[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Hello,

I had created one more thread here and uploaded the files therein. Here is the link. I do hope that helps.

Power Penalty Calculation

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Hello,

I have been working with the VB scripting for each component and I found the results I had been expecting. I wrote some simple scripts for each component and stored the output result in individual text files for each component. A little knowledge on VB and the tutorial that came along with the documentation helped a lot.

Attached with this reply is a text file with the VB code that I wrote for obtaining the Total Power Value of an Optical Power Meter for 10 iterations.

* Using the ‘Component Result’ I noted the parameters the values for which are to be populated in the text file.
* The script was written on the ‘Component Script’ window after ‘enabling script’ and I chose the option for running the script at the end of complete simulation

Now, I am trying to figure out a way of appending the results at each simulation because the text file is overwritten with each simulation. Also, I am trying to put the results of all components into a single file. At present the result for each component is written on a different text file.

Attachments:

1. SCRIPT.txt

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Hello Ravil,

I had a similar doubt on using a 3R Generator + BER analyzer over connecting the data signal from the transmitter end to the BER analyzer at the receiver. From Damien’s post I am assuming that we use a 3R generator mostly for simplification of the layout.

To compare a 3R Generator + BER analyzer with a BER analyzer with connections from the transmitter, I used them simultaneously in a sample project simulating a simple RoF System. What I observed is that the Min. BER using a 3R Generator was much higher than that without a 3R Generator, e.g., 10^-5 as against 10^-8 respectively.

I also compared the two schemes for a back-to-back connection against a system with a 50 km long SMF between the transmitter and receiver. The Min. BER using 3R Generator was always higher. Damien has also pointed out that the noise may play a part. May be that may have a role to play because of using MZMs, power combiners, EDFAs in the system I designed. It is attached here.

Attachments:

1. Project-B.osd

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Increasing the sequence length from 128 to 1024 has solved the problem. The BER increases with increasing attenuation.
Thank you so much Damien.

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Many thanks Damien. I’ll go ahead with the FBG layout itself.

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Hello,

The attachment in the above post had an incorrect excel file. Attached is the rectified one.

Thanks.

Attachments:

1. POWER-PENALTY3.zip

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

I had mistakenly uploaded a different result. Sorry about the inconvenience. Attached herewith is the correct file.

Attachments:

1. POWER-PENALTY2.zip

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Thank you so much Damian. I have attached the project I am working on and I have used a Power Combiner as you suggested.

Project A used WDM Add and Drop Components while Project B is the same simulation using FBG and Power Combiner. The results are different in terms of power values. However, they both hint at the same result. In a practical scenario which one would be better?

I have another doubt on power penalty calculation. I have posted it as a new thread.

[Parikhit DuttaParticipant]

Hello,

If you notice the equation expressed for the o/p of a Lithium Niobate MZM in the OptiSystem Component Library file which you can find in ‘Documentation’ sub-folder of OptiSystem folder, it is expressed in terms of the i/p optical field, insertion loss, electric voltages given onto the two arms of the Lithium Niobate MZM, DC bias voltages (Vbias1 and Vbias2), switching modulation (VpiRF) and switching bias (VpiDC) voltages. As Sir Sethi mentioned in the previous post, the electric voltages applied to the two arms result in a change of refractive indices in the two arms of the MZM.

The o/p optical field when expanded results in a expression containing cosine of cosine terms which can be expressed in terms of Bessel functions. Theoretically the o/p optical field contains infinite terms-an optical component at the same frequency as the i/p optical component and components at frequencies offset from the i/p optical component. Thus, if the frequency of sinusoidal is fs and that of the optical i/p is fo, the o/p optical field will contain components at frequencies, fo, (fo + n*fs), (fo – n*fs) where n = 1, 2, 3, …

* As far the properties are concerned, VpiDC and VpiRF are usually the same and set to Vpi.
* The ‘normalize electric field’ is usually left checked. If unchecked the peak amplitude of the sinusoidal signals for modulating the two arms has to be set accordingly.
* The modulation voltages (modulation voltage 1 -> Vmod1 and modulation voltage 2 -> Vmod2) are the peak amplitude of the sinusoidal signals and are divided by 2 when the ‘normalize electric field’ is checked.
* The bias voltages are the DC bias voltages, Vbias1 and Vbias2.
* By setting suitable values of Vpi, Vmod1, Vmod2, Vbias1 and Vbias2, the output optical field can be tuned to contain only even components (n = 2, 4, …), odd components (n = 1, 3, …) or both. The primary component can also be suppressed.