• humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    7 months ago

    I’m highly suspicious about group dispersion over long distances. Today’s infrastructure was developed for a certain range of frequencies. Broading it right away wouldn’t be applicable that easy - we would need to introduce error correction which compromises the speed multiplier.

    Too lazy to get the original paper though

    • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      The zero dispersion wavelength of G.652.D fiber is between 1302 nm and 1322 nm, in the O-band.

      Typical current DWDM systems operate in the range of 1528.38 to 1563.86nm, in the C-band.

      Group dispersion in the E-band and S-band is lower than at current DWDM wavelengths, because they sit between O-band and C-band, and it pretty much linearly increases from it’s zero dispersion wavelength.

    • blarth@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      We already have transceivers that perform forward error correction. That technology is a decade+ old.

        • blarth@thelemmy.club
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          7 months ago

          Dispersion compensation and FEC are separate layers of the cake, and work hand in hand.

          • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            7 months ago

            I don’t understand why, tho I do not have any kind of expertise here.

            I suggest (Haven’t read it), this paper proposes to send much denser and broadened signals around one carrier frequency (they use single mode). Due to dispersion they

            1. Start to overlap with one each other. If you put more frequencies, you would have more overlaps and I fail to see how it won’t lead to errors.

            2. They all arrive at the broader time window, which again could be mitigated either by error correction, or by extending the time window.

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              7 months ago

              “I haven’t read it, but I assume these are things they didn’t take into account.”

              Okay then.

              • humbletightband@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                7 months ago

                Okay, let’s read and find out whether we can find something that we don’t know.

                1. There’s no paper, there is no letter, it’s a simple statement at the institute page. The way science is being communicated nowadays is frustrating.

                2. From the statement

                However, alongside the commercially available C and L-bands, we used two additional spectral bands called E-band and S-band. Such bands traditionally haven’t been required because the C- and L-bands could deliver the required capacity to meet consumer needs.

                So they indeed broadened the frequency range.

                1. They also did not say anything about limitations. They just pushed this bizarre number everywhere 🤷🏼‍♂️