| Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
|
What technologies/integration are you assuming in these MUX/DEMUX figures? Conservative for one technology (ie, discrete thin film) may not be for another (ie, integrated SiP). Brian From: Chris Cole [mailto:chris.cole@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Dear Task Force Participants, Last week, the TF gave permission to update cole_3bs_02 to include TX and RX analog BW used in TDP calculations, which was requested during Q&A. The updated deck was posted last week. http://www.ieee802.org/3/bs/public/14_09/cole_3bs_02b_0914.pdf#page=5 (pages 5 and 6) On a separate topic, in this presentation, we use 2.5dB for 4:1 WDM Mux and 1:4 WDM DeMux loss, which is conservative. Other presentations use loss values of 1.5dB and 2.0dB. Since these values do not enter into
normative specifications, normally there is no need for agreement. However, when making comparisons between different approaches, if the loss values are not the same, the results are not apples-to-apples.
To enable fair comparison of different results I would like to propose that we all use 2.0dB as the value for 4:1 Mux loss, and for 1:4 DeMux loss. This value was used by Alan Tipper in his analysis. This is
neither conservative nor aggressive. Using this number in no way constrains implementations. When we adopt normative specifications, everyone is free to set their design and production targets as they please.
If we can agree on a consensus 4:1 Mux and DeMux loss value for use in analysis, I will update our optical specifications analysis to reflect it.
Thank you
|