Thread Links | Date Links | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Thread Prev | Thread Next | Thread Index | Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index |
Hi Mike, thank you for your question. I think in this experiment it’s just chromatic dispersion which tends to spread the impulse frequencies and get the eye crossing points compressed towards the bottom. I put below an example of an NRZ eye behavior for at 10Gb/s under chromatic dispersion, starting with 50% crossing points in back-to-back (left to right: BTB, 400 and
800ps/nm). So if we consider a PAM4 eye that would suffer the same kind of distortion that we actually measured over different CD values, having less phase/amplitude margins on
the top eye make sense to me. This penalty is then partially recovered by the equalizer, but is where the bottom compression seem to make good job (I think optimum threshold for the mid-eye should
move away from 50%, as well the bottom eye would go more towards the 0 level, so a real receiver, not coerced to 1% threshold optimization should work better than the reference one). As reported in slide 4, in the experiment I tried to keep myself always in the same identical input power for the PDFA pre-amplifier to avoid different noise on 2-3
levels (for this I always report 36dB OSNR for all test conditions). As well I tried to ensure the input power to the fiber to be small enough (having
» 0dBm at TP2, I got max -1dBm into fiber when VOA=0, which correspond to the highest
fiber loss case) to avoid SPM. I also avoided to use narrow BW optical filter, which can also cause crossing points to drop too, paying a bit of penalty on overall system noise, but ensuring I wasn’t
overstressing the system. Hope this answer your question, please let me know if there’s something that I can do to improve for the next experiments in case. Best regards Marco From: Mike Dudek <mdudek@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for a very interesting presentation Marco. I was hoping to ask the following question as a follow up to Paul Kolesar’s but there wasn’t time. I’m interested to know what property
of the transmitter/fiber chromatic dispersion causes the top eye to be degraded more than the bottom eye (and hence the bottom compensation works). I’m assuming you made sure that it wasn’t anything to do with the PDFA. I agree that ensuring the input
to the PDFA was the same in all cases is a very good start. The fact that the bottom compensation degraded the result with the short fibers also implies to me that it probably isn’t a PDFA issue.
-----Original Appointment----- External Email
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link:
https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1
To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-100G-OPTX&A=1 |