Timeline for What is the signal-noise model of laser induced fluorescence?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 13, 2019 at 3:02 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSignals/status/1139005141439397888 | ||
| Jun 6, 2019 at 0:49 | answer | added | Ed V | timeline score: 1 | |
| Oct 12, 2018 at 11:38 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | Further, when you estimate SNR like this, it is important to consider the noise density for the noise (so W/Hz). An FFT of the result with noise alone can be helpful to indicate how the noise is shaped versus frequency. | |
| Oct 12, 2018 at 11:35 | comment | added | Dan Boschen | Are you able to repeat the fluorescence measurement in a controlled experiment so that you can then (with enough samples) estimate the noise of the signal from the experimental results? This would be the S+N result, and with the laser signal off as shown in the flat areas of your plot the estimation of the noise is straightforward. There are additional computations worth doing to confirm stationarity for purposes of such an estimation. As uhoh correctly indicated, the Signal estimate will be the signal after the electronics interface. | |
| Oct 10, 2018 at 16:17 | comment | added | uhoh | PMTs have several sources of noise, as do the amplifiers that process their signals. "almost noise-free" and "noise is significantly apparent" may not be the best way to judge. You have so few bins in one event that the rise and fall dominate the image. Your amplifier probably has a shaping circuit with a transfer function already optimized for the PMT's signal in terms of peak-height or total area, depending on how your ADC is gated and using the signal. Because PMTs have been the go-to device for so much science over the last half-century, there are tons of books and tutorials out there. | |
| Oct 10, 2018 at 15:40 | history | asked | Seyhmus Güngören | CC BY-SA 4.0 |