Electronic – what is the span of an optical fiber

Here's an extremely simplified way to think about it. The 'spreading vector' you are talking about (made up from chips), is a bit vector of length N. Let's say that N is 8. That means that the spreading factor is 8 and the process gain is \$10*log_{10}(8) = 9dB\$.

Let our code be C = [0,1,1,0,1,1,1,0] To 'spread' our signal, we send one full code for every bit of our actual data. If our message bit is a 1 then we send C. If our message bit is a 0 then we send ~C = [1,0,0,1,0,0,0,1].

Since the chip rate in this example is 8x that of the message rate, the bandwidth is spread out in the frequency domain.

The codes used should ideally all be orthogonal to one another, however in practice PN codes give sufficient chip distance.

This is where the measurement scientist has to go into full sceptical and investigative mode.

First thing. Fibre, as a passive material, is lossy. It absorbs power. Therefore the power arriving at the end of a length of fibre will be less than was launched. Period. No arguments. We don't do over-unity here.

So what causes your observations?

Single mode, 1m -36.14dBm, 10m -36.12dBm

How repeatable are your measurements? Break down and rebuild the connections, and measure again, several times (min 3, but 5 or 10 would be better). Only then can you see whether 0.02dBm is a significant physical effect or whether it's a lucky coincidence.

Measure 20m, and 30m. Is 0dB +/- 0.1dB a reasonable absorption level for 10m of fibre? I don't know, that's what you are measuring. You can be assured that the fibre loss in dB will be additive for longer lengths (for single mode, if there are multiple modes propagating this may not be true for the total power, but it's still true for each mode), so (once you're in single mode operation) you should be able to draw a linear graph of fibre length against dB loss. Remember, 2 points makes a very statistically poor graph.

And finally, I used the phrases 'arriving at the end' and 'the power that was launched'. The power in the fibre isn't necessarily the same as in the test gear. The interfaces will create uncertainty, they lose power. The power losses depend on axial alignment, the gap, the fibre face surface finish (so how well it was prepared). I would be completely unfazed by a measurement showing that a short length of fibre had a lower loss than just the source directly into the receiver, because it's about optical coupling efficiency.

Further to the repeatability measurements I asked you to make above, that's not just several repeat assemblings of the same components (which is measuring your variability), but also doing it again for different samples of nominally the same components (the variability of the system and whether the tools and methods you are provided with work repeatably). So make 3 or more samples of 1m fibre, and compare them.

Single mode 1m 36.14dBm, multimode 1m 35.94dBm

Again, characterise your repeatablity, before you jump to any conclusions on whether a measured difference of 0.2dB is significant.

Single and multi mode fibres might have different optical apertures, so have different coupling losses, quite independent of their transmission losses. Prepare some 'zero length' fibres, or as near zero as the apparatus allows, and measure those. And do 10m, 20m, 30m plots for both. Then you can start saying that there is a significant difference between them.

Multimode 1m -35.94, 10m -18.48dBm

No. Given your other measurements above, something's wrong. You've spilt coffee on the apparatus, or someone's adjusted something while your back was turned, for a laugh. Measure again.

So you thought making measurements and drawing conclusions was easy? No. Test any difference you see against your experimental repeatability. Vary one factor at a time. Consider all possible factors and control for them all. Remember, if a difference is real, it will persist as you make repeated measurements. If you just see something one time, is it the effect, is it you, is it something you hadn't thought of?