Re: New SFF optical connector
Roy,
I need to step back from what I said. I answered a little too quickly.
It appears that the 1.6 mm cordage is coupled to the LC by some
vendors. Not sure if all of them couple the two together or not.
There is nothing technically that requires this. For the connectors
that we have this is driven by the ID of the crimp sleeve portion that
goes over the cable jacket. A larger rear end on the crimp sleeve would
allow termination on other cordage sizes. As different crimp sleeves
are offered for different cordage sizes for other connectors, its not
clear why this has not happened for the LC.
Sorry about the confusion.
Gair
Gair Brown wrote:
>
> Roy,
>
> The use of the LC or the LX.5 should not be coupled with the use of
> light weight cordage. The LC can be terminated with 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 mm
> cordage. Sounds like your vendor just chose to use the light weight
> cordage to save cost.
>
> Gair
>
> Roy Bynum wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Has anyone seen the LX.5 connector? I was shown one yesterday by someone
> > that is doing connector specifications evaluations for the next generation
> > of optical equipment. It has a more robust latch than is on the LC
> > connectors. It also has integrated covers that protect the ends of the
> > fiber plug and in the connector housing. I have been told that in meets
> > the same insertion life as the SC connector. The company that I work for
> > may not use SFF connectors because of the "bubba" factor, but it may be
> > worth looking at by the TF.
> >
> > Field trials of equipment using LC connectors with 1.6mm fiber jackets are
> > having a much higher patch cord failure rate (~30%) than what is normally
> > seen with SC connectors with 2mm and 3mm fiber jackets. These failures are
> > fiber breaks within the jacket of the LC patch cord. The failure mechanism
> > is reported as "excessively rough handling", even though the installation
> > people took extra care. It may be that there is a point of diminishing
> > returns on small form factor connectors and cabling reliability because of
> > the "human" factor involved with installing and maintaining the
> > equipment. The LX.5 connector has a 1.7mm fiber jacket, so it may not be
> > any more robust for nominal data room deployment than the LC.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
>
> --
> Naval Surface Warfare Center
> browngd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Code B35 PH: 540-653-1579
> 17320 Dahlgren Road FAX: 540-653-8673
> Building 1500 Room 110A
> Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100
Gair Brown wrote:
>
> Roy,
>
> The use of the LC or the LX.5 should not be coupled with the use of
> light weight cordage. The LC can be terminated with 2.0, 2.5 or 3.0 mm
> cordage. Sounds like your vendor just chose to use the light weight
> cordage to save cost.
>
> Gair
>
> Roy Bynum wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >
> > Has anyone seen the LX.5 connector? I was shown one yesterday by someone
> > that is doing connector specifications evaluations for the next generation
> > of optical equipment. It has a more robust latch than is on the LC
> > connectors. It also has integrated covers that protect the ends of the
> > fiber plug and in the connector housing. I have been told that in meets
> > the same insertion life as the SC connector. The company that I work for
> > may not use SFF connectors because of the "bubba" factor, but it may be
> > worth looking at by the TF.
> >
> > Field trials of equipment using LC connectors with 1.6mm fiber jackets are
> > having a much higher patch cord failure rate (~30%) than what is normally
> > seen with SC connectors with 2mm and 3mm fiber jackets. These failures are
> > fiber breaks within the jacket of the LC patch cord. The failure mechanism
> > is reported as "excessively rough handling", even though the installation
> > people took extra care. It may be that there is a point of diminishing
> > returns on small form factor connectors and cabling reliability because of
> > the "human" factor involved with installing and maintaining the
> > equipment. The LX.5 connector has a 1.7mm fiber jacket, so it may not be
> > any more robust for nominal data room deployment than the LC.
> >
> > Thank you,
> > Roy Bynum
>
> --
> Naval Surface Warfare Center
> browngd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Code B35 PH: 540-653-1579
> 17320 Dahlgren Road FAX: 540-653-8673
> Building 1500 Room 110A
> Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100
--
Naval Surface Warfare Center
browngd@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Code B35 PH: 540-653-1579
17320 Dahlgren Road FAX: 540-653-8673
Building 1500 Room 110A
Dahlgren, VA 22448-5100