Talk:Fiber-optic communication
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. |
|
Help with this template Please rate this article, and then leave comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify its strengths and weaknesses. |
|
 To-do: |
edit · history · watch · refresh |
|---|---|
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Ease of Splicing
Should "Ease Of Splicing" be "Ease of Fusion Splicing"?
The splicing that takes place with fiber optic lines is Fusion splicing. splicing takes you to a page that describes different types of splicing methods, not, not the one referring to what Fiber Optic networks use.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication#Comparison_with_electrical_transmission
Zylstra555 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Sure- go ahead and make the change. johnpseudo 14:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
- Fun stuff... hopefully I wont kill it... Fusion splicing... seems like that stub works. Page updated. Thanks. Zylstra555 (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Merger proposal
I will work on this soon. There seems to be a lot of information on both source sections, and making a new article shouldn't be difficult. johnpseudo 23:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I support this change. The communications section is too long compared to the rest of the optical fiber article, and the optical communication article is written to cover too broad a topic, "any form of telecommunication that uses light as the transmission medium," to ever become a coherent high-quality article. The Photon 04:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Cable TV
I think that historically, (e.g., in the '90s) fiber optics for cable television were typically analog rather than digital, carrying essentially the same rf signals that electrical distribuition systems would have carried. This led to different requirements on the transmitters (high linearity), and probably other differences to telephone network optical fiber communication. I assume that analog systems are at least still in use, even if they're no longer being deployed. Can anyone confirm this and edit it into the article? -- The Photon 01:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- See Hybrid fibre-coaxial. Downstream is always 'analog'; some systems digitize the upstream and transmit as baseband digital. Also, some FTTP systems use a seperate wavelength for cable TV type signals. Mirror Vax 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] more on the limitations
- "With current fibre technilogy [sic], the achievable bandwidth is in excess of 50, 000 [sic] Gbps (50Tbps) and many people are looking very hard for better materials. The current practical limit of about 1Gbps is due to our inability to convert between electrical and optical signals any faster." - Andrew Tanenbaum, in 'Computer Networks' (3rd Edition, Prentice-Hall 1996) [1] 71.103.84.158 23:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
- I think the 2002 edition of the "fiber-optic communication systems" book I used is probably a little more accurate. johnpseudo 00:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Ah, does most of the article reference the book? I didn't see a specific reference link to the book.
-
- Also, I didn't see a succinct summarization of the information above when I scanned the article. - 71.103.81.38 23:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, I got most of the information from that book. I figured if I'm going to pay 80 bucks for a textbook, I'd better be able to use it for more than one semester. Do the most recent changes address your concern? Honestly, I think what this article needs more than anything else is a bunch of pictures, but I can't find any that I'm sure fair-use applies to. johnpseudo 01:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Maintenance
In the article we have, "Once in place, such cables require substantially less maintenance." I tagged it with {{cite-needed}} because I originally read it to mean "less maintenance than copper wire." But I now think the real question is probably, less maintenance than what?
--The Photon 05:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
"Fiber optics will bring faster and more powerful service, including supporting streaming video and allowing up to four phone lines per household but requiring less maintenance than copper cables" johnpseudo 06:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
In context, I think it's clear that the comparison in the article is with copper wire: "Once the fiber is...assembled into a fiber-optic cable, it ... similar to copper cable. Once in place, such cables require substantially less maintenance." johnpseudo 06:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, I missed that line in the referenced article. Do you really consider an article in a local newspaper to be authoritative on the question of whether fiber optic or copper cable requires more maintenance? Most likely, the reporter is just reporting what Verizon told her, and Verizon has a distinct interest in justifying and promoting their recent project.
- From a technical point of view, I can't see why either copper or fiber should have an advantage in maintenace --- it should all depend on what kind of cable (jacket, armor, ...) is wrapped around the transmission line. Can you find any more detailed explanation of whether, or why, fiber actually requires less maintenance than copper? Maybe there might be an advantage to the service provider -- fewer lines serving the same number of subscribers means fewer points of failure -- but for the subscriber the MTBF would be the same. Anyway, if you can find a more convincing reference I think that would be an improvement for the article.
- Also, sorry to be slow responding, but I haven't been real active lately. --The Photon 05:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
First off, I don't think Verizon has any subversive reason to be pushing fiber-optic over copper. They don't sell fiber-optic cable, they buy it. The primary reason fiber-optic cable requires less maintenance than copper cable is that it requires far fewer signal regenerators and amplifiers. The fewer routers, amplifiers, and regenerators you have in the ground, the fewer can break and need repair. There are other reasons for less maintenance, too. Here are a few articles I found: "Fiber optic systems are immune to power induction and ... Fiber offers the highest level of noise and maintenance free service for critical Class A circuits." "Overall, fiber is more expensive than copper in the short run, but it may actually be less expensive in the long run. Fiber typically costs less to maintain, has much less downtime, and requires less networking hardware. And fiber eliminates the need to recable for higher network performance." "...lower operation and maintenance expenses due to fiber's greater reliability. Fiber-optic cables are less susceptible to glitches or interference and can withstand shock and vibration., such as potential disruption from inclement weather" "Fiber optics is affected less by moisture which means less corrosion and degradation. Therefore, no scheduled maintenance is required." johnpseudo 16:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
can fiber optic be one of non-destructive test? if yes how do it work?
I added 2 images per image request for fiber cable, and removed the reqphotoin tag. Wikidenizen 19:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bandwidth-distance product
500MHz x KM doesnt work 500 x 0.5 doesnt equal 1000. should it be the quotient?Yellow Onion 05:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
