Conclusions » History » Version 10

HAENNIG, Gerald, 12/15/2015 10:38 AM

1 2 GOMEZ, Ramon
h1. 5. Conclusions
2 3 HAENNIG, Gerald
3 8 HAENNIG, Gerald
h2 5.1 Simplified optical link model for transmission of a carrier
4 8 HAENNIG, Gerald
5 8 HAENNIG, Gerald
The model is based on the Spurious Free Dynamic Range :
6 8 HAENNIG, Gerald
7 8 HAENNIG, Gerald
8 9 HAENNIG, Gerald
p=. !{width:700px}SFDR.png!
9 9 HAENNIG, Gerald
Figure 2. RF frequency respone (for several RF input powers).
10 9 HAENNIG, Gerald
11 9 HAENNIG, Gerald
12 9 HAENNIG, Gerald
13 9 HAENNIG, Gerald
14 8 HAENNIG, Gerald
15 8 HAENNIG, Gerald
h2. 5.2 Link comparison : Optical link vs Coaxial Cable for 30 m link length (like in a home)
16 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
17 7 HAENNIG, Gerald
In the following table, there is a comparison between coaxial cable to optical link.
18 7 HAENNIG, Gerald
19 5 HAENNIG, Gerald
|_. Parameter|_. Coaxial Cable|_. Optical Link |
20 5 HAENNIG, Gerald
|RF Gain @ 950 MHz [dB]|-3.6 |+0.5|
21 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|RF Gain @ 2150 MHz [dB]|-5.6|+3.0|
22 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|Noise Figure @ 950 MHz [dB]|+3.6|+30|
23 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|Noise Figure @ 2150 MHz|+5.6|+33|
24 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|IIP3 [dBm]|+50 |+10|
25 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|SFDR [dB/Hz2/3]|+145|+102|
26 10 HAENNIG, Gerald
|LNB remote supply|Yes, supplied through coaxial cable|No, supply close to antenna for OTX required|
27 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|Current Consumption [mA]|0|700 mA / 12 V|
28 6 HAENNIG, Gerald
|LNB telecommand|Yes|No|
29 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|Bidirectional link|Yes|Yes, but with additional hardware|
30 4 HAENNIG, Gerald
|Cost|Low|High|
31 7 HAENNIG, Gerald
32 7 HAENNIG, Gerald
For a distance of 30 m, optical link is not justified : performances and cost are not competitive with coaxial cable.