[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: Fiber

on 1/11/00 08:48, Ronald Long at rlong3@columbus.rr.com wrote:

>> It is nice to see this being discussed!  Fiber is definitely the answer.
> What am I missing? Even if you can figure out how to efficiently convert rf
> to optical and back, I would think that 100 watts through a fiber would
> melt it.

First of all, for a lot of satellites (all of them as a matter of fact), you
don't need 100 Watts.

Secondly, all high power amplification would take place at the mast not
inside the shack.  When using transverters, you don't run 100 Watts into the
transverter but a low signal level.  The fiber is just like using
transverters except you convert the signal twice (RF to light and then light
to RF again) and the final RF output is remotely mounted.  All amplification
to 100 watts (like you'd need that) would be done at the antennas.  This
would work really, really well cause you'd need a much smaller amp.

If you have a 100 Watt amp in the shack and X feet of coax with say 3 dB of
loss, then you get 50 Watts out at the antenna.  With the fiber proposal,
all you'd need is a 50 Watt amp at the antenna to get the same performance.

Make sense now?



The Second Amendment is NOT about duck hunting!

Jon Ogden


"A life lived in fear is a life half lived."

Via the amsat-bb mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe amsat-bb" to Majordomo@amsat.org