Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802.3_25GAUTO_POF] [EXTERNAL]--[802.3_25GAUTO_POF] question on abbott_3dh_01_221130_update_GI_POF_BW_length_dependence.pdf



Hello Dr. Hozeska,

Happy New Year!

Thank you for your comment and  interest in 802.3dh (and 802.3cz). I do not have a definitive answer to your question but will try to make a comment that can move the discussion along.

 

Please email me directly  if you know a source for A4j fiber.

 

The actual requirements are set by motor vehicle manufacturers, and we probably need input/feedback/support  from individuals working for OEMs to verify we are on the right track.

 

The suggestion I would have as a starting place is the “mission profile” or “temperature load spectrum” suggested in presentations on VCSEL reliability:   Hoser_3dh_220824.pdf  and king_3cz_01_1120.pdf https://www.ieee802.org/3/dh/public/Ad%20Hoc%20Aug%2024%202022/Hoser_3dh_220824.pdf  and https://www.ieee802.org/3/cz/public/nov_2020/king_3cz_01_1120.pdf

There are other presentations by Pérez-Aranda, Murty and others in 802.3dh and 802.3cz that have similar temperatures.

 

As explained in Hoser and King presentations we are considering a “mission profile” of 32,000 hours with ambient temperature allocated as in Hoser slide 3:

6% -40degC, 20% at 23degC, 65% at 50degC, 8% at 100degC, 1% at 105degC.

These temperatures show up in other papers on testing for auto industry.

The VCSEL itself generates heat which complicates that specific discussion (because the key temperature is the junction temperature) , but these ambient temperatures seem reasonable for the cable testing. 

This suggests 320hrs at 105degC and 2560hrs at 100degC.  This is a starting point only and not a definitive statement.  Did you have some ideas?

 

As you probably know from your question,  not all GI-POF compositions commercially available  are  suitable.   I don’t know how this figures into the IEC A4j standard.   

 

Thanks for any suggestions – please email me if you know a source for A4j fiber.

 

Thanks!

 

John Abbott

 

 

From: Charles Hozeska <charles@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2022 6:14 PM
To: Abbott, John S <AbbottJS@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [802.3_25GAUTO_POF] [EXTERNAL]--[802.3_25GAUTO_POF] question on abbott_3dh_01_221130_update_GI_POF_BW_length_dependence.pdf

 

Hello Dr. Abbott,

Thank you for your presentation and for your additional information below.

 

I had an an additional question.

You mentioned you would also like to see the effect of heat aging.

Can you please provide the heat and humidity aging parameters?

 

Best wishes

Charles Hozeska

Cernitin Solutions

+1-310-562-7872

 



On Dec 1, 2022, at 05:54, Abbott, John S <AbbottJS@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

Dear 802.3dh members,

 

There was a question following my presentation in yesterday’s 802.3dh ad hoc

https://www.ieee802.org/3/dh/public/Ad_Hoc_Nov%2030_2022/

 

In a number of presentations in 802.3 over the years, including cz and dh,  

I use the approximation  BW[GHz.km] = 0.2/sigma [nsec/km] to give a rough approximation of the expected bandwidth BW of a fiber given the  RMS sigma in the time domain. 

 The question was where does the “0.2” come from because others use 0.35 etc. 

 

The simplest, shortest answer is that 0.187/sigma is the correct relation if sigma is the standard deviation (RMS sigma).

In some cases it may make sense to use 2*sigma which will look more like the ‘width’ of the pulse  (sigma is sometimes called RMS width which is confusing).

In that case one would have (2*0.187)/(2*sigma) which is consistent with the 0.35 number Watanabe-san mentioned.

 

===most readers can stop there === 

 

I have also seen 0.44/T  where “T” is the full-width half max.    This is not 2*.187 because the full-width half max will not be exactly 2-sigma.   This has the advantage of not requiring any analysis of the pulse but just locating the leading and trailing 50% points.

 

The details of the 0.187 number are complicated; the “exact” number will depend on whether one literally means 3dB BW is the 3dB point (which gives 0.187) or one means transfer function has come down to |H(f)|=0.5.   Because pulses are seldom perfectly Gaussian the 0.2 number works fine.

 

For this presentation since we are only interested in the exponent g  in  BW [GHz] = (L[m])^-g,   it doesn’t really matter.

 

I should also mention that sigma and T above refer to the impulse response  and assume the width of the input pulse has been subtracted off or is negligible etc.  This can become a challenge with measurements at very short lengths.

 

References:

I’m sorry I didn’t find good open access discussion

 

For the 0.187/sigma number this is mentioned in various textbooks I would mention the 1992 JLT paper by Gair Brown which is part of the basis for the “IEEE link model”: (sigma is equation 2)

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/136103  

Gair Brown, “Bandwidth and Rise Time Calculations for Multimode Fiber-Optic Data Links”, JLT Volume 10 No. 5 May 1992 p.672.

 

For the 0.44/T  number this is mentioned in the chapter by C. Bunge in the book Polymer Optical Fibres eqn. 3.92:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780081000397000038

Equation 3.92 in C.A. Bunge et al., “Chapter 3-Basic Principles of optical fibres”,  in Polymer Optical Fibres, ed. Bunge, Gries, Beckers. New York: Elsevier, 2017

 

More explanation

A nice feature about the 0.187/sigma number is that it can be translated into analysis of glass optical fibers like OM3 and OM4 which can be understand as supporting 18 mode groups each with a mode delay tau_g and a model power P_g

If the mode delays are normalized relative to the mean delay  (sum of  Pg*tau_g), then the RMS variance sigma^2 is   (sum of Pg*tau_g^2) and sigma is the square root of this. Obviously the pulse itself is not Gaussian but what is important to the link is the low frequency content.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Yuji Watanabe <yuji.watanabe@xxxxxxx> 
Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 9:09 PM
To: STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [EXTERNAL]--[802.3_25GAUTO_POF] Minutes of November 16th plenary meeting

 

Dear 802.3dh participants,

 

The minutes of November 16th 802.3dh plenary meeting has been uploaded.

If need correction, please let me know.

 

Best regards,

 

Yuji Watanabe, AGC


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF list, click the following link:https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF&A=1


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF&A=1

 

Best wishes,
Charles Hozeska
US: +1-310-562-7872





 


To unsubscribe from the STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF list, click the following link: https://listserv.ieee.org/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=STDS-802-3-25GAUTO-POF&A=1