Hi Curtis,
>>Simple WDM used to refer to the simple use of one wavelength at 1330 nm, another one at 1550, and maybe one more at 1400nm or so.<<
True, that was the walk before you run stage of WDM. The complexion of fiber itself keeps changing with regard to its permissiveness with advancements, and we will soon be able to insert at lambdas that were previously too "wet" with water molecules, thanks to some work taking place at Corning. I can see it now: DWDMsansH2O...
> The D does mean something. <
I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the line of explanation you used, as I've been through this one a couple of times, and it's made for some good discussion. Someone in jest actually told me that the D may as well stand for Duh!, but on a more serious note cited how what we now consider dense in the context that you recited would also be relegated as undense at some point, probably soon, when lower order tributaries become popular.
BTW, your explanation was the same one that I used, but I'm now inclined to agree and call it (but wont just yet, publicly {yikes!}) plain old WDM with a number behind it. A rose, by any other name? [smile]
Regards, Frank Coluccio |
