|Thread Links||Date Links|
|Thread Prev||Thread Next||Thread Index||Date Prev||Date Next||Date Index|
While MT-RJ 62.5/125um is doable, in our experience over the last year, complete end-to-end MT-RJ 50/125um is still rare. I have had several off-line contacts with major fiber/connector companies and they have been overly optimistic about real-world delivery and availability schedules. I am not saying impossible, just not easy. If you wish to maintain existing fiber plant external jacket color-codes then it is *much* more difficult.
From: Roy Bynum [mailto:rabynum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2000 2:44 PM
To: Gair Brown; mittalr@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: Optical Connectors
I agree with the suggestion to codify the three connectors, SC, LC, and
MT-RJ. By the way, there are simple field terminations available for the
At 09:22 AM 8/1/00 -0400, Gair Brown wrote:
>As a user, I would like to focus the discussions.
>Having a large number of connector options is only beneficial in that it
>should allow for the "best" solution to rise to prominence. From my
>perspective this has already occurred, at least for the current round of
>small form factor offerings.
>For non small form factor connectors, the SC is obviously the connector.
>For small form factor connectors, the LC and the MT-RJ are the leading
>You can argue about what the benefits of any of the designs are, but the
>reality is that only the LC and the MT-RJ seem to be capturing the bulk
>of the market. I have seen no market reports that dispute this
>position, or that predict this will change over time.
>I would note that between the three connectors (SC, LC, and MT-RJ), I
>believe that a complete solution set exists for all customer
>requirements, in particular,
> 1. Installed plant compatibility - SC
> 2. Small footprint - LC and MT-RJ
> 3. Optical performance - I'll just say the three should
> encompass this
> 4. Cost - all are cost effective
> 5. Install flexibility - SC and LC are factory or field installable
> 6. High density capability - MT-RJ
>and the list goes on for whatever attributes you want to include.
>I think this group should seriously consider acknowledging the state of
>the market. Inclusion of these connectors as preferred within the
>standard will help focus both the customers and suppliers and ultimately
>reduce costs for all.
> > Roy, I do not believe your assesment is correct. I can give you name of at
> > least 6 other BIG companies who are doing LC. That is more than you can
> > count for MT-RJ, I'm sure.
> > I think it will be instructive to give people a feel of the various
> pros and
> > cons of various small form factor devices. Please let me know if
> anything is
> > amiss. Lets try and mantain objectivity here.
> > LC
> > ---
> > Fiber pitch: 6.25mm (simple and easy to manufacture)
> > Insertion loss 0.1-0.15dbm
> > Return loss: 50-60dbm
> > Mu
> > ---
> > Very similar to LC
> > Only difference is lack of latch which might be
> > depending upon whom you talk to
> > MT-RJ
> > -----
> > Fiber pitch: 0.75mm(difficult to manufacture)
> > Insertion loss 0.15-0.2 dbm
> > Return loss: ~40dbm
> > VF (volition)
> > ----
> > Fiber pitch: 4.9mm(special cabling reqd.)
> > Insertion loss 0.5dbm
> > Return loss: ~20dbm
> > Thanks
> > Rohit
> > ps: I agree with a lot of people on this reflector that it doesn't make
> > sense to get into these discussions on and on. Everyone has their own
> > favourite connector and the protocol is anyway independent of whether you
> > use SC or LC or MT-RJ.
> > _______________________________________________________
> > Say Bye to Slow Internet!
> > http://www.home.com/xinbox/signup.html
>Naval Surface Warfare Center
>Code B35 PH: 540-653-1579
>17320 Dahlgren Road FAX: 540-653-8673
>Building 1500 Room 110A
>Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100