Talk:Fellgett's advantage

The man's name was Fellgett change the title to reflect this.

Spelling of "Felgett"
The spelling of the name "Felgett" seems to vary from source to source. This article has been titled with the less often used spelling, so perhaps consideration should be given to moving it to the alternate spelling. Bobby1011 06:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Someone with an acount needs to move —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.78.148.71 (talk) 20:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mixing things up
I think this article is wrong or at least misleading. A scanning monochromator is /always/ worse by a factor sqrt(n) than a FT spectrometer, because it throws a factor n of light away all the time. So we can set this setup aside.

Instead compare a FT spectrometer to a grating spectrometer with a line sensor, recording all channels simultaneously. Here the argument described in the article holds: If SNR is limited by detector background noise, we gain a factor sqrt(n) by using a FT spectrometer over a line CCD, because we only have one pixel with background noise instead of n of them.

A FT spectrometer thus has a factor n advantage over a scanning monochromator for detector noise dominated measurements, which is the product of two factors sqrt(n), as described above. Only one of those two factors sqrt(n) is lost when moving into the shot-noise dominated UV/vis regime, and it's NOT the one Fellgett's Advantage describes.

Incidentally, the cited paper seems relatively unrelated ... Scummos (talk) 08:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)