

Measurements performed with a calorimeter incorporate the pre- and post-rating periods (before

and after the shutter). The mathematical treatment of the signal from a calorimeter, also known

as the corrected rise equation, which is used to define the temperature measured in the

calorimeter and correct for the heat exchange internal to the calorimeter during the measurement

period, is described in detail by West and Chumey [6]. The analysis of the response of this

detector is still that of an energy meter, and the measurement method used is similar to that

described in section 3.3.2.

6
4. Measurement System

4.1 Measurement Standards

Energy and power measurements can be acquired using a variety of types of detectors. Such

detectors might include, but are not Hmited to, thermopiles (surface and volume absorbers),

calorimeters, and diode-based detectors (including multi-diode trap and tunnel configurations).

More than one type of detector or standard may be employed as a transfer standard for any given

measurement. NIST Standards currently in use for this service include the C-Series Laser

Calorimeters [4,6,7,8], and NIST Standard Diode Trap Detectors [9,10,11,12,13,14,15].

Historically, calibration services for laser power and energy meters have been provided by use of

calorimeters that were electrically calibrated and directly traceable to SI units through electrical

standards. Presently this traceability is established by comparison with the NIST Laser

Optimized Cryogenic Radiometer (LOCR) [16,17] which in turn is traceable to electrical

standards.

Power measurements are made by recording and averaging the peak signal generated after the

detector output has come to a steady state while the beam is incident on the detector. Energy

measurements require a different mathematical treatment of the same signal. That is, with

knowledge of the injection time, the output signal is integrated over time to quantify a measurement of energy rather than power.

Calorimetry is inherently a measurement of thermal energy, but may also be used to determine

average power as well. The analytical methods of calorimetry differ from those used with

thermopiles, photodiodes, and pyroelectric-based optical detectors, although the measurement

periods are the same.

All of the standards used in this measurement service have been calibrated with the NIST Laser

Optimized Cryogenic Radiometer [7,15,16,17].

All data and characterizations of these standards can be found in the 421 1 OCA service quality

manual.

4.2 Laser Sources

The 421 1 OCA and 421 1 ICA calibration services rely on a suite of commercial laser sources, capable of a broad range in both power and wavelength, extending from the near-UV to the midIR at power levels up to 1 W.

7
4.3 Optical Setup

Standard 1

Tratulatian Stage

12

Eiclosijifi

Slmtter Attenualnr Entrance Iris

ML'>

Beamsplitter

EnclosijM

Figure 4.3. Example optical layout.

The basic optical setup is represented here in Fig. 4.3.

4.3.1 Attenuator

An attenuation system is used for control of the laser power delivered to the measurement

system. As defined previously in section 3.2, the laser power level used for calibrating the

beamsplitter ratio need not be the same as that used for measurement of the DUT. Thus, a method of adjusting beam power is used that will not impart steering effects or otherwise change

the overall beam profile. The method of attenuation may change depending on the laser source and the power levels desired. These methods may employ neutral density filters, low

transmittance mirrors, or polarization-based techniques.

4.3.2 Shutter

It is necessary to control and quantify the injection time during a measurement. A computercontrolled shutter is used. The data acquisition system controls this shutter remotely and records

the duration of the shutter opening.

4.3.3 Mirrors and Focusing

The nature of the suite of laser sources, and the diversity in the type and size of a test detector,

require a flexible optical layout. Multiple mirror sets are maintained, each set allowing for

optimum transmission in a particular wavelength band. Additionally, a wide array of lenses is utilized to allow for a large range of beam profile sizes incident on the detectors. A schematic of

a typical optical layout is shown in Fig. 4.3.

4.3.4 Beamsplitters

A selection of beamsplitters is used to accommodate different wavelengths. Because the

beamsplitter ratio and efficiency are wavelength dependent, the beamsplitter ratio must be

determined at each wavelength for which the beamsplitter is employed.

Intersecting each beam path, transmitted and reflected, from the beamsplitter is an enclosure. The

detectors in use (standards and DUT) are placed in the enclosures (depicted in Fig. 4.3) to reduce

the amount of stray light contributing to the measurement and to buffer temperature changes the

8
measurement lab may experience. Each enclosure contains its own precision measurement

electronics to avoid unnecessarily long signal path lengths to the data acquisition electronics.

These meters are then read remotely via computer into the data acquisition system.

4.4 Data Acquisition

Measurement

Electronics

Measurement

Electronics

GPIB Card

Measurement Gate Signal

CPU

Tirfoii;?; C aid Shutter Tmong Sigiial

Shutter Laser Control Shutter Figure 4.4. Block diagram of data acquisition system.

The basic data acquisition system is depicted in Fig. 4.4 above. Data acquisition and analysis are automated by means of a desktop computer and customized software. Remote communication

with the instruments in each detector enclosure allows a single computer to monitor both

instruments (in the transmitted and reflected beam paths) simultaneously.

The software allows for independent control of injection time, background measurement, and

correction. Data analysis is performed real-time and is intended to allow for user interaction as a time-saving measure. The types of detectors (energy, power, or calorimeter) are selected by the

user, and other static elements such as wavelength, beam and environmental conditions can all be

entered into the main program. The injection and background, rating, and cooling times are also user controlled and set. The software will collect data for the initial beamsplitter measurement n times (set by the user).

The subsequent DUT measurement will then be taken and the beamsplitter ratio be used to calculate the beam power incident on the DUT, based on the second standard's output. This

measurement will also run for N cycles, which is set by the user. Following the DUT

measurement, a second set of beamsplitter measurements is taken to assure that there has been no

significant drift in the beamsplitter ratio.

9
5. Standard Operating Procedures

5.7 System Startup

All electronics and other support systems are powered up at least one hour prior to the start of the

measurement. All test equipment is allowed to equilibrate with room temperature. The laser is selected for the desired wavelength and power, and is energized at least one hour before

alignment to allow for stabilization of the laser pointing.

5.2 Optical Alignment

The alignment of the laser beam is critical to ensure a reliable measurement. Adjustable

apertures are set to block stray light (scatter and halo), but not occlude the beam incident on the

DUT and/or standard(s). The beam is centered on the DUT.

5.2.1 Beam Extent

The diameter of the extent of the beam must be smaller than the active areas of the DUT and

standards involved. The extent of the beam is defined by the diameter where 99.9 % of the beam

power is contained. The extent of the beam is determined by placing a centered adjustable

aperture in front of a power detector (placed at the same relative position as the DUT), with the

aperture is set to occlude 0.1 % of the incident beam. The diameter of the aperture at this point

establishes the extent of the beam. This diameter should generally be less than half the active area of the DUT.

5.2.2 Beam Size

Beam size is generally considered to be full-width at half-maximum of a Gaussian distribution.

For the purposes of this measurement, an approximation of 1/e times the beam extent is used to determine the beam size. Additionally, if the customer specifies a specific beam size, the optics

are set accordingly.

5.2.3 Beam Alignment

The alignment process follows these basic steps:

1 . Select the proper optics for the measurement. This includes, but may not be limited to, mirrors, lenses, filters, and/or attenuators.

2. Ensure that the beam is centered through attenuator and centered on the shutter.

3. Direct the beam to both detector enclosures by steering mirrors Ml and M2, shown in

Fig. 4.3

4. Place focusing lens LI to the necessary position to establish proper beam size, and align

lens so the beam is centered and normal to the surface of the lens. Normal incidence may

be determined by observing the retro-reflection from the lens, and centering the retro- reflection on the upstream mirror.

5. Steer the focused beam to the center of the alignment target in each measurement

enclosure.

10
6. Set adjustable apertures in the beam paths to block scattered light and stray beams, but

not so as to occlude the measured beam.

5.3 DUTAlignment

The DUT is mounted on a translation stage such that it can be easily inserted and removed from

the incident beam. The DUT is then positioned so that the beam is centered on the DUT.

Perpendicularity can be set on detectors that produce a specular reflection by steering the retro- reflection off the DUT so it is coincident with the incident beam.

5.4 Data Acquisition

The data acquisition of this measurement service employs computer-controlled remote

measurement equipment. The software that controls the measurement also analyzes the collected

data. Data collection is performed in three separate intervals.

1 . Beamsplitter measurements are taken. Multiple samples are acquired. The number of

samples may vary depending on injection time and detectors used.

2. DUT measurements are taken. Again, the number of samples may vary depending on

detectors and injection times.

3. A second set of beamsplitter measurements is taken. This is to ensure that the

beamsplitter ratio has not changed during the test meter measurement.

Analysis of the data occurs after each measurement.

5.4.1 Software Setup

Before measurements begin, all of the necessary information must be entered the data acquisition

software.

The first information to be entered is the general information about the overall measurement.

1 . Wavelength to be measured: This allows the system to compensate for any wavelength

dependencies that may be inherent to a given standard. For calorimeters, this can be

window transmittance, which can vary with wavelength. For diode-based detectors, this

will call up data stored on the system regarding the responsivity (AAV) at a given

wavelength of the standard being used.

2. Temperature and humidity.

3. Calibration service specific information, NIST ID number and NIST folder number.

4. Any other general information; including, but not limited to, DUT name, customer,

power level measured, unique optics used (focusing lenses, for example).

Next, information specific to the beamsplitter measurements is entered:

1. Detectors/standards used: Both detectors (transmitted and reflected) are identified and

selected in the software interface.

2. Type of detector: power, energy, or calorimetric.

3. Electronics settings that are enabled for remote control: gain ranges for remote voltage

and/or current meters are set; in addition, specific channel allocations on multiplexed

meters are set.

4. Time constant of detectors used.

11
5. Standard/monitor gain.

6. Background, or rating period.

7. Injection time.

8. Settling time (usually 7 x time constant). The settling time is generally established by the

manufacturer's specification. Where the settling time is less than that of the NIST

standard being used, the settling time of the NIST standard takes precedence.

9. Duration/period for each data point recorded.

Similarly, this information is set for the DUT measurement. Detector-specific information for the

monitor detector should not be changed from that defined during the beamsplitter m^easurement.

Rating period, injection, settling, and time intervals are to be set according to the needs of the

calibration and may differ from those used for/in the beamsplitter measurements.

5.4.2 Software Operation

During software operation, the beamsplitter measurements are started, and the number of

measurements (N) and the cooling time between each measurement are set. Cooling time is set when utilizing any type of thermal detector in the measurement process. The purpose is to allow

the detector output to drop as the detector itself cools. This value is variable and depends on the

amount of energy injected and the desired starting value, where applicable. When the

beamsplitter measurements are completed, the test-meter measurements are launched. The

number of measurements (N) and cooling time are also entered during this operation.

Additionally, the option for "visual" recording is selected and controlled. Often, laser power

meters will have no remote measurement output (such as remote computer read back or analog

output) and measurements will rely on visually recording the meter reading from the display of

the test meter itself. The software allows for entering this information for each measurement in

the set of measurements for the test meter.

5. 5 Data Analysis

Most of the pertinent analysis is performed in real-time during the measurement by the software.

1. Power and/or energy levels of both transmitted and reflected beams during the

beamsplitter measurements are calculated. Selection of the detector and detector type

determines what algorithms the software will use in analysis.

2. From these power/energy measurements, the beamsplitter ratio is determined, and

standard deviation is calculated. Selection of gain and range in the software settings

scales the measurement to the instrument's gain, and yields the true power measured.

3. Power and/or energy levels of both transmitted and reflected beams during the DUT

measurements are calculated.

4. From these power/energy levels, the calibration factor for the DUT is determined, and

standard deviation is calculated.

Following the measurement, the uncertainty contributions are determined depending on the

detector(s) employed in the measurement, and the total uncertainty is calculated.

Performance of the software operation is validated semiannually through intercomparison

calibrations with other Calibration Services in the CW Laser Radiometry Project [15].

12
6. Uncertainty Evaluation

The uncertainty estimates for the NIST laser power and energy measurements are assessed

following guidelines given in NIST Technical Note 1297, "Guidelines for Evaluating and

Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST Measurement Results" by Barry N. Taylor and Chris E. Kuyatt, 1994 Edition [18]. To establish the uncertainty limits, the error sources are separated into

(1) Type B errors, whose magnitudes are determined by subjective judgment or other nonstatistical method, and (2) Type A errors, whose magnitudes are obtained statistically from a

series of measurements.

All the Type B error components are assumed to be independent and have rectangular or uniform

distributions (that is, each has an equal probability of being within the region, ±5i, and zero

probability of being outside that region). If the distribution is rectangular, the standard deviation,

Cs, for each Type B error component is equal to 5i/3 and the total standard uncertainty is (Xos")

where the summation is performed over all Type B error components.

The Type A errors are assumed to be independent and normally distributed, and consequently the

standard deviation, Sr, for each component is

Sr = ZxN

N-1

where the x values represent the individual measurements and N is the number ofx values used

for a particular Type A error component. The standard deviation of the mean is Sr/N'^', and the

total standard uncertainty of the mean is [Z(Sr*^/N)] where the summation is carried out for all the Type A error components.

The expanded uncertainty is determined by combining the Type A and Type B "standard

uncertainties" in quadrature (the combined uncertainty) and multiplying this result by an

expansion factor of 2. The expanded uncertainty, U, is then

u = 2jz.Mf .

The number of decimal places used in reporting the mean value of the calibration factor listed in

the calibration report is determined by expressing the expanded uncertainty to two significant

digits.

6.1 Measurement Standard Uncertainties

The uncertainties specific to any given reference standard are documented in the C-series

Calibration Services Quality Manual III (QMIII) specific to the 421 IOCA and 421 1 ICA

calibration services. However, it is proper to discuss the nature of these types of uncertainties,

and their contribution to the overall uncertainty evaluation for each standard. Not all of the

following uncertainty contributions will apply to any given standard, and in some cases, only a few will be applicable. An example error budget is summarized below in table 6. 1

.

13
6.1.1 Spectral Responsivity (Type B)

Spectral responsivity is generally defined as output per incident power and/or energy. It is expressed most often as responsivity at a specific wavelength, most notably for diode-based

detectors, which can have large variations of responsivity at different wavelengths. This

contribution is determined by measurements performed by either the Spectral Responsivity

Measurement Service [19], by comparison with Laser Optimized Cryogenic Radiometer [16]

measurements.

6.1.2 Absorbtivity (Type B)

The absorptivity of thermal-based detectors tends to have a uniform spectral responsivity, but the

uncertainty in the actual absorptivity value is still essential to account for in the error summary

for each detector. The uncertainty associated with the absorbtivity of the standard calorimeters

used in this service is discussed by T.R. Scott [8].

6.1.3 Uniformity (Type B)

The beam position incident upon the detector during any given measurement is highly

repeatable. However, the absorptivity, or responsivity, of the detector may vary as a function of

location or position over the active surface. This contribution is generally determined by

sampling the detector response over a two dimensional array over the active detector area, as described by the Spectral Responsivity Measurement Service [19]. The uncertainty contribution

depends on uniformity variations of the detector and the beam size during the measurement of

the uniformity.

6.1.4 Polarization Dependence (Type B)

Laser light is often strongly polarized. Some detectors, especially diode-based detectors, may

respond differently depending on the polarization state of the incoming light. For these detectors,

this polarization dependence must be known and quantified if necessary. Examples of detectors

that are insensitive to polarization are surface absorbing thermopiles and pyroelectric detectors.

The polarization state of the incident laser is determined by the laser itself and any polarizing

optics that are in the beam path. The polarization dependence of the detector is characterized by

a change in the responsivity between two orthogonal polarization states and the angle of

incidence of the incoming beam. In general, thermal detectors and diode-based trap detectors

have been shown to have negligible polarization dependence. The polarization dependence is quantified by measuring the detector response while varying the incoming polarization state and/or angle of incidence.

6.1.5 Thermal Dependence (Type B)

While all detectors will be sensitive to temperature, some may exhibit significant thermal

dependence that may contribute to the uncertainty contribution. Diode-based detectors may have

significant thermal dependence, which can alter the spectral responsivity of that detector.

Thermal detectors may also have a dependence on the ambient temperature, although to a much

lesser extent. Temperature variations during the calibration procedure are documented and are used to quantify (bracket) the maximum possible variation of the detector response during the

measurement. The temperature dependence of the detector being evaluated, if not thermally

stabilized or compensated by some other means, must be characterized and the resultant thermal

dependence factored into the uncertainty budget. This characterization requires determination of

14
the detector response as a function of temperature. An example of such behavior is documented

in NIST Special Publication 250-53 [19].

6.1.6 Window Transmittance (Type B)

For a detector where responsivity is determined by methods other than direct substitution, it is necessary to characterize the window transmittance. A method of determining the uncertainty

contribution of window transmittance for calorimeters is described in West, Case, Rasmussen

and Schmidt [4]. The uncertainty associated with the window transmittance of the standard

calorimeters currently used in this service is discussed by T.R. Scott [8].

6.1.7 Electronics (Type B)

Where individual standards utilize discrete electronics that are integral to that detector, the

accuracy of these electronics will also contribute to the uncertainty of the measurement. The

contributions will vary from detector to detector depending on the electronics, and are accounted

for in the individual uncertainties for each detector used.

6.1.8 Inequivalence (Type B)

In the case of electrically calibrated standards, the difference in temperature response between

optically delivered power and electrically delivered power (during calibration of the standard) is described as the inequivalence of the detector. As an example, the methods used to determine

this value for the isoperibol calorimeter are described by E.G. Johnson [20]. This uncertainty is currently implemented only for measurements using electrically calibrated calorimeters. The

uncertainty for the inequivalence of the standard calorimeters used in this service is covered by

T.R. Scott [8].

Table 6.1. Example uncertainty budget for calorimeter-based measurements.

Example Uncertainty Summary Table

Standard/Detector

TypeB Type A

5, Sr N

Transfer Standard

Responsivity 0.03 %

Electronics 0.50 %

Uniformity 0.14%

Temperature Stability 0.02 %

Polarization Dependence 0.02 %

15
6.2 Measurement System Uncertainties

The uncertainties for this service are included in each calibration report, and are summarized

here. The error budget is summarized below in table 6.2.

6.2.1 Injection Time (Type B)

The evaluation of energy meters and calorimeters requires integration over the entire injection

time. Precise control of the injection time is accomplished by use of a computer-controlled

shutter. The specified accuracy of the timing card, in combination with the manufacturers

published shutter speed, results in an uncertainty contribution of 0.05 % {see appendix A, A.l).

6.2.2 Laser Power Drift (Type B)

The variation of laser power during a given measurement can impact the accuracy of the

measurement. Most lasers will tend to exhibit some form of power instability over the relatively

shorter durations (100 to 300 s) of an individual measurement. The uncertainty contribution of

laser power stability to the measurement is quantified by the difference in the average power

over the ftill injection period and the average power measured after the settling time. Because

different laser sources will have different drift characteristics, modeling of laser power drift was

done to determine an upper bound of 0.50 % contribution to the uncertainty of the measurement

{see appendix A, A. 3).

6.2.3 Aperture Effects

The aperture effect is a function of the beam size and the properties of the detectors being

compared, such as the detector area, aperture area, field of view, and spatial uniformity. More

generally, it is described as an uncertainty contribution due to differing fields of view between

detectors utilized in the measurement. If the detectors being compared have active areas of

different size, in principle the detectors being compared do not see the same amount of optical

power. The methods used to characterize this effect are described in NIST Special Publication

250-62 [16]. However, the contribution to the overall uncertainty budget is negligible in this

measurement service.

6.2.4 Laser Pointing Stability (Type B)

Small drift in the laser pointing (location of the laser beam where it intersects the detector plane)

contributes to the calibration uncertainty. Rather than quantify the pointing stability on a case- by-case basis (for each laser wavelength, each laser and optical alignment, each customer, etc.)

for each calibration, we define an upper bound for the pointing stability with a Type B

uncertainty. The value of this contribution is 0.50 % {see appendix A, A.2).

6.2.5 Beamsplitter Ratio (Type A)

The uncertainty of the beamsplitter ratio directly affects the overall uncertainty, and is accounted

for by the standard deviation of the beamsplitter ratio measurements, as described in section 3.

16
6.2.6 Transfer Measurement (Type A)

The accuracy of the direct substitution measurement is quantified by the standard deviation of

the transfer-standard cahbration factors (see Eqs. 3.4a and 3.4b).

Table 6.2. Example summary of system uncertaintie.y.

Example uncertainty summary table

system

Type B Type A

5i(%) Sr N

System uncertainties

Inject time 0.05

Laser power drift 0.50

Laser pointing stability 0.50

Beamsplitter ratio 0.11 n

Transfer measurement 0.06 n

17
7. Quality Control

The Optoelectronic Division measurement services make use of quality assurance practices to ensure the validity of measurement results and their uncertainties. Such practices include:

• Repeated measurements/calibrations compared over many time intervals.

• Comparison of previous results obtained using multiple reference standards if available.

• Routine, periodic internal comparisons of NIST standards that are used in calibrating the

DUT.

In the Optoelectronics Division, all calibration, measurement assurance program (MAP), and

remote measurement (RM) services maintain check standards and control charts for periodic

testing of the measurement service. The procedure for selecting, storing, maintaining, and

measuring check standards, control charts, and other practices are be described in the QM-III

quality manual.

When available, historic data from previous measurements of a detector shall be placed into the

test folder by the Measurement Services Coordinator after the preparation of the calibration

report. The Calibration Leader and the Group Leader shall review this data before signing the

calibration reports. If a significant variance from previous results is observed, the Group Leader

may require another measurement of the check standard and calibration item as a test of

measurement system conformance.

8. Summary

The calibration service provides responsivity of laser power and energy meters by direct

substitution with an ensemble of reference detectors having a responsivity that is traceable to SI

units through the NIST LOCR. The service employs a wide range of laser power and energy

levels over a broad spectrum of wavelengths. In this document we have summarized the basic

measurement equation, the measurement procedure, and described the quantities that contribute

to the relative standard uncertainty.

18
9. Glossary

Calorimetry:

The measurement of the quantity of heat exchanged. In this service, the calorimeter is used to quantify the amount of thermal energy deposited by a laser source. Direct Substitution:

Substituting a known standard for a DUT in identical conditions and comparing the measured

results to generate a calibration factor that is directly related to the NIST Standard.

DUT:

Device Under Test. Injection Period:

Period when laser light impinges on the detector(s) in use. Isoperibol:

The term "isoperibol" refers to a calorimeter in a constant temperature environment.

Laser Power Meter:

A detector that is used to measure average power.

LOCK:

Laser Optimized Cryogenic Radiometer.

Standard:

For this service, a standard is a detector that has been rigorously characterized, and is directly

traceable to NIST electrical standards.

Wedge Beamsplitter:

Detectors and power meters are often calibrated by direct comparison to one of these standards,

using a slightly wedged beamsplitter made from a high quality optical material appropriate for

the wavelength of operation [15] (Fig. 9.) Several distinct beams are generated by the wedged

beamsplitter. Their relative magnitude compared to the incident beam can be readily calculated or measured (Fig. 9.1) and the wedge also minimizes problems with coherent reflections. Several

orders of magnitude of calibrated attenuation can be achieved in this way.

19
Material; Fused Silica

Angle of Incidence: -8,76°

Scale:

6 mm

Figure 9.1. Diagram of wedge beamsplitter.

Standard Uncertainty:

The representation of each component contributor to the uncertainty of a measurement result. Typically expressed with the symbol iti, and equal to the positive square root of the estimated

variance w/.

Combined Standard Uncertainty:

The combined standard uncertainty of a measurement result, suggested by the symbol Uc, is taken

to represent the estimated standard deviation of the result. It is obtained by combining the

individual standard uncertainties lu (and convariances as appropriate), whether arising from a Type A evaluation or a Type B evaluation. The common method for combining standard

deviations, which is summarized in Taylor and Kuyatt [18], is more generally referred to as the

"root sum of squares", or RSS.

Expanded Uncertainty:

A measure of uncertainty that defines an interval about the measurement result y within which

the value of the measureand Y is confidently believed to lie. The typical representation of

expanded uncertainty is the symbol U, and is obtained by multiplying iidy) by a coverage factor,

typically represented by the symbol k. Thus U= kudy), and it is confidently believed that

y-U<Y< y+U, which is commonly expressed as Y = y±U. For this service, a coverage factor equal

to 2 is used. , :

20
10. References

[I] Barry N. Taylor, The International System of Units (SI). NIST Special Publication 330; 2001.

[2] Barry N. Taylor, Guide for the use of the International System of Units (SI). NIST Special

Publication 811; 1995.

[3] Xiaoyu Li, Thomas Scott, Shao Yang, Chris Cromer, Maria Dowell, Nonlinearity

measurements of high-power laser detectors at NIST. NIST Journal of Research 109(4): 429-

434; July-August 2004.

[4] E. D. West, W. E. Case, A. L. Rasmussen, L. B. Schmidt, A reference calorimeter for laser

energy measurements. NBS Journal of Research A. Physics and Chemistry 76A(1): 13-26;

January-February 1972.

[5] E. L. Dereniak, D. G. Crowe, Optical radiation detectors. New York: John Wiley & Sons, p. 136; 1984.

[6] E. D West, K. L. Chumey, Theory of isoperibol calorimetry for laser power and energy

measurements. Journal of Applied Physics 41(6): 178-180; May 1970.

[7] D. J. Livigni, C. L. Cromer, T. R. Scott, B. Carol Johnson, Z. M. Zhang; Thermal

characterization of a cryogenic radiometer and comparison with a laser calorimeter, Metrologia

35: 819-827; 1998.

[8] Thomas R. Scott, NBS laser power and energy measurements. Proc, SPIE Laser Beam

Radiometry Vol. 888; 1988.

[9] E. F. Zalewski, C. R. Duda, Applied Optics 22(18): 2867-2873; 1983.

[10] J. M. Palmer, Alternative configurations for trap detectors. Metrologia 30(4): 327-333;

1993.

[II] J. L. Gardner, Transmission trap detectors. Applied Optics, 33(25): 5914-5918; 1994.

[12] I. Vayshenker, H. Haars, X. Li, J. H. Lehman, D. J. Livigni, Comparison of optical-power

meters between the NIST and the PTB. Metrologia 37: 349-350; 2000.

[13] J. H. Lehman, C. L. Cromer, Optical tunnel-trap detector for radiometric measurements.

Metrologia 37: 477-480; 2000.

[14] J. H. Lehman, C. L. Cromer, Optical trap detector for calibration of optical fiber power

meter: coupling efficiency. Applied Optics 41(31): 6531-6536; November 2002.

[15] John. H. Lehman, Igor Vayshenker, David J. Livigni, Joshua Hadler, Intramural comparison

of NIST laser and optical fiber power calibrations. NIST Journal of Research 109(2): 291-298;

March-April 2004.

[16] David Livigni, High accuracy laser power and energy meter calibration service. NIST

Special Publication 250-62; August 2004.

[17] Jeanne M. Houston, David J. Livigni, Comparison of two cryogenic radiometers at NIST.

NIST Journal of Research 106(4): 641-647; July-August 2001.

[18] Barry N. Taylor, Chris E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty

of NIST measurement results. NIST Technical Note 1297, p. 8; 1994.

[19] John H. Lehman, Calibration service for spectral responsivity of laser and optical-fiber

power meters at wavelengths between 0.4 |im and 1.8 |um. NIST Special Publication 250-53;

December 1999.

[20] Eric G. Johnson, Jr., Evaluating the inequivalence and a computational simplification for the

NBS laser energy standards. Applied Optics 16: 2315; August 1977.

21
Appendix A. Measurement System Uncertainties

A.l Injection Time (Type B)

An upper bound was established based on the shutter manufacturer's specifications, which are the following:

Shutter: Window speed = 48 ms

Shutter Controller: ±10% of shutter speed

Timing Card: 0.05 % timing resolution

The uncertainty for injection time will be dominated by the 0.05 % accuracy specification of the

timing card. The shutter speed and controller contribution to the uncertainty, based on a 200 s or

greater injection time, has a lesser contribution. That is, (48 ms + 10 % = 53, 53 ms/200 s = 0.02

%). At the shortest expected injection times, the total contribution to the uncertainty of the

shutter speed and controller accuracy will be less than 0.02 %.

Thus, the total contribution to the injection time uncertainty, while dominated by the timing card,

will include all elements added in quadrature. We will consider this to be a Type B uncertainty

with a maximum standard uncertainty of 0.05 %.

A.2 Laser Pointing Stability

The laser pointing stability may be considered spatial drift, or the spatial variation of the location

of the laser beam spot on the active area of the detector. The contribution of laser pointing

stability is based on the manufacturer's specifications of the lasers in the suite and the

corresponding beam path length.

The longest beam path in the laser suite is 18 m. The greatest angular variation is less than 20

l^rad. Thus, the angular deviation over that distance is expected to result in a translation of the

beam of no more than 500 |j,m. In most measurement setups, assuming a roughly Gaussian

profile, this will result in a loss of beam power of no more than 0.5 % due to beam translation.

This value, 0.5 %, was determined empirically, based on a 500 |Lim translation of a 2 mm beam

(the smallest beam size commonly used) across an aperture set to the extent (see section 5.2.1) of

the beam size.

This is considered a worst case scenario, as such; the expected Type B contribution to the

uncertainty is set as an upper bound at 0.5 %.

22
A.3 Laser Power Drift

Noise that is termed drift (or \lfnoise) is common to a broad range of physical systems and is observed at low frequencies (having a magnitude inversely proportional to frequency). It is typically not based on a single phenomenon; rather it is observable and identified based on a

statistical criterion [Al]. The statement of or drift is given to be consistent with the other types of

noise, but distinguishes itself from those that are properly derived as random signals with zero

average; that is, the other contributions can be characterized by their autocorrelation function.

The \lfnoise cannot. In general, \lfnoise is inversely proportional to its frequency (the average

is not zero). In the case of lasers it may be attributable to a variety of mechanisms, depending on

the type of laser (diode laser, gas laser, etc.).

While the design of the measurement service, by use of a monitor detector, can compensate for

long-term fluctuations in laser power (individual measurement to measurement). Short-term drift

during a single measurement can alter the measurement accuracy. Rather than evaluate and

quantify the drift during each calibration episode (for each laser in our ensemble), we state a Type B uncertainty based on manufacturer data and historical data.

The upper bound for this uncertainty is determined from what may be considered a worst-case

scenario (that is, large drift over a short period). We model the worst case by the following

example:

The model is based on the manufacturer's stability specification that establishes an upper bound

for drift. In this case, the largest stability specification is 3.0 %. This 3.0 % stability specification

is then applied to the shortest reasonable period during which measurements are commonly

performed, which we choose to be 200 s. The relative difference in measured power between the

fiill injection interval/period (over which the calorimeter integrates the signal), and the averaged

power signal on the DUT is then calculated. Fig. Al illustrates this model. The relative

difference between the averaged signal (after the settling period) and the integrated signal (over

the fiill injection period) was found to be 0.5 %.

The calculation of the model shown in Eq. (A-1) is represented below.

(A-1)

23
Modeled 3% Laser Power Drift Over 200s Injection Period

Figure Al. Laserpower drift model.

Reference

[Al] D.W. Allan, Should the classical variance be used as a basic measure in standards technology? IEEE Trans. Instrum. Meas. IM-36: 646-654; 1987

24
Appendix B. Sample Calibration Report

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND

TECHNOLOGY

ELECTRONICS AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING

LABORATORY

Boulder, Colorado 80305

Report of Calibration (42110CA)

LASER POWER METER

<DUT Mfg., Model, S/N>

Submitted by:

CUSTOMER

<Custonier name, address>

Calibration Summary

The laser power meter was compared to NIST standard calorimeters at a wavelength of 1064 nm

(Nd:YAG laser). The laser beam had a nominal diameter of 4 mm on the detector surface and the test detector was centered in the incident beam. The power impinging upon the test instrument was measured

concurrently by use of a calibrated beamsplitter and a NIST standard calorimeter (see Figure 1). The

beamsplitter ratio was calibrated for each data set by use of two NIST standard calorimeters.

Before the measurements began, the test instrument was allowed to reach equilibrium with the laboratory

environment. Readings were recorded from the test meter display. The calibration factor was then found

by dividing the test instrument reading by the calculated incident power. The ambient temperature during

these measurements was approximately 23 ± 1°C.

A summary of the measurements is given in Table I. If the readings of the test instrument are divided by

the appropriate calibration factor listed in the table, then, on the average, the resulting values will agree

with those of the NIST measurement system.

Table I. Calibration results.

Wavelength Nominal N Standard Calibration factor Expanded

input power deviation (RdgAV) uncertainty

1064 nm 0.96 W 3 0.03 % 0.9913 +0.86 %

Page:

NIST ID: Folder #: Date of Report: Reference:

X of X xxxxxx

xxxxxx-xx

date
LASER POWER METER

Detector Model No:

Display Model No:

Figure 1. Measurement setup.

Uncertainty Assessment

The uncertainty estimates for the NIST laser energy measurements are assessed following guidelines

given in NIST Technical Note 1297, "Guidelines for Evaluating and Expressing the Uncertainty of NIST

Measurement Results" by Barry N. Taylor and Chris E. Kuyatt, 1994 Edition. To establish the uncertainty

limits, the error sources are separated into (1) Type B errors, whose magnitudes are determined by

subjective judgement or other non-statistical method, and (2) Type A errors, whose magnitudes are obtained statistically from a series of measurements.

All the Type B error components are assumed to be independent and have rectangular or uniform

distributions (that is, each has an equal probability of being within the region, ± 5i, and zero probability of

being outside that region). If the distribution is rectangular, the standard uncertainty, as, for each Type B

error component is equal to 5/3 '^' and the total "standard deviation" is approximated by (Sgs') where the

summation is performed over all Type B error components.

The Type A errors are assumed to be independent and normally distributed, and consequently the

standard deviation, Sr, for each component is

Page: x of x NIST ID: xxxxxx

Folder #: xxxxxx-xx

Date of Report: date Reference:

26
LASER POWER METER

Detector Model No:

Display Model No:

Sr =

(Zx)^

N

N-1

where the x values represent the individual measurements and N is the number of x values used for a particular Type A error component. The standard deviation of the mean is Sr/N'^, and the total standard

uncertainty of the mean is [E(Sr"'/N)] where the summation is carried out for all the Type A error components.

The expanded uncertainty is determined by combining the Type A and Type B "standard uncertainties" in quadrature and multiplying this result by an expansion factor of 2. The expanded uncertainty, U, is then

U

N

The values used to calculate the NIST uncertainties are listed in Table II for the power level tested.

The number of decimal places used in reporting the mean value of the calibration factor listed in Table I was determined by expressing the total NIST uncertainty to two significant digits.

Table II. NIST measurement uncertainties at 1064 nm.

Source Type B Type A

5. (%) Sr (%) N

Standard calorimeter

Inequivalence 0.15

Absorptivity 0.01

Electronics 0.10 0.10 30

Heater leads 0.01

Window trans 0.11 0.02 6

Measurements

Inject time 0.05

Laser power drift 0.50

Standard meter ratio 0.50 0.03 6

Transfer meter ratio 0.03 3

Relative expanded uncertainty (k=2) 0.86 %

Page:

NIST ID: Folder #: Date of Report:

Reference:

X of X xxxxxx

xxxxxx-xx

date
LASER POWER METER

Detector Model No:

Display Model No:

For the Director,

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Calibrated By:

Maria L. Dowell, Group Leader

Sources, Detectors and Displays Group

Optoelectronics Division

Joshua Hadler, Physicist

Sources, Detectors and Displays Group

Optoelectronics Division

John Lehman, Project Leader

Sources, Detectors and Displays Group

Optoelectronics Division

Page:

NISI ID: Folder #: Date of Report:

Reference:

X of X xxxxxx

xxxxxx-xx

date 28

G-JO U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:2007 - 760-677
Technical Publications

Periodical

Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology—Reports NIST research and

development in metrology and related fields of physical science, engineering, applied mathematics, statistics, biotechnology, and information technology. Papers cover a broad range of subjects, with major emphasis on measurement methodology and the basic technology underlying standardization. Also included from time to time are survey articles on topics closely related to the Institute's technical and scientific programs. Issued six times a year.

Nonperiodicals

Monographs—Major contributions to the technical literature on various subjects related to the Institute's scientific and technical activities. Handbooks—Recommended codes of engineering and industrial practice (including safety codes) devel- oped in cooperation with interested industries, professional organizations, and regulatory bodies. Special Publications—Include proceedings of conferences sponsored by NIST, NIST annual reports, and other

special publications appropriate to this grouping such as wall charts, pocket cards, and bibliographies.

National Standard Reference Data Series—Provides quanfitative data on the physical and chemical properties of

materials, compiled from the world's literature and critically evaluated. Developed under a worldwide program

coordinated by NIST under the authority of the National Standard Data Act (Public Law 90-396). NOTE: The

Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data (JPCRD) is published bimonthly for NIST by the American

Institute of Physics (AlP). Subscription orders and renewals are available from AIP, P.O. Box 503284, St. Louis,

MO 63150-3284.

Building Science Series—Disseminates technical information developed at the Institute on building materials,

components, systems, and whole structures. The series presents research results, test methods, and performance

criteria related to the structural and environmental functions and the durability and safety characteristics of building

elements and systems.

Technical Notes—Studies or reports which are complete in themselves but restrictive in their treatment of a subject.

Analogous to monographs but not so comprehensive in scope or definitive in treatment of the subject area. Often

serve as a vehicle for final reports of work performed at NIST under the sponsorship of other government agencies.

Voluntary Product Standards—Developed under procedures published by the Department of Commerce in Part 10, Title 15, of the Code of Federal Regulations. The standards establish nationally recognized requirements for products, and provide all concerned interests with a basis for common understanding of

the characteristics of the products. NIST administers this program in support of the efforts of private-sector

standardizing organizations.

Order the following NISTpublications—FIPS and NISTIRs—from the National Technical Information Service,

Springfield VA 22161.

Federal Information Processing Standards Publications (FIPS PUB)—Publications in this series collectively

constitute the Federal Information Processing Standards Register. The Register serves as the official source of

information in the Federal Government regarding standards issued by NIST pursuant to the Federal Property and

Administrative Services Act of 1949 as amended. Public Law 89-306 (79 Stat. 1 127), and as implemented by

Executive Order 1 1717 (38 FR 12315, dated May 1 1,1973) and Part 6 of Title 15 CFR (Code of Federal

Regulations).

NIST Interagency or Internal Reports (NISTIR)—The series includes interim or final reports on work performed

by NIST for outside sponsors (both government and nongovernment). In general, initial distribution is handled by

the sponsor; public distribution is handled by sales through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield,

VA 22161, in hard copy, electronic media, or microfiche form. NISTIR's may also report results of NIST projects of

transitory or limited interest, including those that will be published subsequently in more comprehensive form.

NIST
U.S. Department of Commerce

National Bureau of Standards and Technology

325 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80305-3328

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300