Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 63 references

Meta-study of laser power calibrations ranging 20 orders of magnitude with traceability to the kilogram

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Eight distinct laser power measurement techniques, spanning from single-photon counting to 100-kilowatt beams, agree within 3 percent when their calibrations are traced through the kilogram by radiation pressure.

desk verdict Useful and mostly honest NIST internal consistency check, but the 'eight techniques through the kilogram' headline is a derived chain, not independent validation of each meter against radiation pressure. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06139 v2 pith:LGT3L26V submitted 2019-08-16 physics.ins-det physics.app-ph

Paul A. Williams , Matthew T. Spidell , Joshua A. Hadler , Thomas Gerrits , Amanda Koepke , David Livigni , Michelle S. Stephens , Nathan A. Tomlin
show 6 more authors
Gordon A. Shaw Jolene D. Splett Igor Vayshenker Malcolm G. White Chris Yung John H. Lehman
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.ins-detphysics.app-ph
keywords laserpowermetrologyradiationpressurekilogramtraceabilitycryogenicradiometercomparisonfactorsingle-photondetectionmeasurementuncertaintySIredefinition
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper reports a laboratory-wide consistency check spanning about 20 orders of magnitude of laser power, from roughly a thousand photons per second to 100 kilowatts. The authors combine routine intercomparison records into an unbroken chain of comparison factors that ties every one of their power-measurement techniques to their lowest-uncertainty cryogenic radiometer, and then re-express the same chain with traceability routed through the kilogram via a radiation-pressure power meter. They claim that eight distinct measurement techniques agree with one another to within their stated uncertainties, and that single-photon-level power measurements can be made SI-traceable through the kilogram with less than 3 % relative expanded uncertainty. The significance, if the claim holds, is that two independent SI traceability paths—one through electrical units and one through mass—produce mutually consistent optical power calibrations across an enormous dynamic range.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the comparison factor $K_{a,b}$, the ratio of the powers two meters report for the same beam, together with its transitivity rule $K_{n,1} = \prod K_{i+1,i}$, which lets a chain of local comparisons stand in for a direct comparison across non-overlapping ranges. Its uncertainty is deliberately statistical only, coming from repeatability of the ratios and the transfer standard's nonlinearity and spectral-responsivity terms, so Equation (16), $|1-K_{a,b}| \le U_{K_{a,b}}$, serves as the agreement test. On the kilogram side, the mechanism is radiation pressure: a reflecting mirror experiences force $F = 2P/c$ from power $P$, and the force sensor is calibrated against test masses, so the watt is tied to the kilogram through $mg = P Q(\theta)/c$. The paper's proposed future mechanism is to replace the mass calibration with a watt-balance or electrostatic force balance, which would realize the optical watt from $h$ and the cesium hyperfine frequency without the kilogram.

What would settle it

Run a direct, independent comparison between a radiation-pressure force standard and a thermal power meter without passing through the existing transfer chain, using a force calibration derived from a watt-balance rather than from the same test masses and local gravity value; if the resulting comparison factor differs from the paper's chain value by more than the stated $U_K$, the claimed kilogram traceability would be refuted. A simpler spot check is to replace one node of the chain, such as the optical-fiber power meter, with an independently calibrated artifact and test whether all chained comparison factors still satisfy Equation (16).

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a demonstrated agreement, better than 3 %, among eight different laser power measurement techniques whose uncertainties are propagated through a common comparison-factor chain. For each pair of meters the comparison factor $K_{a,b}=P_a/P_b$ measures the ratio of reported powers, and transitive products of such factors connect meters that cannot be collocated or that operate at non-overlapping power and wavelength ranges. The authors show that every meter's comparison factor with their cryogenic radiometer satisfies $|1-K_{a,b}| \le U_{K_{a,b}}$, and that the same is true when the comparison standard is the radiation-pressure power meter, whose traceability runs through the kilogram, meter, and second. In particular, the single-photon avalanche detector, whose calibration chain includes a silicon trap, an optical-fiber power meter, and the cryogenic radiometer, is shown to carry a relative expanded uncertainty of 1.53 % through the cryogenic path and less than 3 % when the entire chain is re-routed through the kilogram.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the comparison-factor uncertainty captures all errors that matter for the agreement test; if a systematic error is shared by the electrical-substitution radiometers, for example in their common voltage or resistance traceability, the comparison chain would not reveal it and the claimed agreement and kilogram-traceability uncertainty would be overstated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every primary and secondary power meter in the laboratory can be assigned a calibration factor through the cryogenic radiometer path without significantly increasing its intrinsic uncertainty, so the low-uncertainty electrical traceability is transferable across the full 20-decade range.
  • Single-photon detectors, currently used for quantum information and metrology, can be calibrated with less than 3 % expanded uncertainty through a kilogram-based chain, giving them an independent SI route.
  • Kilogram-based traceability is currently limited more by the radiation-pressure meter's 1.6 % uncertainty and the length of the comparison chain than by any demonstrated physical mismatch; reducing either would tighten the whole network.
  • With a watt-balance or electrostatic force balance replacing the test-mass calibration, the optical watt could be realized directly from the Planck constant and the cesium hyperfine frequency, eliminating the kilogram and the need to know local gravity.
  • Because the radiation-pressure meter has no demonstrated upper power limit, the same agreement chain can be extended to 100 kW and beyond without a new traceability path.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A consequence the paper does not develop is that the agreement test as formulated would miss a common-mode systematic error shared by all electrical-substitution radiometers; an independent check comparing two thermal meters through a force-based standard not sharing the electrical traceability would settle whether the mutual agreement is genuine.
  • The comparison-factor framework is general enough to validate multi-decade chains in other quantities, such as optical energy, radiant flux, or force, wherever transfer standards bridge non-overlapping ranges; the paper's transitivity and uncertainty rules apply directly to any ratio measurement of that kind.
  • If the proposed watt-balance realization matures, the optical watt could effectively become a branch of force metrology, with power calibrations transportable as a reference mass rather than as a power meter; this would be a practical route toward portable high-power standards.
  • A short-term testable step suggested by the paper's own analysis is to develop roughly 30 dB of high-accuracy attenuation so that the radiation-pressure meter can be compared directly with the mid-power calorimeter, shortening the kilogram chain and reducing the accumulated uncertainty.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports a meta-study of internal intercomparisons among NIST laser power meters spanning roughly 20 orders of magnitude in power, from photon counting to 100 kW. The authors define a comparison factor K_{a,b}, propagate it through chains of transfer standards, and compare seven power meters with the laser-optimized cryogenic radiometer (LOCR) and, by re-mapping through a single RPPM-LOCR link, with the radiation-pressure power meter (RPPM), whose traceability is through the kilogram. They report agreement within a few percent in all cases and specifically claim kilogram traceability for single-photon power measurements with relative expanded uncertainty below 3%.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a valuable meta-analysis: it provides a public record of NIST's internal consistency checks, demonstrates a viable alternative traceability path for optical power through the kilogram, and quantifies the uncertainty penalties of that path. The paper is strong in its clear formal framework for comparison factors, explicit uncertainty propagation (including the Type A-only nature of comparison uncertainties), and a concrete proposal for a Kibble-balance-based realization of the optical watt. The authors also explicitly acknowledge in the abstract that the RPPM comparisons are re-mapped from LOCR comparisons, which is a commendable transparency, although the conclusion still overstates the independence of those comparisons.

major comments (3)
  1. [Table II, Section III.b] The bottom-half entries for SPAD vs RPPM and OFPM vs RPPM list K_DUT,RPPM = 1, but this is inconsistent with the transitive construction in Section III.a. From Eqs. (10)-(13) and the top-half values, K_SPAD,RPPM = K_SPAD,LOCR * K_LOCR,RPPM = 1.0000 * 0.9878 = 0.9878, and the same applies to OFPM. The explanation in Section III.b that secondary standards have K=1 is valid only when the standard is the one used in their calibration (LOCR), not when the standard is RPPM. As printed, the table makes the agreement of these two techniques with the kilogram path appear exact by construction rather than by measurement. Please correct the central values and the corresponding 1-K column, or explicitly state the normalization convention used.
  2. [Eq. (11), Eq. (16), Section IV] The comparison uncertainty U_K in Eq. (11) contains only Type A statistical components (u_a,stat and u_b,stat), and the agreement test in Eq. (16) uses this U_K. Therefore, the statement in Section IV that the primary standards 'demonstrate mutual agreement within their stated uncertainty' is not supported with respect to the full stated uncertainties, which include Type B systematic components. A common-mode systematic error in the electrical-substitution traceability path (for example, in electrical standards) would be invisible to this comparison. Please revise the claim to 'within the comparison (Type A) uncertainty' or provide a concrete justification for why common-mode Type B errors are negligible for the agreement claim.
  3. [Section V, Table II] The conclusion 'We have shown agreement better than 3 % between eight different measurement techniques ... with traceability through the kilogram via radiation pressure' overstates the independence of the evidence. The bottom half of Table II is a re-mapping of the LOCR comparisons through a single RPPM-LOCR link (Section III.a, Eqs. (10)-(13)); the only direct RPPM comparisons are with the K-series and FWOPM at multi-kW levels (Appendix A.9). The transitive consistency check is legitimate and useful, but it is not eight independent validations against the kilogram path. Please recast the conclusion to state that each technique agrees with the LOCR chain and that the LOCR chain agrees with the RPPM through a linked comparison chain.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Appendix A.7] The text reads 'NIST-calibrated voltmeter and shut resistor'; 'shut' should be 'shunt'.
  2. [Section III.b] The phrase 'it’s SI traceability' should be 'its SI traceability'.
  3. [Section II, Figure 2] The figure caption describes open symbols as secondary standards, but the main text does not clearly define the symbol shapes; please ensure the caption is self-contained.
  4. [Table II] The column header '1-KDUT,Std' lacks spacing and subscripts; consider formatting as '1 - K_DUT,Std' for readability.
  5. [Appendix C] Equations (13) and (C9) are identical; cross-reference one to the other to avoid unnecessary duplication.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed agreement of eight techniques with kilogram traceability is partly constructed: secondary-standard K=1 values are calibration-forced, and the RPPM agreement block is mostly remapped from LOCR comparisons.

  1. self definitional [Section III.b (Calibration of Secondary Standards), Table II]
    "Were this calibrated secondary standard then re-compared to the primary standard used to establish it’s SI traceability, we would expect to measure a comparison factor of 1 (neglecting the randomness of a particular measurement). This is why the comparison factor equals 1 for the secondary standards of Table II."

    For SPAD and OFPM, K=1 against LOCR is not a measured agreement; it is imposed by the prior calibration step that rescales the secondary standard's output to agree with LOCR. Listing these units as 'agreeing' and then counting them among the 'eight different measurement techniques' in the conclusion makes part of the headline agreement true by definition. The same K=1 values also appear in the RPPM block, where RPPM was not the calibrating standard, so those entries cannot be independent validations either.

  2. renaming known result [Abstract; Section III.b, Eq. (12); Table II; Section III.c, Figure 5]
    "Then, these intercomparison results are re-mapped to describe the agreement of the various techniques with our radiation-pressure-based power measurement approach ... Virtual comparison factors between power meters have been constructed by taking the product of the appropriate individual comparison factors."

    The bottom half of Table II is presented as each meter's comparison with RPPM, but for most of the meters it is not a direct RPPM measurement. It is the DUT-vs-LOCR comparison factor multiplied by the RPPM-vs-LOCR factor through Eq. (12). For example, K_OFCR,RPPM = K_OFCR,LOCR * K_LOCR,RPPM = 0.9985 * 0.9878 = 0.9864, exactly the Table II value; the same identity holds for C. Thus the claim of 'agreement with traceability through the kilogram' for seven non-RPPM meters is the LOCR agreement data renamed in RPPM coordinates plus a single RPPM-LOCR junction, not an independent validation of each technique against the kilogram path.

full rationale

The paper contains genuine independent anchors: direct comparisons between RPPM and the K-series and FWOPM are described in Appendix A.9, and the LOCR block includes comparisons with multiple primary standards. The transitive construction in Eqs. (4)-(13) is mathematically legitimate. The circularity is narrower but real: the secondary-standard K=1 entries are enforced by calibration rather than measured, and the RPPM agreement block is largely remapped from the LOCR comparisons rather than independently tested, despite the abstract and conclusions presenting it as a separate validation through the kilogram. The paper is transparent about the re-mapping and the calibration forcing, which keeps this from being a fully circular derivation. The Type-B omission in Eq. (11) is a separate correctness concern, not a circularity, so it does not affect this score. Overall, the central claim partially reduces by construction, giving a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted in this paper; all uncertainties come from prior instrument characterizations. The analysis relies on domain assumptions about Type-A-only comparison uncertainties, linear extrapolation, known transfer-standard behavior, and the perfect-reflection radiation-pressure model. The RPPM agreement is derived from the LOCR chain rather than independently measured.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The comparison factor uncertainties are purely Type A statistical and independent, so they combine in quadrature (Eq. C9).
    Underlies all claimed agreement and traceability uncertainties; systematic errors and correlations are excluded.
  • domain assumption The transfer standard's power nonlinearity and spectral responsivity ratio are known and their uncertainties are included (Eq. 10).
    Needed for virtual comparisons across non-overlapping power and wavelength ranges.
  • domain assumption Power meter response scales linearly with power, as in Eq. (3), allowing extrapolation between power levels.
    Required to construct virtual comparison factors for non-collocated meters.
  • domain assumption Radiation pressure force relates to optical power by F = 2P/c at normal incidence with Q(theta) = 2.
    Used in Appendix B to relate power to force and mass; assumes perfect specular reflection.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Meta-study of laser power calibrations ranging 20 orders of magnitude with traceability to the kilogram." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LGT3L26V

@misc{pith2026190806139,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Meta-study of laser power calibrations ranging 20 orders of magnitude with traceability to the kilogram},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LGT3L26V}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06139}
}
read the original abstract

Laser power metrology at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) ranges 20 orders of magnitude from photon-counting (1000 photons/s) to 100 kW (10^23 photons/s at a wavelength of 1070 nm). As a part of routine practices, we perform internal (unpublished) comparisons between our various power meters to verify correct operation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.06139 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the power and uncertainty range typically covered by the various laser power measurement techniques at NIST. The uncertainty assignments ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Illustration of the direct comparisons performed between the various power meters indicating the power and wavelength at which each was carried out. Solid-fill boxes denote primary standards, outline boxes denote secondary (transfer) standards. For the comparison between the Si Trap and SPAD, 10 W of power was incident on the Si Trap and then attenuated by a calibrated 90 dB attenuator to yield 10 fW of incident po… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Unconditional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology,

    S. Slussarenko, M. M. Weston, H. M. Chrzanowski, L. K. Shalm, V. B. Verma, S. W. Nam, and G. J. Pryde, "Unconditional violation of the shot-noise limit in photonic quantum metrology," Nature Photonics 11, 700-703 (2017)

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Strong Loophole-Free Test of Local Realism,

    L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bierhorst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, D. R. Hamel, M. S. Allman, K. J. Coakley, S. D. Dyer, C. Hodge, A. E. Lita, V. B. Verma, C. Lambrocco, E. Tortorici, A. L. Migdall, Y. Zhang, D. R. Kumor, W. H. Farr, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, J. A. Stern, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, T. Jen...

    work page 2015

  3. [3]

    Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell's Theorem with Entangled Photons,

    M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlechner, J. Kofler, J.-Å. Larsson, C. Abellán, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, J. Beyer, T. Gerrits, A. E. Lita, L. K. Shalm, S. W. Nam, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, B. Wittmann, and A. Zeilinger, "Significant-Loophole-Free Test of Bell's Theorem with Entangl...

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Photon-counting compressive sensing laser radar for 3D imaging,

    G. A. Howland, P. B. Dixon, and J. C. Howell, "Photon-counting compressive sensing laser radar for 3D imaging," Applied Optics 50, 5917-5920 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Kilometer-range, high resolution depth imaging via 1560 nm wavelength single-photon detection,

    A. McCarthy, N. J. Krichel, N. R. Gemmell, X. Ren, M. G. Tanner, S. N. Dorenbos, V. Zwiller, R. H. Hadfield, and G. S. Buller, "Kilometer-range, high resolution depth imaging via 1560 nm wavelength single-photon detection," Opt Express 21, 8904-8915 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Provably secure and practical quantum key distribution over 307 km of optical fibre,

    B. Korzh, C. C. W. Lim, R. Houlmann, N. Gisin, M. J. Li, D. Nolan, B. Sanguinetti, R. Thew, and H. Zbinden, "Provably secure and practical quantum key distribution over 307 km of optical fibre," Nature Photonics 9, 163 (2015)

    work page 2015

  7. [7]

    Satellite-to-ground quantum key distribution,

    S.-K. Liao, W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, L. Zhang, Y. Li, J.-G. Ren, J. Yin, Q. Shen, Y. Cao, Z.-P. Li, F.-Z. Li, X.- W. Chen, L.-H. Sun, J.-J. Jia, J.-C. Wu, X.-J. Jiang, J.-F. Wang, Y.-M. Huang, Q. Wang, Y.-L. Zhou, L. Deng, T. Xi, L. Ma, T. Hu, Q. Zhang, Y.-A. Chen, N.-L. Liu, X.-B. Wang, Z.-C. Zhu, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, C.- Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.-W. Pan, "S...

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

    The Laser Enhanced Arc-Jet Facility (LEAF-Lite): Simulating Convective and Radiative Heating with Arc-jets and Multiple 50-kW CW Lasers,

    G. Cushman, A. Alumni, J. Balboni, P. Zell, J. Hartman, and D. M. Empey, "The Laser Enhanced Arc-Jet Facility (LEAF-Lite): Simulating Convective and Radiative Heating with Arc-jets and Multiple 50-kW CW Lasers," in 48th AIAA Thermophysics Conference, (Alanta, GA, 2018)

    work page 2018

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    International vocabulary of metrology - Basic and general concempts and associated terms (VIM 3rd edition, 2012),

    "International vocabulary of metrology - Basic and general concempts and associated terms (VIM 3rd edition, 2012)," (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (JCGM), https://www.bipm.org/utils/common/documents/jcgm/JCGM_200_2012.pdf (retrieved 2019)

    2012

  2. [10]

    https://www.nist.gov/calibrations/laser-power-and-energy-meter-measurements- free-space-and-fiber

    M. Spidell, "https://www.nist.gov/calibrations/laser-power-and-energy-meter-measurements- free-space-and-fiber" (2018), retrieved

    2018

  3. [11]

    Cryogenic primary standard for optical fibre power measurement,

    M. G. White, Z. E. Ruiz, C. S. Yung, I. Vayshenker, N. A. Tomlin, M. S. Stephens, and J. H. Lehman, "Cryogenic primary standard for optical fibre power measurement," Metrologia 55, 706-715 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    Optical fibre power meter calibration at 0.1% uncertainty with fibre¬-coupled primary standard,

    M. G. White, E. Baumann, I. Vayshenker, Z. E. Ruiz, and M. S. Stephens, "Optical fibre power meter calibration at 0.1% uncertainty with fibre¬-coupled primary standard," (In preparation)

  5. [13]

    High-Accuracy Laser Power and Energy Meter Calibration Service,

    D. J. Livigni, "High-Accuracy Laser Power and Energy Meter Calibration Service," in NIST Special Publication 250-62, (2003), p. 144

    2003

  6. [14]

    A Reference Calorimeter for Laser Energy Measurements,

    E. D. West, W. E. Case, A. L. Rasmussen, and L. B. Schmidt, "A Reference Calorimeter for Laser Energy Measurements," Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 76A, 13-26 (1972)

    1972

  7. [15]

    From Laboratory to CubeSat - Room Temperature Absolute Bolometers for Laser Power Standards, Solar Spectral Irradiance, and Total Solar Irradiance

    M. Stephens, N. Tomlin, C. Yung, M. White, J. Lehman, D. Harber, G. Kopp, K. Heuerman, J. Sprunck, Z. Castleman, G. Drake, and E. Richard, "From Laboratory to CubeSat - Room Temperature Absolute Bolometers for Laser Power Standards, Solar Spectral Irradiance, and Total Solar I...

    2018

  8. [16]

    Theory of isoperibol calorimetry for laser power and energy measurements,

    E. D. West and K. L. Churney, "Theory of isoperibol calorimetry for laser power and energy measurements," Journal of Applied Physics 41, 2705-2712 (1970)

    1970

  9. [17]

    Flowing water optical power meter for primary-standard, multi-kilowatt laser power measurements,

    P. A. Williams, J. A. Hadler, C. Cromer, J. West, and X. Li, "Flowing water optical power meter for primary-standard, multi-kilowatt laser power measurements," Metrologia 55, 427-436 (2018)

    2018

  10. [18]

    Radiation-Pressure Enabled Traceable Laser Sources at CW Powers up to 50 kW,

    P. Williams, A. Artusio-Glimpse, J. Hadler, D. King, T. Vo, K. Rogers, I. Ryger, and J. Lehman, "Radiation-Pressure Enabled Traceable Laser Sources at CW Powers up to 50 kW," IEEE T Instrum Meas (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Use of radiation pressure for measurement of high-power laser emission,

    P. A. Williams, J. A. Hadler, R. Lee, F. C. Maring, and J. H. Lehman, "Use of radiation pressure for measurement of high-power laser emission," Opt Lett 38, 4248-4251 (2013)

    2013

  12. [20]

    Portable, high-accuracy, non-absorbing laser power measurement at kilowatt levels by means of radiation pressure,

    P. Williams, J. Hadler, F. Maring, R. Lee, K. Rogers, B. Simonds, M. Spidell, M. Stephens, A. Feldman, and J. Lehman, "Portable, high-accuracy, non-absorbing laser power measurement at kilowatt levels by means of radiation pressure," Opt Express 25, 4382-4392 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Detecting single infrared photons with 93% system efficiency,

    F. Marsili, V. B. Verma, J. A. Stern, S. Harrington, A. E. Lita, T. Gerrits, I. Vayshenker, B. Baek, M. D. Shaw, R. P. Mirin, and S. W. Nam, "Detecting single infrared photons with 93% system efficiency," Nature Photonics 7, 210 (2013)

    2013

  14. [22]

    Verification of calibration methods for determining photon-counting detection efficiency using superconducting nano-wire single photon detectors,

    I. Mueller, R. D. Horansky, J. H. Lehman, S. W. Nam, I. Vayshenker, L. Werner, G. Wuebbeler, and M. White, "Verification of calibration methods for determining photon-counting detection efficiency using superconducting nano-wire single photon detectors," Opt Express 25, 21483-...

    2017

  15. [23]

    Calibration of free-space and fiber-coupled single-photon detectors,

    T. Gerrits, A. Migdall, J. C. Bienfang, J. Lehman, S. W. Nam, J. Splett, I. Vayshenker, and J. Wang, "Calibration of free-space and fiber-coupled single-photon detectors," in Submitted to Metrologia, available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.02258, (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Vayshenker, X

    I. Vayshenker, X. Li, D. J. Livigni, T. R. Scott, and C. L. Cromer, Optical Fiber Power Meter Calibrations at NIST, NIST Special Publication 250-54 (2000)

    2000

  17. [25]

    Understanding the Revised SI: Background, Consequences, and Perspectives,

    T. C. Liebisch, J. Stenger, and J. Ullrich, "Understanding the Revised SI: Background, Consequences, and Perspectives," Annalen der Physik, 1800339 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Calibration of free-space and fiber-coupled single-photon detectors

    T. Gerrits, A. Migdall, J. C. Bienfang, J. Lehman, S. W. Nam, J. Splett, I. Vayshenker, and J. Wang, "Calibration of free-space and fiber-coupled single-photon detectors " (In preparation, 2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    "Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology (2008) JCGM 100:2008, Evaluation of Measurement Data - Guide to the Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement (GUM 1995 with minor corrections) (Joint Committee for Guides in Metrology, Paris, France). ."

    2008

  20. [28]

    B. N. Taylor and C. E. Kuyatt, Guidelines for evaluating and expressing the uncertainty of NIST measurement results, NIST Technical Note 1297 (1994)

    1994

  21. [29]

    Optical detector nonlinearity: Simulation,

    S. Yang, I. Vayshenker, X. Li, T. R. Scott, and M. Zander, "Optical detector nonlinearity: Simulation," in NIST Technical Note 1376, (1995)

    1995

  22. [30]

    Vayshenker, S

    I. Vayshenker, S. Yang, X. Li, T. R. Scott, and C. L. Cromer, Optical fiber power meter nonlinearity calibrations at NIST, NIST Special Publication 250-56 (2000), Vol. 56

    2000

  23. [31]

    Optical tunnel-trap detector for radiometric measurements,

    J. Lehman and C. L. cromer, "Optical tunnel-trap detector for radiometric measurements," Metrologia 37, 477-480 (2003)

    2003

  24. [32]

    Thermopile Radiation Detector System,

    P. Villers and G. Falbel, "Thermopile Radiation Detector System," United States Patent 3424624 (1969)

    1969

  25. [33]

    Power Meter for Measurement of Radiation,

    W. S. Mefferd, R. J. Rorden, and J. L. Hobart, "Power Meter for Measurement of Radiation," United States Patent 3596514 (1971)

    1971

  26. [34]

    Geometric contributions to chopper wheel optical attenuation and uncertainty

    M. Spidell, H. Hadler, M. Stephens, P. Williams, and J. Lehman, "Geometric contributions to chopper wheel optical attenuation and uncertainty " Metrologia 54, L19-L25 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Inline laser power measurement by photon momentum,

    J. Lehman, K. Rogers, D. Rahn, and P. Williams, "Inline laser power measurement by photon momentum," Applied Optics 58, 1239-1241 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    Micromachined force scale for optical power measurement by radiation pressure sensing,

    I. Ryger, Artusio-Glimpse, A.B., Williams, P.A., Tomlin, N., Stephens, M., Rogers, K., Spidell, M., Lehman, J., "Micromachined force scale for optical power measurement by radiation pressure sensing," IEEE Sensors 18, 7941-7948 (2018)

    2018

  29. [37]

    Direct measurement of radiation pressure and circulating power inside a passive optical cavity,

    R. Wagner, F. Guzman, A. Chijioke, G. K. Gulati, M. Keller, and G. Shaw, "Direct measurement of radiation pressure and circulating power inside a passive optical cavity," Opt Express 26, 23492- 23506 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Total momentum transfer produced by the photons of a multi-pass laser beam as an evident avenue for optical and mass metrology,

    S. Vasilyan, T. Frohlich, and E. Manske, "Total momentum transfer produced by the photons of a multi-pass laser beam as an evident avenue for optical and mass metrology," Opt Express 25, 20798-20816 (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    The pressure due to radiation,

    E. E. Nichols and G. F. Hull, "The pressure due to radiation," Physical Review 17, 25 (1903)

    1903

  32. [40]

    The Pressure Due to Radiation,

    E. F. Nichols and G. F. Hull, "The Pressure Due to Radiation," Astrophysical Journal 17, 315-351 (1903)

    1903

  33. [41]

    Experimental Examination of Light Pressure,

    P. N. Lebedev, "Experimental Examination of Light Pressure," Annalen der Physik 6, 26 (1901)

    1901

  34. [42]

    Torsion Pendulum Photometer,

    M. Stimler, Z. I. Slawsky, and R. E. Grantham, "Torsion Pendulum Photometer," Rev Sci Instrum 35, 311-313 (1964)

    1964

  35. [43]

    Measurement of Laser Output by Light Pressure,

    J. J. Cook, W. L. Flowers, and C. B. Arnold, "Measurement of Laser Output by Light Pressure," P Ire 50, 1693 (1962)

    1962

  36. [44]

    A New Pulse Laser Energy Meter,

    Y. P. Yuan, "A New Pulse Laser Energy Meter," Rev Sci Instrum 61, 1743-1746 (1990)

    1990

  37. [45]

    Precise measurement of laser power using an optomechanical system,

    K. Agatsuma, D. Friedrich, S. Ballmer, G. DeSalvo, S. Sakata, E. Nishida, and S. Kawamura, "Precise measurement of laser power using an optomechanical system," Opt Express 22, 2014- 2031 (2014)

    2014

  38. [46]

    A new facility to realize a nanonewton force standard based on electrostatic methods,

    V. Nesterov, M. Mueller, L. L. Frumin, and U. Brand, "A new facility to realize a nanonewton force standard based on electrostatic methods," Metrologia 46, 277-282 (2009)

    2009

  39. [47]

    Determination of a cantilever's mechanical impedance using photon momentum,

    P. R. Wilkinson, G. A. Shaw, and J. R. Pratt, "Determination of a cantilever's mechanical impedance using photon momentum," Appl Phys Lett 102, 184103 (2013)

    2013

  40. [48]

    Quantitative measurement of radiation pressure on a microcantilever in ambient environment,

    D. K. Ma, J. L. Garrett, and J. N. Munday, "Quantitative measurement of radiation pressure on a microcantilever in ambient environment," Appl Phys Lett 106, 091107 (2015)

    2015

  41. [49]

    Comparison of electrostatic and photon pressure force references at the nanonewton level,

    G. Shaw, J. Stirling, J. Kramar, P. Williams, M. Spidell, and R. Mirin, "Comparison of electrostatic and photon pressure force references at the nanonewton level," Metrologia 56, 025002 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    The watt or Kibble balance: a technique for implementing the new SI definition of the unit of mass,

    I. A. Robinson and S. Schlamminger, "The watt or Kibble balance: a technique for implementing the new SI definition of the unit of mass," Metrologia 53, A46-A74 (2016)

    2016

  43. [51]

    Milligram mass metrology using an electrostatic force balance,

    G. A. Shaw, J. Stirling, J. A. Kramar, A. Moses, P. Abbott, R. Steiner, A. Koffman, J. R. Pratt, and Z. J. Kubarych, "Milligram mass metrology using an electrostatic force balance," Metrologia 53, A86-A94 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Measurement of Submilligram Masses Using Electrostatic Force,

    G. A. Shaw and J. Stirling, "Measurement of Submilligram Masses Using Electrostatic Force," Ieee T Instrum Meas, 1-6 (2019)

    2019

  45. [53]

    Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017,

    D. Haddad, F. Seifert, L. S. Chao, A. Possolo, D. B. Newell, J. R. Pratt, C. J. Williams, and S. Schlamminger, "Measurement of the Planck constant at the National Institute of Standards and Technology from 2015 to 2017," Metrologia 54, 633-641 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    A Cryogenic Radiometer for Absolute Radiometric Measurements

    J. E. Martin, N. P. Fox, and P. J. Key, "A Cryogenic Radiometer for Absolute Radiometric Measurements " Metrologia 21, 147-155 (1985)

    1985

  47. [55]

    Deposition and characterization of far-infrared absorbing gold black films,

    D. J. Advena, V. T. Bly, and J. T. Cox, "Deposition and characterization of far-infrared absorbing gold black films," Applied Optics 32, 1136-1144 (1993)

    1993

  48. [56]

    Black coatings for absolute radiometers,

    W. R. Blevin and W. J. Brown, "Black coatings for absolute radiometers," Metrologia 2, 139-143 (1966)

    1966

  49. [57]

    Data analysis for isoperibol laser calorimetry,

    E. D. West, "Data analysis for isoperibol laser calorimetry," in NBS Technical Note 396, (1971)

    1971

  50. [58]

    J. A. Hadler, C. L. Cromer, and J. H. Lehman, NIST Measurement Services: cw Laser Power and Energy Calibrations at NIST, NIST Special Publication (2007), Vol. 250-75

    2007

  51. [59]

    Documentation of the NBS C, K, and Q laser calibration systems,

    W. E. Case, "Documentation of the NBS C, K, and Q laser calibration systems," National Bureau of Standards Internal Report 82-1676, (1982)

    1982

  52. [60]

    X. Li, J. A. Hadler, C. L. Cromer, J. H. Lehman, and M. L. Dowell, NIST Measurement Services: High power laser calibrations at NIST, NIST Special Publication 250-77 (2008)

    2008

  53. [61]

    Comparison of Three Different NIST-Developed Primary Standards for Multi-kW Laser Power Measurement,

    J. A. Hadler and P. A. Williams, "Comparison of Three Different NIST-Developed Primary Standards for Multi-kW Laser Power Measurement," in 13th International Conference on New Developments and Applications in Optical Radiometry, (Tokyo, Japan, 2017)

    2017

  54. [62]

    Progress toward radiation-pressure-enabled traceable laser sources,

    P. A. Williams, Hadler, J.A., Ryger, I., Artusio-Glimpse, A.B., Lehman, J.H., "Progress toward radiation-pressure-enabled traceable laser sources," in Conference on Precision Electromagnetic Measurements, (CPEM, 2018),

    2018

  55. [63]

    Bridging classical and quantum mechanics,

    D. Haddad, F. Seifert, L. S. Chao, S. Li, D. B. Newell, J. R. Pratt, C. Williams, and S. Schlamminger, "Bridging classical and quantum mechanics," Metrologia 53, A83-A85 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.