> LNM$
% !"#&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKRoot EntrydO)S[
PowerPoint Document('SummaryInformation(
DocumentSummaryInformation8+D5(8
/0LDArial0B 0
B.
@n?" dd@ @@`` X! 3)0AA@{
ʚ;\)c8ʚ;g4LdLd B 0ppp@<4ddddLpC 0<4BdBdLhG 00___PPT10
z___PPT9\T< ?-O
=b
JIEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hocTask 2: Time-varying study & modal noise K! */Teleconference notes, 20 Oct 2004
Jonathan King0"Agenda attendees
approve last weeks meeting notes
update on activities
Modal Noise Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
other business
next meeting date/time
^@" ." (" @.(,[)
1) Attendees
Jonathan King, Big Bear Networks
Petre Popescu, Quake
Al Brunsting, Panduit
Yu Sun, Optium
Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
Piers Dawe, Agilent
David Cunningham, Agilent
Simon Meadowcrost, Agilent
Petar Pepeljugoski, IBM
Paul Kolesar, Systimax
Brent Whitlock, Phyworks
Gary Shaulov, Rsoft
Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom
Abijhit Shanbag, Scintera\
please let me know if you or your organization have been missed dMFAF!++BBD^D
D3) a) Improvements to Modal Noise Penalty Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
Petar summarized work extending Modal Noise (MN) theory to LRM applications. Takes into account OFL, OSL, and encircled flux type launches, and fibre properties. MN penalty at BER=1e-12was calculated for an FP laser on a 220m Gaussian link with 500MHz.km bandwidth, with two 7um offset connectors, as agreed in task 2.
Key findings:
For OSL launch into 50 and 62.5um fibre, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for upto 17um and 25um offset launches respectively.
For a direct launch into OM3 fibres, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for an 86% encircled flux radius of up to18um. This corresponds to <0.5dB MN penalty if total MSL through the link is below 1.5dB.
Questions raised and points made during discussion:
MN factor goes up with fibre bandwidth , but is offset by SNR requirement to equalize channel.
k factor of source has correlation with RIN; since RIN is bounded by the LRM spec, does this limit the highest k factor expected, and so reduce MN penalty allowance required?
A DFB source may be expected to have worse noise performance due to higher coherence, and speckle contrast - tbd
David Cunningham and Petar Pepeljugoski said they will prepare a joint presentation on modal noise for the November meeting
@!PK!7 LcV
5
` 33` Sf3f` 33g` f` www3PP` ZXdbmo` \ғ3y`Ӣ` 3f3ff` 3f3FKf` hk]wwwfܹ` ff>>\`Y{ff` R>&- {p_/̴>?" dd@,|?" dd@ " @ ` n?" dd@ @@``PR @ ` `p>>g_(
6H `}
T Click to edit Master title style!
!
0 `
RClick to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level!
S
0 ^ `
;20 Oct 2004L
0H ^
*IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hocTask 2: Time-varying study & modal noise LL
0\ ^ `
@*H
0h ? 3380___PPT10.*jH Default Design
00(
0
0
N`@`gkgk v$
n*
J%%JJoo
0
N@`gkgk 7$
p*
J%%JJood
0
c$ ?RH
4
0
NA`gkgk
!
RClick to edit Master text styles
Second level
Third level
Fourth level
Fifth level!
S
0
Tgkgk v
n*
J%%JJoo
0
Thgkgk 7
p*
J%%JJooH
00jB ? 3380___PPT10.q9e$ $(
r
SLy>
r
Sy`
H
0h ? 3380___PPT10.*jH:
0:(
r
S8 `}
S\u
"p`PpH
0h ? 3380___PPT10.*j$i
$(
$r
$ S8P`
$
s0e0e #"0e@
$
6 `0
*
$
68#
*
$
6<& 0
f42) Minutes of last meeting agreed - no issues raised55H
$0h ? 3380___PPT10.j\:
H:(
Hr
H Sh `p
H Sn@ `
"p`PpH
H0h ? 3380___PPT10.v
y 2L(
L
.L
6p
0p
A5) Next meeting
/L
0
0
Z*Wednesday 27th Oct 9.30am PCT, 5.30pm UK
++
0L
6@ `
V$4) Other business - no issues raised%%
1L
0V 0@
D!p`PpH
L0h ? 3380___PPT10.vr0@=#%
'z ,.e35(8
/0LDArial0B 0
!"#$%&'()*,-./01234Oh+'0h
`h
Task 2: Time variation studytBBNBBN118Microsoft PowerPointn s@p@pP-,j@@[UG^ g 9--$--'@Arial-. 2
<20 Oct 2004n
."System-@Arial-. 72
S IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc
.-@Arial-. 2
<Task 2: Time
.-@Arial-. 2
-.-@Arial-. 12
varying study & modal noise
.-@Arial-. 2
1.-@Arial-. 72
3 IEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc!&
.-@Arial-. 2
bTask 2: Time !.-@Arial-. 2
bk-
.-@Arial-. 12
bxvarying study & modal noise
! .-@Arial-. 92
!Teleconference notes, 20 Oct 2004
.-@Arial-. 2
Jonathan King
.-j՜.+,0
On-screen ShowBBN'+:
ArialDefault DesignKIEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2: Time-varying study & modal noise Agenda
1) Attendees3) Slide 5Fonts UsedDesign Template
Slide Titles_BBNBBNCurrent User5)
B.
@n?" dd@ @@`` X! 3)0AA@{
ʚ;\)c8ʚ;g4LdLd B 0ppp@<4ddddLpC 0<4BdBdLhG 00___PPT10
z___PPT9\T< ?-O
=b
JIEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hocTask 2: Time-varying study & modal noise K! */Teleconference notes, 20 Oct 2004
Jonathan King0"Agenda attendees
approve last weeks meeting notes
update on activities
Modal Noise Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
other business
next meeting date/time
^@" ." (" @.(,[)
1) Attendees
Jonathan King, Big Bear Networks
Petre Popescu, Quake
Al Brunsting, Panduit
Yu Sun, Optium
Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
Piers Dawe, Agilent
David Cunningham, Agilent
Simon Meadowcrost, Agilent
Petar Pepeljugoski, IBM
Paul Kolesar, Systimax
Brent Whitlock, Phyworks
Gary Shaulov, Rsoft
Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom
Abijhit Shanbag, Scintera\
please let me know if you or your organization have been missed dMFAF!++BBD^D
D3) a) Improvements to Modal Noise Penalty Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
Petar summarized work extending Modal Noise (MN) theory to LRM applications. Takes into account OFL, OSL, and encircled flux type launches, and fibre properties. MN penalty at BER=1e-12was calculated for an FP laser on a 220m Gaussian link with 500MHz.km bandwidth, with two 7um offset connectors, as agreed in task 2.
Key findings:
For OSL launch into 50 and 62.5um fibre, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for upto 17um and 25um offset launches respectively.
For a direct launch into OM3 fibres, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for an 86% encircled flux radius of up to18um. This corresponds to <0.5dB MN penalty if total MSL through the link is below 1.5dB.
Questions raised and points made during discussion:
MN factor goes up with fibre bandwidth , but is offset by SNR requirement to equalize channel.
k factor of source has correlation with RIN; since RIN is bounded by the LRM spec, does this limit the highest k factor expected, and so reduce MN penalty allowance required?
A DFB source may be expected to have worse noise performance due to higher coherence, and speckle contrast - tbd
David Cunningham and Petar Pepeljugoski said they will prepare a joint presentation on modal noise for the November meeting
@!PK!7 LcV
r_3e;3Es(8
/0LDArial0B 0
B.
@n?" dd@ @@`` X! 3)0AA@{
ʚ;\)c8ʚ;g4LdLd B 0ppp@<4ddddLpC 0<4BdBdLhG 00___PPT10
z___PPT9\T< ?-O
=
JIEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hocTask 2: Time-varying study & modal noise K! */Teleconference notes, 20 Oct 2004
Jonathan King0"Agenda attendees
approve last weeks meeting notes
update on activities
Modal Noise Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
other business
next meeting date/time
^@" ." (" @.(,[)
1) Attendees
Jonathan King, Big Bear Networks
Petre Popescu, Quake
Al Brunsting, Panduit
Yu Sun, Optium
Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
Piers Dawe, Agilent
David Cunningham, Agilent
Simon Meadowcrost, Agilent
Petar Pepeljugoski, IBM
Paul Kolesar, Systimax
Brent Whitlock, Phyworks
Gary Shaulov, Rsoft
Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom
Abijhit Shanbag, Scintera\
please let me know if you or your organization have been missed dMFAF!++BBD^D
D3) ;a) Improvements to Modal Noise Penalty Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
Petar summarized work extending Modal Noise (MN) theory to LRM applications. Takes into account OFL, OSL, and encircled flux type launches, and fibre properties. MN penalty at BER=1e-12was calculated for various launches of an FP laser into a 220m Gaussian link with 500MHz.km bandwidth, with two 7um offset connectors before the main fibre, as agreed in task 2.
Key findings:
For OSL launch into 50 and 62.5um fibre, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for upto 17um and 25um offset launches respectively.
For a direct launch into OM3 fibres, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for an 86% encircled flux radius of up to18um. This corresponds to <0.5dB MN penalty if total MSL through the link is below 1.5dB.
Questions raised and points made during discussion:
MN factor goes up with fibre bandwidth , but is offset by SNR requirement to equalize channel.
k factor of source has correlation with RIN; since RIN is bounded by the LRM spec, does this limit the highest k factor expected, and so reduce MN penalty allowance required?
A DFB source may be expected to have worse noise performance due to higher coherence, and speckle contrast - tbd
David Cunningham and Petar Pepeljugoski said they will prepare a joint presentation on modal noise for the November meeting
@<!PKM7I LcV
:
H:(
Hr
H Sh `p
H Sn@ `
"p`PpH
H0h ? 3380___PPT10.vrEKXeEZs(8
/0LDArial0B 0
B.
@n?" dd@ @@`` X! 3)0AA@{
ʚ;\)c8ʚ;g4LdLd B 0ppp@<4ddddLpC 0<4BdBdLhG 00___PPT10
z___PPT9\T< ?-O
=
JIEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hocTask 2: Time-varying study & modal noise K! */Teleconference notes, 20 Oct 2004
Jonathan King0"Agenda attendees
approve last weeks meeting notes
update on activities
Modal Noise Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
other business
next meeting date/time
^@" ." (" @.(,[)
1) Attendees
Jonathan King, Big Bear Networks
Petre Popescu, Quake
Al Brunsting, Panduit
Yu Sun, Optium
Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
Piers Dawe, Agilent
David Cunningham, Agilent
Simon Meadowcrost, Agilent
Petar Pepeljugoski, IBM
Paul Kolesar, Systimax
Brent Whitlock, Phyworks
Gary Shaulov, Rsoft
Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom
Abijhit Shanbag, Scintera\
please let me know if you or your organization have been missed dMFAF!++BBD^D
D3) ;a) Improvements to Modal Noise Penalty Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
Petar summarized work extending Modal Noise (MN) theory to LRM applications. Takes into account OFL, OSL, and encircled flux type launches, and fibre properties. MN penalty at BER=1e-12was calculated for various launches of an FP laser into a 220m Gaussian link with 500MHz.km bandwidth, with two 7um offset connectors before the main fibre, as agreed in task 2.
Key findings:
For OSL launch into 50 and 62.5um fibre, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for upto 17um and 25um offset launches respectively.
For a direct launch into OM3 fibres, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for an 86% encircled flux radius of up to18um. This corresponds to <0.5dB MN penalty if total MSL through the link is below 1.5dB.
Questions raised and points made during discussion:
MN factor goes up with fibre bandwidth , but is offset by SNR requirement to equalize channel.
k factor of source has correlation with RIN; since RIN is bounded by the LRM spec, does this limit the highest k factor expected, and so reduce MN penalty allowance required?
A DFB source may be expected to have worse noise performance due to higher coherence, and speckle contrast - tbd
David Cunningham and Petar Pepeljugoski said they will prepare a joint presentation on modal noise for the November meeting
@<!PKM7J LcV
rZeZDms(8
/0LDArial0B 0
B.
@n?" dd@ @@`` X! 3)0AA@{
ʚ;\)c8ʚ;g4LdLd B 0ppp@<4ddddLpC 0<4BdBdLhG 00___PPT10
z___PPT9\T< ?-O
=
JIEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hocTask 2: Time-varying study & modal noise K! */Teleconference notes, 20 Oct 2004
Jonathan King0"Agenda attendees
approve last weeks meeting notes
update on activities
Modal Noise Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
other business
next meeting date/time
^@" ." (" @.(,[)
1) Attendees
Jonathan King, Big Bear Networks
Petre Popescu, Quake
Al Brunsting, Panduit
Yu Sun, Optium
Andre Van Schyndel, Bookham
Piers Dawe, Agilent
David Cunningham, Agilent
Simon Meadowcrost, Agilent
Petar Pepeljugoski, IBM
Paul Kolesar, Systimax
Brent Whitlock, Phyworks
Gary Shaulov, Rsoft
Ali Ghiasi, Broadcom
Abijhit Shanbag, Scintera\
please let me know if you or your organization have been missed dMFAF!++BBD^D
D3) ;a) Improvements to Modal Noise Penalty Calculations - Petar Pepeljugoski
Petar summarized work extending Modal Noise (MN) theory to LRM applications. Takes into account OFL, OSL, and encircled flux type launches, and fibre properties. MN penalty at BER=1e-12was calculated for various launches of an FP laser into a 220m Gaussian link with 500MHz.km bandwidth, with two 7um offset connectors before the main fibre, as agreed in task 2.
Key findings:
For OSL launch into 50 and 62.5um fibre, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for upto 17um and 25um offset launches respectively.
For a direct launch into OM3 fibres, MN penalty is below 0.5dB for an 86% encircled flux radius of up to18um. This corresponds to <0.5dB MN penalty if total MSL through the link is below 1.5dB.
Questions raised and points made during discussion:
MN factor goes up with fibre bandwidth , but is offset by SNR requirement to equalize channel.
k factor of source has correlation with RIN; since RIN is bounded by the LRM spec, does this limit the highest k factor expected, and so reduce MN penalty allowance required?
A DFB source may be expected to have worse noise performance due to higher coherence, and speckle contrast - tbd
David Cunningham and Petar Pepeljugoski said they will prepare a joint presentation on modal noise for the November meeting
@<!PKM7J LcV
rxmeTmRoot EntrydO)@SOD@PowerPoint Document('SummaryInformation(
DocumentSummaryInformation8+,
% !P&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJK$QO
!"#$%&'()*,-./012346789:;<horEmail_AuthorEmailDisplayName u0[10GMMF] Task 2 meeting notes for 20th Oct 2004jking@bigbearnetworks.comJonathan KingArial-. 2
Jonathan King
.-j՜.+,D՜.+,X
On-screen ShowBBN'+:
ArialDefault DesignKIEEE802.3aq Channel model ad hoc Task 2: Time-varying study & modal noise Agenda
1) Attendees3) Slide 5Fonts UsedDesign Template
Slide Titles@_BBNBBNt_AdHocReviewCycleID_EmailSubject
_Aut