effects of particle contamination in fibre optics ... · effects of particle contamination in fibre...

Effects of Particle Contamination

in Fibre Optics Manufacturing

Aron Lau

In collaboration with Celestica Toronto

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OR APPLIED SCIENCE

Supervisor: Professor J. K. Spelt

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering University of Toronto

March 2007

i

-Effects of Particle Contamination in Fiber Optics Manufacturing-

Table of Contents Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. i

Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................. ii

List of Symbols .................................................................................................................................... iii

List of Figures ...................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... vi

1‐Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1

2‐Background ....................................................................................................................................... 3

2.1‐History of Fibre Optics ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.2‐Principles of Operation ...................................................................................................................... 4

2.3‐Type of Fibers ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4‐Fibre Optic Cable Structure ................................................................................................................ 6

2.5‐Fibre Optic Cable Connectors ............................................................................................................. 7

2.5.1‐Splicing ......................................................................................................................................... 8

2.5.2‐Connectors ................................................................................................................................... 8

2.6‐Light Emitters ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.7‐History of Fibre Optics ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.7.1‐Return Loss ................................................................................................................................ 11

2.7.2‐Insertion Loss ............................................................................................................................. 11

2.7.3‐Center of Particle ....................................................................................................................... 12

2.7.4‐Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area .............................................................................. 13

2.8‐History of Fibre Optics ...................................................................................................................... 14

2.9‐Developments in Fibre Optics Manufacturing Cleanliness Standards ............................................. 14

3‐Methodology and Equipment ......................................................................................................... 21

3.1‐Electrostatic Charge Generation & Measurement Experiments...................................................... 21

3.1.1‐Limitations of Experiment ......................................................................................................... 22

3.2‐Particle Contamination .................................................................................................................... 23

3.2.1‐FiberQA ...................................................................................................................................... 25

3.2.2‐Limitation of Experiment ........................................................................................................... 26

ii


3.3‐Insertion & Return Loss Measurements with and without Contamination ..................................... 27

4‐Results ............................................................................................................................................ 28

4.1‐Particle Movement During Mating ................................................................................................... 28

4.1.1‐Electrostatic Charge Related to Movement of Particles ........................................................... 32

4.2‐Particle Creation During Mating ....................................................................................................... 33

4.3‐Effects of Particle Contamination on Signal Performance ............................................................... 38

4.3.1‐Insertion Loss ............................................................................................................................. 38

4.3.1‐Insertion Loss ............................................................................................................................. 38

4.3.2‐Return Loss ................................................................................................................................ 41

5‐Conclusions & Future Development ................................................................................................ 44

6‐References ...................................................................................................................................... 47

Appendix A: Rc and GWpOA calculations ............................................................................................. A

Appendix B: Rc Values.......................................................................................................................... B

Appendix C: Particle Speed Values ....................................................................................................... A

Appendix D: Insertion & Return Loss Values ......................................................................................... A

iii


Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people:

I would like to express my gratitude to Professor J.K. Spelt for giving me the opportunity to pursue this study.

I would also like to thank Tatiana Berdinskikh of Celestica Toronto for supporting me throughout the study and arranging for the samples, training and equipment.

I would also like to thank Doug Wilson of PVI Systems for providing, free of charge, the FiberQA software.

Lastly, I would like to thank Mike Hughes of US Conec for providing the insertion and return loss measurements.

iv


List of Symbols

• Rc: Center of Particle

• f(%): Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area

• GWpOA: Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area

• RL: Return Loss

• IL: Insertion Loss

v


List of Figures

Figure 2.1: Total Internal Reflection … pg 5

Figure 2.2 Typical fiber optic cable .. pg 7

Figure 2.3: MT connector… pg 9

Figure 2.4: Signal Intensity Distribution … pg 13

Figure 2.5: SC connector analysis [6] … pg 16

Figure 2.6 SC connector Analysis [6] … pg 17

Figure 2.7 [6]: oil contamination … pg 17

Figure 2.8 [6]: Insertion Loss due to scratches … pg 18

Figure 2.9 [6]: Return loss due to scratches … pg 18

Figure 2.10: Insertion Loss vs Gaussian Percent Occluded Area … pg 19

Figure 2.11: Cleanliness Specifications … pg 20

Figure 3.1: Experimental flow for electrostatic charge experiments … pg 22

Figure 3.2: Dust Application Location … pg 24

Figure 3.3: Experiment Flows for Rc experiments … pg 24

Figure 3.4: FiberQA interface … pg 25

Figure 3.5: Experiment flows for insertion and return loss … pg 27

Figure 4.1: Rc vs. Mating graphs for experiment 2 and experiment 5 … pg 29

Figure 4.2: Actual images of experiment 2, channel 2 … pg 30

Figure 4.3: Experiment #2, Channel 6, Mating 1 -> 2 … pg 32

Figure 4.4: Experiment #6, Channel 6, Mating 1 -> 2 … pg 32

Figure 4.5: Unidentified particles during type 1 experiments … pg 34

Figure 4.6: % occluded area vs. matings: no dust applied … pg 35

vi


Figure 4.7: Particles on channel 8 end face … pg 35

Figure 4.8: % occluded area vs. matings: Trial 2 … pg 36

Figure 4.9: Liquid/Oil contaminants on channel 5 … pg 37

Figure 4.10: Sudden particle contamination from mate 15>30 … pg 37

Figure 4.11: Rc vs Matings: trial 1 … pg 38

Figure 4.12: Insertion loss vs f(%) .. pg 39

Figure 4.13: The outliers … pg 40

Figure 4.14: Return Loss Histogram … pg 42

vii


List of Tables

Table 4.1: Variations of experiment type 1 … pg 28

Table 4.2: Mating speeds … pg 31

Table 4.3: electrostatic charge caused by cleaning … pg 33

Table 4.4: Return loss measurements for MT connectors … pg 42

Table 4.5: Return loss measurements for SC connectors [11] pg 43

1


1. Introduction

In the late 1990s, the fiber optics industry was booming. There was

immense pressure to manufacture fiber optic components and cables at a

low cost, which ruled out the possibility of manufacturing in a clean room.

Many electronics manufacturing firms such as Celestica had concerns that

the fiber optic cables they were using were contaminated with dust,

scratches and oil; however, because the mass manufacture of fiber optics

was relatively new, there was little data available to create accurate

inspection criteria. They spent excessive efforts trying to contain this

contamination essentially by “over-cleaning” the connectors in order to

avoid any and all contamination, which led to increased manufacturing

cycle times, high test costs, and false fails.

Due to the magnitude of the problem, the National Electronics

Manufacturing Initiative (NEMI), a consortium of electronics

manufacturers and suppliers, decided to perform a study on fiber optics

signal performance and quantify the problems of contamination by

correlating return loss (RL) and insertion loss (IL) to scratches, particles,

and oil (from contact with skin).

Their efforts have lead to an IPC standard for fiber optics

cleanliness being established in early 2006. The focus had mainly been on

single mode SC and LC connectors and, among other data, had confirmed

that dust migration does have a negative effect on return loss (RL) and

2


insertion loss (IL). It had also been noted that cleaning fiber optic

connectors lead to a build up of electrostatic charge on the connectors,

which potentially aggravates the problem of dust contamination.

Understanding the effects that contaminations have on the performance of

fiber optic signals allows manufacturers to set their inspection criteria

accordingly and improves the quality of their products, as well as

increasing process efficiency.

This thesis, in collaboration with Celestica Inc., expands on the

scope of previous studies by performing the following:

Analyze the movement of foreign particles during mating of

connectors and to quantify their behavior on MT connectors

Create a mathematical relation between insertion losses and the

amount of foreign particles present

Analyze the effects that standard fiber optic cleaners have on the

particle movements on MT connectors

Relate the effects of electrostatic charge to dust distribution on MT

connectors

The results of these experiments will lead to a greater understanding

of how contaminants affect fiber optic performance and aid in refining the

current manufacturing standards used for fiber optics.

3


2. Background

2.1 History of Fiber Optics

In the early 1950s, the fiber scope, the first fiber optic-based

application was developed. However, the first fiber scope, created

concurrently by Brian O’Brien at the American Optical Company and

Narinder Kapany of the Imperial College of Science and Technology in

London, suffered immense optical loss. In order to improve the

performance of the device, scientists decided to coat the glass fibers with

a coating of glass that has a different index of refraction in order to keep

the transmitted light inside the core fiber, which led to the structure of

fiber optic cables used today.

In 1966, with the recent development of semiconductor lasers,

Charles Kao and Charles Hockham of Standard Telecommunication

Laboratory proposed that fiber optics could be a medium for transmitting

data as well, providing the optical loss could be improved even further to

20dB/km [1]. The motivation for using light as a data transmission

medium was due to the fact that it had an information carrying capacity

10,000 times that of the highest radio frequencies being used [1].

In 1970, four years after Charles Kao’s statement, Corning Glass

Works was finally able to create a fiber pure enough to reach the 20dB/km

requirement necessary to use fiber optics for data transmission. [2] This

4


breakthrough has lead to broadband services being readily available in

homes and businesses all across the world in the late 1990s and early 21st

century.

While current research is still aiming to create high performance

fiber optic cables with ever decreasing losses, there is also a focus to

create affordable fiber optic cables in order to really create a fiber optic

network that is able to reach the end user.

2.2 Principles of Operation

Fiber optics operates on the principle of total internal reflection.

Light travels at different speeds in different mediums. When they are

passing from one medium to another, they are refracted according to the

refractive index of the different mediums. This behavior is described by

Snell’s Law:

Eq. 2.1: n1 * sin(θ1)= n2 * sin(θ2)

Where,

n1 = index of refraction of medium 1

n2 = index of refraction of medium 2

θ1 = ray angle of beam in medium 1

θ2 = ray angle of beam in medium 2

5


When θ2 > 90°, internal reflection occurs. Therefore, to achieve total

internal reflection, the incident ray must have an angle of:

Eq 2.2a: sin(θcritical)= n2/n1

Eq 2.2b θcritical= sin-1(n2/n1)

In the case of reflection, θincident = θreflected; therefore, as long as the

light starts with a ray angle equal to or greater than the critical value,

total internal reflection should occur indefinitely throughout the fiber. (fig.

2.1)

Figure 2.1: Total Internal Reflection [3]

The parameter numerical aperture (NA) determines the angles light

rays need to enter the fiber in order to achieve internal reflection, and is

determined by equation 2.3:

Eq 2.3: NA= sin(α) = (n22 - n1

2) 1/2

6


Generally, the higher the NA, the more efficient the fiber is at

accepting light [4].

2.3 Types of Fibers

There are essentially two types of fiber optic cables: single mode (SM),

and multimode (MM) cables. Multimode fibers have much larger core

diameters, from 35-100μm, and allow multiple incident angles to

propagate throughout the core. Single mode fibers allow only the

fundamental frequency to pass through, and have a core diameter usually

< 8μm [4]

Multimode fibers have a smaller bandwidth than single mode fibers

due to the fact that their nature of carrying multiple signals

simultaneously creates noise and muddles the signal at the receiving end.

Hence, it is able to carry less data per unit time than single mode fibers.

2.4 Fiber Optic Cable Structure

In order to facilitate total internal reflection in a glass fiber, a glass

fiber is created in such a way that the glass core is surrounded by

cladding made of glass with a lower index of refraction. (refer to equation

2.2b)

7


The core and cladding is then

surrounded by a buffer, often made of

plastic, to preserve the strength of

the fiber [1]. The entire assembly is

then encased in a jacket often made

of an engineering polymer such as PVC

or Teflon.

The end of the cable is terminated by a connector; first generation

connectors were often twist-on connectors, the latest connectors are often

push-pull connectors. The end of the fiber in the connector is surrounded

by the ferrule, a hard structure often made of metal or ceramic. It has a

hollow centre that is slightly larger than the cladding. The purpose of the

ferrule is to help align the fibers during connection [1].

2.5 Fiber Optic Cable Connections

In order to create a network of fiber optics, it is necessary to create

connections between two fiber optic cables. This can be achieved either

using splicing or mechanical connectors.

Figure 2.2 Typical fiber optic

cable

8


2.5.1 Splicing

Splicing is the permanent joining of two separate glass fibers.

Splicing offers insertion losses as low as 0.05dB [1] and is an excellent

method of joining fibers together if the configuration of the system will not

be changed

There are two types of splicing: mechanical splicing, and fusion

splicing. Mechanical splicing is the joining of two fibers via a capillary tube

or into a grooved fixture to hold the fibers [4].

Fusion splicing is performed by welding two glass fibers together.

This is often done by arc discharge, micro-flame, or CO2 laser [4].

2.5.2 Connectors

Another method of connecting two fibers is via fiber connectors.

Most current connectors are coupled using the push-pull method as

opposed to threaded connectors of previous generations. These push-pull

connectors allow faster coupling since the user does not need to thread

the connectors on; in addition, threaded connectors created inconsistency

in the quality of the connection since it relied on the user to thread the

9


connectors with the same torque, whereas the push-pull connectors

negate this problem.

Compared to splicing, the insertion losses incurred with connectors

is much higher, ranging from 0.1-1dB [1]

The majority of connectors such as SC connectors consist of only

one fiber; however, more recent developments such as the MT connector

contain an array of 4-12 fibers per connector which allows high density

connections. [1]

The MT cables used in this thesis have an 8° angle polish. The

fibers are surrounded by a glass filled-thermoplastic buffer. [12]

Figure 2.3: MT connector

10


2.6 Light Emitters

There are essentially 2 types of light emitters for fiber optics:

surface emitting light emitting diodes (SLED), edge emitting light emitting

diodes (ELED), and laser diodes (LD). SLEDs cost the least of the three

[1], however, they have a wide emission angle and hence much of the

light is lost. Due to the wide emission angle of SLED, they are exclusively

used for multimode fibers [4].

ELEDs emit light from the smaller side of the LED, hence, it has a

narrower emission angle than SLEDs. However, it is more temperature

sensitive due to its structural differences compared to SLEDs. However,

ELEDs respond faster than SLEDs and can be used with single mode fibers.

Laser diodes have a much narrower emission angle with an

emission surface of a few microns. Although they are generally less

reliable than LEDs, and temperature sensitive, lasers are used for their

ability to output at a much higher power and high frequencies [1].

2.7 Performance Parameters

Three parameters will be used to measure the performance of an

optical signal:

Return loss (RL)

11


Insertion loss (IL)

Center of Particle (Rc)

Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area (f(%))

2.7.1 Return Loss

Return loss is defined as a logarithmic function of the ratio between

the power of the incident ray against the power of the reflected ray.

Equation 2.4: Return loss (dB) = -10 log10 (Pincidient/ Preflected)

From this equation, it is shown that the higher the value for return

loss, the better the signal performance.

2.7.2 Insertion Loss

Insertion loss is measured by calculating the output power P0 of a

fiber. The cable is then cut and a connector is placed in the middle. The

power is then measured again as P1. The insertion loss is then a function

of the logarithmic ratio of the two measurements.

Equation 2.5: Insertion Loss (dB) = -10 log10 (P1/ P0)

12


It is desired that the ratio between P1 and P0 be as close as possible to

1, therefore, a value close to zero is most desirable for insertion loss.

2.7.3 Center of Particle

Center of Particle is calculated by dividing the sum of the product of

the radial distance of each particle area and the particle area, and dividing

it by the sum of the total particle area. Since the numerator of the

function is directly correlated to the distance from the core, the smaller

the value of Rc, the closer the dust particles are to the core of the fiber.

Equation 2.6:

In this paper, the center of particle value is calculated using an

index. This index is defined as the total particle area on the fiber end face

during the first mating. Subsequent calculations of the center of particle

for this particular fiber in the same experiment set will be done such that

the occluded area is summed up from the inner most ring to the ith ring.

The purpose of this index value is an attempt to keep the center of

particles from taking into account additional particles coming onto the face

13


of the fiber, and only keeping track of the location of the particles on the

fiber end face at the first mating.

2.7.4 Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area

The Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area (GWpOA & f(%)) is

a method of weighing the particle distribution developed by Dr. Sun-Yuan

Huang of Intel to relate the effects of contamination on single mode fibers

to optical signal performance [7]. Because an optical signal has a

Gaussian distribution, as seen below in figure 2.3, this function was

created to weigh particle contamination using the Gaussian distribution to

match the signal intensity distribution across the fiber [10].

Figure 2.4: Signal Intensity Distribution

To achieve this, a Gaussian Weighing Factor is defined as:

Eq 2.7: Γi=exp(-2r2/ω2)

14


Where ω is the mode field diameter and r is the radial position of the

particle.

Lastly, the Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area is defined as:

Eq 2.8:

Where ai is the particle occluded area on the ith ring and Ai is the area

of ith ring.

2.8 Electrostatic Charge

Electrostatic charge is created by three processes: tribo-

electrification, induction and conduction [5]. Triboelectric charge build up

is caused when two different materials come in contact. The amount of

charge build up is dependent on surface roughness and temperature. The

transfer of charge is dependent on the triboelectric series [.

Induction is caused when a conductive object is placed in an electric

field and is then temporarily grounded. The electric field will cause the

charge in the object to separate and head towards ground as it is

15


temporarily grounded, leaving a net charge on the object once it is

removed from the field.

Lastly, conductive charge occurs when two conductive objects

physically come into contact. The object with the higher potential will pass

charge to the object with lower potential until they are both of equal

voltage.

2.9 Developments in Fiber Optics Manufacturing Cleanliness

Standards

Studies have been performed by the International Electronics

Manufacturing Institute (iNEMI, formerly NEMI) since 2002 regarding fiber

optics contamination. iNEMI is a consortium of electronics manufacturers

and suppliers, and were concerned with the lack of a standard for the

acceptable cleanliness of fiber optic components. In cooperation with the

International Electro-technical Committee (IEC), Telecommunications

Industry Association (TIA) and IPC, they aimed to create a standard for

which all manufacturers and suppliers could follow regarding cleanliness

specifications for fiber optics.

Initial studies focused on scratches, oil contamination, and particle

contamination. The results were quantified using the aforementioned

optical performance parameters such as return loss, insertion loss and bit

error rate.

16


The first studies on particle contamination did not consider particle

movement. They were simply contaminated with ultra fine and fine

Arizona dust. Insertion and return loss was measured before and after

contamination.

An example of the results from the study can be seen in figure 2.5. It

would seem intuitive that it would fail, due to all the dust lying on the

cable. However, in this case, the fiber did pass performance tests. In

figure 2.4, upon inspection, does not appear to be much more

contaminated than the specimen in figure 2.5. However, this specimen

failed the performance test. This is due to the small particle lying on the

edges of the core of the fiber.

Figure 2.5: SC connector analysis [6]

17


Figure 2.6: SC connector Analysis [6]

In fact, it could be seen from the rest of the data that regardless of

the amount of particles on the fiber, as long as they are not lying on the

core, there is little to no effect on optical performance.

The original studies did not cover the possibility of particle movement

during mating and de-mating of connectors. If particle movement is taken

into account, it is likely that particles lying outside of the core will move

into the core after mating the connectors several times. In addition, while

the air gap caused by particles was not measured, they were estimated by

using the return loss and the index of refraction of air.

Oil contamination from human contact

was also studied. It was demonstrated that

return loss suffered significantly due to oil Figure 2.7 [6]: oil

contamination

18


contamination

Scratches were also studied in the project. They showed similar

results to the particle contamination; optical performance, mainly return

loss, was only affected when the scratch passed through the core [6].

Figure 2.8 [6]: Insertion Loss due to scratches

Figure 2.9 [6]: Return loss due to scratches

Later studies utilized software such as FiberChek by Westover

Systems and FiberQA by PVI Systems to analyze the particle distribution

on SC/FC, and LC/MU connectors.

19


Figure 2.10: Insertion Loss vs Gaussian Percent Occluded Area

Insertion loss was then plotted against the Gaussian weighted percent

occluded area and a strong correlation between the two parameters could

be seen (fig 2.10)

The results of the work by iNEMI lead to the establishment of IPC

standard IPC-8497-1 in 2006 which governs the cleanliness specifications

of single mode fiber optic connectors. A brief overview of the

specifications can be seen below in figure 2.11.

20


Figure 2.11: Cleanliness Specifications

Lastly, a recent study by a previous thesis has demonstrated that

an electrostatic charge arises from the cleaning of fiber optic connectors

using industry-standard cleaners. Previous studies have shown that the

electrostatic charge build up is enough to attract dust from the air as well,

however, the data collected on the subject is sparse, with figures only on

the amount of charge generated [8].

21


3. Methodology and Equipment

There were three main experiments performed for this thesis:

electrostatic charge generation and measurement, particle contamination

and analysis, and the optical signal performance measurements.

3.1 Electrostatic Charge Generation & Measurement Experiments

The electrostatic charge experiments were performed using

standard fiber optic cleaners and a specially modified MT-RJ connector.

A typical MT connector, when mated to the fiber cable itself,

interfaces to the cable via a plastic housing. Other fiber cables, such as

the Tyco’s single mode SC cable, interfaces to the fiber cable using a

metal housing. In previous experiments involving this sort of cable, the

experimenter simply removed the connector from the fiber and held it by

the metallic tip. However, since the MT connector had a plastic tip, it did

not allow the isolation of charge on the ferrule. In order to isolate the

charge on the ferrule, a modified MT connector consisting of only the MT

ferrule crimped onto a brass ring was created.

The experiment was performed by taking the modified MT ferrule

and rubbing it onto a cleaner a specified number of times. The ferrule was

then dropped into the Faraday Cup and the charge measured in nano-

coulombs. In some experiments, an air ionizer would be used prior to

22


placement into the Faraday Cup. A flow diagram of the experimental

process can be seen below in fig 3.1

Figure 3.1: Experimental flow for electrostatic charge experiments

3.1.1 Limitation of Experiment

One of the limitations of the experiment is the inability to detect the

charge distribution along the surface of the connector; if the charge

distribution can be found, it can further assist in analyzing particle

behavior along the surface during mating and de-mating of connectors.

However, finding the overall charge of the ferrule will give an overall idea

of the effects of electrostatic charge due to cleaning, and will offer a

comparison of the effects of different cleaners on different connectors.

Another limitation of the experiment lies in the fact that the

pressure exerted to rub the ferrule against the cleaner is not controlled.

23


However, since only one person is performing the experiment for each

data set, it is assumed that the pressured used will be roughly the same

for each set of data.

Lastly, rubbing the ferrule against the fabric of the reel cleaners

may cause a transfer of minute amounts of the fabric onto the ferrule

end-face. This phenomenon would result in the rubbing of two identical

materials together, as opposed to the fabric against the ferrule, which

would reduce the amount of charge generated due to friction.

3.2 Particle Contamination

There were two types of particle contamination experiments performed:

• Experiment Type 1: Arizona dust was applied to a MT ferrule

cleaned with a fiber optic cleaner then mated and de-mated,

images were taken at 400x.

• Experiment Type 2: A clean MT ferrule cleaned with a US Conec reel

based cleaner was mated and de-mated. Images were taken at

400x.

The motivation for experiment type 2 arose when initial analysis of the

data collected from some type 1 experiments showed particles that were

distinctly different from the applied Arizona dust appearing on the cores.

24


It was hypothesized that these particles were being generated when the

mating pins on the MT ferrule rubbed against the cladding.

For both experiment types, the dust was applied to the same place, as

indicated below in figure 3.2. The experiment flows for the two

experiments can be seen in fig 3.3.

Figure 3.2: Dust Application Location

Figure 3.3: Experiment Flows for Rc experiments

25


3.2.1 FiberQA

FiberQA is a computer application developed by PVI Systems. The

software is capable of either interfacing with a fiber scope to capture a live

image of the ferrule end face or reading saved images. It is able to detect

the position and size of particles on these images. Using this data, it

displays a pass or fail based on the criteria set by the user of the software,

such as the amount of particles allowed in a user-defined zone.

FiberQA is also capable of outputting the raw data regarding the

position and size of the particles each time an image is analyzed. A

screenshot of the software interface is shown below in figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: FiberQA interface

26


3.2.2 Limitation of Experiment

One of the key motivations behind type 2 experiments is to

investigate the possibility that particles are generated due to the mating

pins interfering with the cladding of the fibers. However, while the

experiments showed that particles were showing up in the absence of dust,

there was a lack of expertise, training and equipment to isolate these

particles and inspect their actual composition and origins.

Due to the difficulty of focusing clearly onto the ferrule end face due

to the angle-polished surface, occasionally the images taken during the

experiments could not be analyzed accurately and may result in the

software in off-setting the radial position of the particles.

Another limitation of this experiment is the difference in the amount

of dust applied to the connector for each experiment. Since the dust was

applied by hand, the amount of dust, and the location it was applied may

differ greatly across the different experiments. Also, two of the

experiments were performed by US Conec, which makes it even more

difficult to ensure the dust application and force applied on cleaning were

standard across the experiments

27


3.3 Insertion & Return Loss Measurements with and without

Contamination

These experiments were performed by US Conec. The procedure of

the experiment was to first measure the insertion and return loss of each

cable 10 times to set a benchmark for the performance of the cable. It

was then contaminated with dust and mated and de-mated 5 times, with

the insertion and return loss measured at each step. Images were also

taken of the ferrule end face, which were then analyzed using FiberQA.

The flow diagram of this experiment can be seen below in fig 3.5.

Figure 3.5: Experiment flows for insertion and return loss

28


4. Results

To reiterate the introduction, the objectives of this thesis are as

follows:

1. Analyze the movement of foreign particles during mating of

connectors and to quantify their behavior on MT connectors

2. Create a mathematical relation between insertion losses and the

amount of foreign particles present

3. Analyze the effects that standard fiber optic cleaners have on the

present on MT connectors

4. Relate the effects of electrostatic charge to dust distribution on MT

connectors

4.1 Particle Movement During Mating

There were several variations of this experiment performed as

outlined below in tab 4.1. Experiment #5 was performed by US Conec as

they supplied the data regarding insertion and return loss.

Table 4.1: Variations of experiment type 1.

29


As discussed in the section 3, each image was analyzed using FiberQA.

The distribution of particles during each mating was calculated using the

raw data describing the actual particle area in each 2.5µm ring. The index

was also used to calculate the center of particle, as discussed in section

2.7.3. Examples of the calculation of Rc can also be found in appendix A.

Recalling that the smaller the value for Rc, the closer the particles are

to the center, several representative results of the different experiment

types are shown below in figure 4.1 and 4.2. Rc values for each sample

and channel can be seen in appendix B.

Figure 4.1: Rc vs. Mating graphs for experiment 2 and experiment 5

30


Figure 4.2: Actual images of experiment 2, channel 2.

From the figures above, it can be seen that the general trend is for

the particles to start moving towards the center of the fiber. The effect

appears particularly noticeable during the first and second matings, as

evidenced by the steep change in Rc. This is behavior closely mimics that

of the dust migration seen in SC connectors [9].

Because the applied amount of dust particles on the fiber cannot be

assumed to be equal during every experiment, the moving speed of the

particles will be examined rather than the actual particle contamination.

The moving speed of the particle relates the change in Rc with respect to

the number of matings. As mentioned earlier, the particle speed is

particularly noticable during the first two matings. Hence, the moving

speed will be calculated using the only first two matings (see Appendix C

31


for complete particle speed data). The calculated particle speeds are

shown below in table 4.2.

Exp

Average

Particle Speed

(Rc/Mate)

Rc Standard

Deviation

1 -10.3365 11.40128366

2 -12.71792857 6.162284285

4 -13.67542908 4.977775657

5 -8.029542104 3.556035092

6 -4.823 2.410598681

Table 4.2: Mating speeds

Contrary to previous studies on SC connectors [9], where solvent

cleaners generated substantially lower particle speeds, the use of solvents

do not demonstrate such a property on MT connectors. However, the

repeatability of the experiment is low, as indicated by the high standard

deviation. While it may appear that the use of solvent is detrimental,

taking into account the variation of the experiment shows the need to be

cautious about drawing such conclusions. At most, it can be said that

there appears to be no improvement in particle speed with different

cleaners.

Images of experiments 2 and 6 are shown below in figures 4.3 and

4.4. The increase and shift of particles towards the center of the fiber is

very noticeable in experiment 2.

32


Figure 4.3: Experiment #2, Channel 6, Mating 1 -> 2

Figure 4.4: Experiment #6, Channel 6, Mating 1 -> 2

4.1.1 Electrostatic Charge Related to Movement of Particles

Electrostatic charge was deemed to be a contributing factor to

increasing the Rc speed on SC connectors because the connector end face

has a convex shape, causing a buildup of electrostatic charge at the tip of

the convex, drawing particles to the center.

33


Due to the lack of equipment and samples, few electrostatic

measurements were performed related to MT connectors. However, the

two experiments performed demonstrated that significant charge is

generated during cleaning. This would suggest that electrostatic charge

might have an effect on particle movement, in a fashion similar to that of

SC connectors. Table 4.3 shows the electrostatic charge generated using

the two reel-based cleaners. Future studies can extend on the

electrostatic experiments to study the susceptibility to electrostatic charge

and distribution of charge on the surface.

Table 4.3: electrostatic charge caused by cleaning

4.2 Particle Creation During Mating

Another phenomenon that was noticed was the appearance of glassy

particles that appear different from the typical ultra-fine Arizona dust. This

can be seen below in figure 4.5. Notice the difference in size between the

majority of the particles and the white particle in question. Because MT

34


connectors have a buffer made of glass filled polymers, as mentioned in

2.5.2, this glassy material is suspected to be coming from the buffer.

Figure 4.5: Unidentified particles during type 1 experiments.

To investigate the possibility of particles being generated during

mating, a separate set of experiments were performed. The procedure is

explained in section 3.2, and is known as experiment type 2. Dust is not

applied in these experiments, and the cables mated and de-mated

repeatedly. The percentage of the total fiber area covered is plotted

against the number of matings. This can be seen below in figure 4.6.

35


Figure 4.6: % occluded area vs. matings: no dust applied

Figure 4.6 shows a build up of particles on the fibers as the number of

matings increase despite having no dust applied. Figure 4.7 below, is an

image of the channel 8 fiber after 5 matings without any dust application.

The glassy particles seen in previous experiments are seen once again

without dust. One can conclude that these particles are not coming from

the intentional application of dust, and may be generated somehow during

mating.

Figure 4.7: Particles on channel 8 end face

36


The results of a second trial of the same experiment are shown below

in figure 4.8, using the same cable as the experiment for figure 4.6.

Figure 4.8: % occluded area vs. matings: Trial 2

It would appear that there is no noticeable improvement between the

results of the first and second trial. However, the results of channel 5,

which appears to show a steady increase in particles, is actually due to

some sort of oil or liquid contaminants as seen below in figure 4.8.

Channel 4’s data points are also skewed due to the presence of an

unusually large particle covering the fiber end face at mating #30, as seen

in figure 4.10.

Excluding the channel 4 & 5 data points, it does appear that there is

slightly less particle contamination due to mating and de-mating the

connector. It is hypothesized that the mating pins on the connector are

rubbing on the buffer surrounding the fibers, causing particles to come

free. This is evidenced by the fact that the fibers on the outside (channels

37


1-2, 7-8 see fig 3.2.1) tend to have more contamination than the ones on

the inside. However, further study using electron microscopes to

determine the actual composition of this debris will be needed to make

concrete statements about the origins of this contamination.

Figure 4.9: Liquid/Oil contaminants on channel 5

Figure 4.10: Sudden particle contamination from mate 15>30

The effects of particle migration can also be seen in these particles.

The Rc values plotted against the number of matings is shown below in

figures 4.11.

38


Figure 4.11: Rc vs Matings: trial 1

As in the previous section on particle movement, movement of

particles towards the center of the fiber is quite evident. Because of the

small amount of particles present, the Rc values are easily skewed by

small amounts of particles appearing on the outer edges of the fiber. This

results in many outliers on the graph. However, on fibers where particle

generation was evident in visual inspection, particle movement towards

the center was observed once again.

4.3 Effects of Particle Contamination on Signal Performance

The actual effect that particle contamination has on the optical signal

performance is another aspect of particle contamination on fiber optic

cables. The effect of particle contamination on signal performance is

demonstrated by correlating the Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded

Area (denoted as f(%)), as defined section 2.7.4, with the insertion loss

39


measurements. Any correlation between the two factors will reveal any

significant effects particle contamination has on the quality of the optical

signal. Return loss measurements for MT connectors will also be compared

with previous studies on SC connectors. As mentioned in section 2.7.1 and

2.7.2, insertion loss should be as close to zero as possible, and return loss

as high as possible.

4.3.1 Insertion Loss

The delta insertion loss is plotted against f(%) with a sample size of

68, and the results are shown below in figure 4.12. The complete insertion

loss values can be seen in appendix D.

Fig 4.12: Insertion loss vs f(%)

The correlation factor is very low for insertion loss, due to the many

outliers. Of particular interest are the four points with inexplicably high

insertion losses over 3dB. Because all four points came from the same

40


channel during different matings, it is possible that factors other than

contamination caused this high insertion loss.

Images of some of the outliers are shown below in figure 4.13;

images of mating 2 & 3 are the 2 of the outliers with over 3 dB insertion

loss. Compared to the first mating of the same fiber, which had an

excellent 0.7dB insertion loss, there is no visibly apparent reason as to

why the insertion loss is so high. These outliers need to be investigated

further to determine the cause for such dramatic decrease in performance

to avoid such situations in manufacturing conditions.

Figure 4.13: The outliers

It is also worth noting that MT connectors in general appear quite

robust against particle contamination. There are many instances where,

despite high f(%) values, the insertion loss is still remarkably low,

whereas SC connectors had a clear correlation between insertion loss and

f(%). The risk of contamination still exists, as demonstrated by the

41


outliers, but in general, the performance of MT connectors regarding

insertion loss are excellent despite the contamination.

4.3.2 Return Loss

Return loss is not plotted against the Gaussian Weighted Percent

Occluded Area as it was determined in previous studies that the air gap

created by particle contamination is causing the return loss, rather than

the physical impedance of caused by the particles.

While it is out of the scope of this study to calculate or measure the

air gap due to the lack of equipment, a histogram has been plotted below

showing the various values for return loss for the different samples in

figure 4.14. The average return loss value has also been indicated with a

dotted line in the histogram.

The average and standard deviations for the return loss prior to and

after contamination has also been calculated and shown in table 4.15. The

complete return loss values can be seen in appendix D.

42


Figure 4.14: Return Loss Histogram

RL Average (dB) Standard Deviation

Clean 72.73833333 5.165874

Dust 42.46666667 9.821575

Table 4.4: Return loss measurements for MT connectors

Table 4.4 clearly shows the effect particle contamination has on

return loss. The average return loss after contamination is far beyond the

average return loss prior to contamination, which suggests a correlation

between contamination and return loss. This has been demonstrated in

previous studies regarding SC connectors, which was able to relate the

return loss to the air gap caused by particles lying on the connector [6].

43


RL Average (dB) Standard Deviation

Clean 55 /

Dust 42.9 8.3

Table 4.5: Return loss measurements for SC connectors [11]

Table 4.5 shows results from a previous iNEMI experiment on SC

connectors. The return loss due to particle contamination is remarkably

similar to the ones achieved in this thesis for MT connectors. It can be

inferred that the air gaps caused by particles on SC connectors most likely

are the culprit behind the degradation in return loss for MT connectors.

This demonstrates the need to be careful with MT connectors, despite

their robustness against insertion loss, as not only are there still risks of

outliers having noticeably degraded insertion loss performance, there is

also a strong correlation between return loss and insertion loss.

44


5. Conclusion & Future Development

This thesis concentrated on the migration of dust particles and

other particle contamination found on MT connectors. Because particle

contamination has been identified as a major source of optical signal

degradation, controlling particle contamination is important to maintaining

signal quality.

This thesis studied dust particle migration by taking images of

connectors prior to contamination, after contamination, and after each

mating and de-mating. These images were then analyzed using the

FiberQA software by PVI Systems to quantify the position and size of the

particles on the fibre.

In order to interpret this information regarding the position and size

of each particle, a relationship known as center of particle, Rc, was used.

This function was used to relate the distance of the particle from the

center of the fibre. Calculating the Rc for each image provides an

overview of the position of every particle on the fiber with one single

parameter, and allowed quantitative comparisons between matings. The

moving speeds of the particles were then calculated using the Rc values,

to demonstrate the speed at which particles moved towards the center.

The results were not very conclusive as the variation in the results were

extremely high, however, it can be seen that the dramatic improvement in

particle speed with the use of solvents in SC connectors is not evident

45


with MT connectors. Further studies will need to be done on to investigate

the electrostatic charge caused by these cleaners due to the lack proper

equipment. Hopefully, these studies will reveal whether the difference in

moving speed is caused by electrostatic charge, and whether it is the

overall charge or uneven charge distribution across the surface of the

connector that is causing this difference in moving speed.

Another aspect studied was the effect that contaminants have on

optical signal performance. Two performance parameters were studied:

insertion loss and return loss. Insertion loss was measured and plotted

against the Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area (f(%)), which

weighs particles according to a Gaussian distribution to match signal

intensity.

Where previous studies have shown a strong correlation between

insertion loss and f(%) for SC connectors, little correlation was seen in the

MT connectors between insertion loss and f(%). However, this thesis did

show that MT signal performance appeared to be far more robust against

particle contamination than SC connectors.

The return loss measurements for pristine and contaminated cables

were also analyzed. It was found that the return loss was susceptible to

particle contamination, similar to SC connectors. This is believed to be due

to the air gap created by the particles, as shown in previous studies on SC

connectors [11]. Further studies to study the geometry of particles to

46


correlate the return loss to an actual air gap will help in furthering the

understanding of the effects that particle contamination has on return loss.

Taking into consideration the fact that particle movement has been

observed in MT connectors, along with an impact on return loss due to

contamination, it is clear that particle contamination is a major factor in

maintaining a fiber optic system’s performance. While insertion loss for MT

connectors seems quite robust against particle contamination, the outliers

in the data show that the risk for signal degradation still exists, and

further study needs to be performed on these outliers to determine what

exactly causes these spikes in insertion loss, and what properties of MT

connectors gives it such robustness against particle contamination.

In conclusion, this thesis provides an understanding to the effects

that particle contaminants have on MT optical signal performance, and a

general understanding of behaviour of the particles during mating and de-

mating, and provides a stepping stone for future research to further

investigate these effects.

47


References

[1] David R. Goff, Fiber Optic Reference Guide: A Practical Guide

to the Technology, 2nd edition, U.S.A., Focal Press, 1999

[2] Rebecca Morelle, Lighting the Way to a Revolution, Available

HTTP: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4671788.stm, Feb

6 2006, [cited Nov 8th 2006]

[3] Craig C. Freudenrich, Ph.D., How Fiber Optics Work, [online

document],http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/fiber-optic.htm,

[cited Nov 8th, 2006]

[4] Frederick C. Allard, Fiber Optics Handbook for Engineers and

Scientists, New York, McGraw Hill, 1990

[5] James E. Vinson, Ph.D., Joseph C. Bernier, Gregg D. Croft, ESD

Design and Analysis Handbook, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers,

2003.

[6] Dr. Tatiana Berdinskikh, Fiber Optic Signal Performance Project,

2004

48


[7] Dr. Tatiana Berdinskikh, Dr. Sun-Yuan Huang, Douglas H. Wilson,

Development of Cleanliness Specification for Single- Mode

Connectors with 1.25 and 2.5 mm Ferrules, 2006

[8] Chun-Wei Jeno Chen, Effect of Electrostatic Charge on Fiber Optic Connector Contamination, 2005

[9] Steven B. Ainley, Tatiana Berdinskikh, David Fisher, Sun-Yuan

Huang, Brian J. Roche, Heather Tkalec, Douglas H. Wilson,

Accumulation of Particles Near the Core During Repetitive Fiber

Connector Matings and De-mating, 2006

[10] Dr. Sun-Yuan Huang, Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area &

Insertion Loss per Occluded Area and Inspection Criteria, 2006

[11] T. Berdinskikh, N. Albeanu, S. Stafford, D. Silmser and H.

Tkalec, J. Nguyen, Degradation of Optical Performance of Fiber Optic

Connectors in a Manufacturing Environment, 2006

[12] US Conec, US Conec MT ferrule and MTP® Connector

Technology Overview, 2006

References [1] David R. Goff, Fiber Optic Reference Guide: A Practical Guide to the Technology, 2nd edition, U.S.A., Focal Press, 1999 [2] Rebecca Morelle, Lighting the Way to a Revolution, Available HTTP: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4671788.stm, Feb 6 2006, [cited Nov 8th 2006] [3] Craig C. Freudenrich, Ph.D., How Fiber Optics Work, [online document],http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/fiber-optic.htm, [cited Nov 8th, 2006] [4] Frederick C. Allard, Fiber Optics Handbook for Engineers and Scientists, New York, McGraw Hill, 1990 [5] James E. Vinson, Ph.D., Joseph C. Bernier, Gregg D. Croft, ESD Design and Analysis Handbook, Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003. [6] Dr. Tatiana Berdinskikh, Fiber Optic Signal Performance Project, 2004 [7] Dr. Tatiana Berdinskikh, Dr. Sun-Yuan Huang, Douglas H. Wilson, Development of Cleanliness Specification for Single- Mode Connectors with 1.25 and 2.5 mm Ferrules, 2006

[8] Chun-Wei Jeno Chen, Effect of Electrostatic Charge on Fiber Optic Connector Contamination, 2005 [9] Steven B. Ainley, Tatiana Berdinskikh, David Fisher, Sun-Yuan Huang, Brian J. Roche, Heather Tkalec, Douglas H. Wilson, Accumulation of Particles Near the Core During Repetitive Fiber Connector Matings and De-mating, 2006

[10] Dr. Sun-Yuan Huang, Gaussian Weighted % Occluded Area & Insertion Loss per Occluded Area and Inspection Criteria, 2006 [11] T. Berdinskikh, N. Albeanu, S. Stafford, D. Silmser and H. Tkalec, J. Nguyen, Degradation of Optical Performance of Fiber Optic Connectors in a Manufacturing Environment, 2006 [12] US Conec, US Conec MT ferrule and MTP® Connector Technology Overview, 2006

Appendix A: Calculations

Rc Calculation

This is demonstration of the calculation of Rc.

Mid Radius (um) (column A)

ai2‐m0‐f1‐Particle Area.xls (column 1)

RiAi of Index (column 2)

ai2‐m1‐f1‐Particle Area.xls (column 3) RiAi (column 4)

1.279 0 0 0.919 1.175401 3.836 0.919 3.525284 6.947 26.648692 6.233 10.114 63.040562 24.52 152.83316 8.63 19.412 167.52556 25.031 216.01753 11.187 3.576 40.004712 8.275 92.572425 13.744 6.232 85.652608 30.241 415.632304 16.301 3.269 53.287969 26.257 428.015357 18.858 8.275 156.04995 27.483 518.274414 21.256 4.189 89.041384 22.068 469.077408 23.653 1.737 41.085261 27.074 640.381322 26.21 10.217 267.78757 69.575 1823.56075 28.767 8.991 258.644097 70.188 2019.098196 31.324 3.882 121.599768 69.064 2163.360736 33.881 8.684 294.222604 71.516 2423.033596 36.279 4.189 151.972731 54.965 1994.075235 38.676 0.817 31.598292 41.377 1600.296852 41.233 12.669 522.380877 35.963 1482.862379 43.79 8.275 362.36225 41.99 1838.7421 46.347 6.334 293.561898 54.965 2547.462855 48.744 3.882 189.224208 41.582 2026.873008 51.142 5.517 282.150414 48.836 2497.570712 53.699 2.758 148.101842 57.52 3088.76648

56.256 1.737 97.716672 54.965 3092.11104

sum 135.675 3720.536513 122.19 1332.894869 index n/a 7 Rc 27.42241764 10.90837932

Recall equation 2.6 in section 2.7.3. To calculate Rc for each sample, the sum of the particle area of the index mating (column 1) is found. In this case, it was 135.675um. The particle areas of the same sample in subsequent matings are to be kept as close as possible. Hence, an index of “7” is used. This means that after summing up the first 7 rows of particle area, the sum of particle areas will be within

a reasonable amount (defined to be >95% for this thesis for ease of calculation) of the first mating.

RiAi (columns 2 & 4) is calculated by taking the particle area, columns 1 & 3 respectively, and multiply by the mid radius in column A.

The number of rows of the RiAi for the first mating is simply all the rows available. For any subsequent matings, the RiAi is only summed up to the index.

The resulting sum of RiAi and particle area is then divided for each respective sample to get the Rc value.

The particle speed can then be calculated by subtracting the Rc of the second mating from the Rc value of the first mating for each sample. In essence, this will represent the rate of change of Rc per mating.

Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area

Mid Radius (um)

Total Area (um^2)

Particle Area (um^2)

Weighting factor @ 1550nm

Particle Area * gamma i (Col 1)

total area * gamma I (col 2)

1.167 19.675 1.89 0.90417583 1.708892 17.789659 3.667 63.581 10.115 0.36987418 3.741277 23.51697 6.168 92.482 6.558 0.05996934 0.393279 5.5460842

To calculate the Gaussian Weighted Percent Occluded Area, the Weighting factor is first determined for each mid radius position. This is done using Eq 2.7: Γi=exp(-2r2/ω2). The mode field radius for 1550nm wavelength optical signal would be 5.2um. Once the weighting factor has been calculated for reach radius, the particle area and total area for each ring is multiplied by the weighting factor.

The particle area * weighting factor (col 1) and total area * weighting factor (col 2) needs to be summed up for each sample. Dividing particle area * weighting factor by total area * weighting factor will result in the Rc for this sample.

Appendix B: Rc Values

Dust Applied: Yes Cleaner: Blue Reel Air Ionizer: Yes File ID index Mating Rc Particle Speed ai2‐m1‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 1 34.62934 ‐9.066598073ai2‐m2‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 17 2 25.56274 ai2‐m3‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 19 3 29.67256 ai2‐m5‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 16 5 24.97346 ai2‐m1‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 1 32.20215 ‐6.731778949ai2‐m2‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 19 2 25.47037 ai2‐m3‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 21 3 28.31484 ai2‐m4‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 19 4 24.46388 ai2‐m5‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 15 5 24.18456 ai2‐m1‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 1 35.36383 ‐8.821610478ai2‐m2‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 17 2 26.54222 ai2‐m4‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 16 4 27.26797 ai2‐m5‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 14 5 23.82679 ai2‐m2‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 16 2 24.35911 ai2‐m3‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 16 3 24.19602 ai2‐m4‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 16 4 24.19438 ai2‐m1‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 1 39.71246 ‐13.12391026ai2‐m2‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 17 2 26.58855 ai2‐m3‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 18 3 30.30157 ai2‐m4‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 19 4 29.12844 ai2‐m5‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 16 5 23.57944 ai2‐m1‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 1 38.35785 ‐16.49350812ai2‐m2‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 14 2 21.86434 ai2‐m1‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 1 30.42411 ‐7.239346408ai2‐m2‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 14 2 23.18476 ai2‐m3‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 12 3 18.0735 ai2‐m4‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 14 4 20.76643 ai2‐m5‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 11 5 17.44845 ai2‐m1‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 1 37.80325 ‐17.11918769ai2‐m2‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 12 2 20.68406 ai2‐m3‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 8 3 11.99205 ai2‐m4‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 7 4 10.33984 ai2‐m5‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 8 5 10.66763

Dust Applied: Yes

Cleaner: Blue reel

Air Ionizer Yes File ID Index Mating Rc Channel Particle Speed ai‐m1‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 1 33.27861 1 ‐19.04066927 ai‐m2‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 12 2 14.23794 1 ai‐m3‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 9 3 12.10925 1 ai‐m4‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 9 4 13.52242 1 ai‐m5‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 7 5 9.914708 1 ai‐m1‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 1 38.87427 2 ‐19.03284286 ai‐m2‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 13 2 19.84143 2 ai‐m3‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 9 3 13.55099 2 ai‐m5‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 10 5 16.57743 2 ai‐m1‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 1 37.87261 3 ‐23.67955057 ai‐m2‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 10 2 14.19305 3 ai‐m3‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 9 3 12.90323 3 ai‐m4‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 8 4 12.67058 3 ai‐m1‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 1 40.46825 4 ‐9.381969383 ai‐m2‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 18 2 31.08628 4 ai‐m3‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 18 3 28.88239 4 ai‐m4‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 14 4 21.83838 4 ai‐m5‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 11 5 17.84776 4 ai‐m1‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 1 35.86334 5 ‐13.40970091 ai‐m2‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 15 2 22.45364 5 ai‐m3‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 14 3 20.24672 5 ai‐m4‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 18 4 27.34077 5 ai‐m5‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 14 5 23.62267 5 ai‐m1‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 1 36.65015 6 ‐16.63690506 ai‐m2‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 13 2 20.01324 6 ai‐m3‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 14 3 22.92162 6 ai‐m4‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 12 4 19.38612 6 ai‐m5‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 11 5 17.77486 6 ai‐m1‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 1 36.75049 7 ‐11.0166442 ai‐m2‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 16 2 25.73385 7 ai‐m3‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 15 3 23.87073 7 ai‐m5‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 11 5 16.82159 7 ai‐m1‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 1 35.3467 8 ‐14.33721397 ai‐m2‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 14 2 21.00949 8 ai‐m3‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 14 3 21.87668 8

Dust applied: No Cleaner: Blue reel Air ionizer: no Mating Rc index Channel

1 50.47113953 15 17.16140683 9 1

10 11.946 7 115 15.90794004 8 130 13.42986854 7 11 31.46298256 25 85.23988889 25 2

10 16.54295455 11 215 30.1991404 14 230 28.41230584 14 21 37.165 31 32.38720062 45 18.17997674 9 4

10 22.33583871 11 415 16.15405579 8 430 16.3125279 8 41 38.85180336 55 94.26346667 25 5

10 74.66773333 25 515 88.82770944 25 51 38.73953578 65 93.87163636 25 6

10 31.08196774 18 615 34.47687854 17 630 31.44351587 15 61 49.85482242 75 82.38209846 25 7

10 84.03902043 25 715 73.79352576 25 730 34.09215627 18 71 38.9599532 85 7.717181818 5 8

10 8.105672925 5 815 7.291611384 5 830 7.363514569 5 8

Dust applied: No Cleaner: Blue reel Air Ionizer: No Mate RC Channel

1 24.32049 15 58.754 1

10 49.5492 115 45.71645 130 50.06779 11 33.12438 25 69.43525 2

10 40.17022 215 40.63453 230 32.25213 21 49.97005 35 103.5652 3

10 76.4796 315 87.13158 330 78.942 31 46.03665 4

10 107.149 415 101.2583 430 18.9691 41 36.77656 55 21.244 5

10 18.61266 515 16.217 530 18.41714 51 25.51801 65 12.75545 6

10 13.51037 630 13.1219 61 41.39376 75 37.46126 7

10 38.41105 715 38.96203 730 21.01504 71 39.74985 85 11.02418 8

10 11.5812 815 14.46627 8

30 12.46242 8

Dust Applied: Yes

Cleaner: Blue Liquid

Air Ionizer: No File ID Mating Rc Channel Speed b‐m0‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 21.79169 1 b‐m1‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 18.3773 1 7.389b‐m2‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 25.76679 1 b‐m3‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 14.17889 1 b‐m4‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 4.00 14.03551 1 b‐m5‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 13.53236 1b‐m0‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 40.39928 2 b‐m1‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 39.19444 2 ‐30.45b‐m2‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 8.742809 2 ‐30.45b‐m3‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 9.483268 2 b‐m4‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 4.00 9.767537 2 b‐m5‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 9.266031 2 b‐m0‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 31.99716 3 b‐m1‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 42.46064 3 ‐19.03b‐m2‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 23.42735 3 ‐19.03b‐m3‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 23.14179 3 b‐m4‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 4.00 24.09447 3 b‐m5‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 24.91755 3 b‐m0‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 34.738 4 b‐m1‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 32.14481 4 ‐16.03b‐m2‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 16.11277 4 ‐16.03b‐m3‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 14.95893 4 b‐m4‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 4.00 13.92271 4 b‐m5‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 13.07481 4b‐m0‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 33.95032 5 b‐m1‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 34.74241 5 ‐5.959b‐m2‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 28.78259 5 ‐5.959b‐m3‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 21.49341 5 b‐m4‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 4.00 17.31058 5 b‐m5‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 16.85005 5 b‐m0‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 25.0731 6 b‐m1‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 23.31323 6 ‐5.733b‐m2‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 17.57936 6 ‐29.84b‐m3‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 17.2066 6

b‐m5‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 15.46484 6 b‐m0‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 36.50717 7 b‐m1‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 25.32944 7 ‐9.043b‐m2‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 16.28552 7 ‐9.043b‐m3‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 20.30801 7 b‐m4‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 4.00 21.31534 7 b‐m5‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 16.07252 7b‐m0‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 0.00 32.01097 8 b‐m1‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 1.00 26.77832 8 ‐3.911b‐m2‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 2.00 22.86641 8 ‐3.911b‐m3‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 3.00 23.01761 8 b‐m4‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 4.00 7.680117 8 b‐m5‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 5.00 2.620067 8

Dust Applied: Yes

Cleaner: Blue reel

Air ionizer: No File ID index Mating Rc Channel nai‐m1‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 1 41.25283 2nai‐m2‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 23 2 38.27288 2nai‐m3‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 22 3 34.23024 2nai‐m4‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 23 4 35.86806 2nai‐m5‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 22 5 34.51715 2nai‐m1‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 1 36.2336 3nai‐m2‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 21 2 33.74567 3nai‐m3‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 18 3 27.96295 3nai‐m4‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 18 4 27.08943 3nai‐m5‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 17 5 26.56425 3nai‐m1‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 1 34.4203 4nai‐m2‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 17 2 28.25276 4nai‐m3‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 18 3 29.55549 4nai‐m4‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 18 4 28.96496 4nai‐m5‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 18 5 28.79501 4nai‐m1‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 1 39.26183 5nai‐m2‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 19 2 33.97431 5nai‐m3‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 14 3 23.53706 5nai‐m4‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 15 4 24.72355 5nai‐m5‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 18 5 29.98259 5nai‐m1‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 1 30.56036 6nai‐m2‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 17 2 27.32529 6

nai‐m3‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 16 3 24.39616 6nai‐m4‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 19 4 28.40068 6nai‐m5‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 19 5 28.48601 6nai‐m1‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 1 32.03083 7nai‐m2‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 14 2 23.2311 7nai‐m3‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 14 3 24.17515 7nai‐m4‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 15 4 25.1314 7nai‐m5‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 13 5 20.92131 7

Dust applied: yes Cleaner: Liquid Y Air I onizer: No File ID Mating rc Channel y‐m1‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 1 23.37421 1y‐m2‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 2 11.37935 1y‐m3‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 3 9.795739 1y‐m4‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 4 9.468088 1y‐m5‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 5 7.85567 1y‐m1‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 1 30.20123 3y‐m2‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 2 12.80987 3y‐m3‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 3 10.13149 3y‐m4‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 4 12.84295 3y‐m5‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 5 15.19763 3y‐m1‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 1 27.78067 4y‐m2‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 2 22.24739 4y‐m3‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 3 21.00342 4y‐m4‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 4 21.05499 4y‐m5‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 5 22.90168 4y‐m1‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 1 35.04162 5y‐m2‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 2 18.74333 5y‐m3‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 3 16.71527 5y‐m4‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 4 16.38603 5y‐m5‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 5 15.51807 5y‐m1‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 1 39.00896 6y‐m2‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 2 19.88137 6y‐m3‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 3 19.05883 6y‐m4‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 4 16.73153 6y‐m5‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 5 19.42449 6y‐m1‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 1 25.55652 7y‐m2‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 2 18.7855 7y‐m3‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 3 18.32817 7

y‐m4‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 4 16.88165 7y‐m5‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 5 16.09905 7y‐m1‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 1 29.85133 8y‐m2‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 2 16.64499 8y‐m3‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 3 11.21972 8y‐m4‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 4 13.43159 8y‐m5‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 5 9.226487 8

Dust Applied: Yes Cleaner: Reel Air Ionizer: No Cab: 51910‐10 Channel Mating # RC

51910‐10 F1 Dust post mate 1‐Particle Area.xls F1 1 33.88163

51910‐10 F1 Dust post mate 2‐Particle Area.xls F1 2 26.152 51910‐10 F1 Dust post mate 5‐Particle Area.xls F1 5 20.88832

51910‐10 F2 Dust post mate 1‐Particle Area.xls F2 1 25.26007 51910‐10 F2 Dust post mate 2‐Particle Area.xls F2 2 24.3942 51910‐10 F2 Dust post mate 3‐Particle Area.xls F2 3 20.30557

















51910‐10 F8 post mate 1‐Particle Area.xls F8 1 35.06254 51910‐10 F8 post mate 2‐Particle Area.xls F8 2 29.248

51910‐10 F8 post mate 3‐Particle Area.xls F8 3 30.18221

51910‐10 F8 post mate 5‐Particle Area.xls F8 5 26.60664 51910‐10 F9 post mate 1‐Particle Area.xls F9 1 37.7969 51910‐10 F9 post mate 2‐Particle Area.xls F9 2 26.71589





51910‐10 F10 post mate 4‐Particle Area.xls F10 4 23.70496 51910‐10 F10 post mate 5‐Particle Area.xls F10 5 17.20247 51910‐10 F11 post mate 1‐Particle Area.xls F11 1 35.81242 51910‐10 F11 post mate 2‐Particle Area.xls F11 2 29.72772 51910‐10 F11 post mate 3‐Particle Area.xls F11 3 28.24182





Dust Applied No Cleaner Yellow Liquid Air Ionizer No File ID index Matings rc Channel y2‐m3‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 25 3 73.40284 1 y2‐m4‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 25 4 70.12156 1 y2‐m5‐f1‐Particle Area.xls 25 5 68.25917 1 y2‐m1‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 1 35.74776 2 y2‐m2‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 18 2 28.20008 2 y2‐m3‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 19 3 27.94286 2 y2‐m4‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 20 4 27.91967 2 y2‐m5‐f2‐Particle Area.xls 17 5 25.28504 2 y2‐m1‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 1 36.4855 3 y2‐m2‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 7 2 10.25855 3 y2‐m3‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 9 3 12.94965 3

y2‐m4‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 8 4 11.36178 3 y2‐m5‐f3‐Particle Area.xls 8 5 12.11512 3 y2‐m1‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 1 40.85208 4 y2‐m2‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 19 2 30.38735 4 y2‐m3‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 18 3 28.63659 4 y2‐m4‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 19 4 33.02612 4 y2‐m5‐f4‐Particle Area.xls 19 5 31.61801 4y2‐m1‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 1 39.68056 5 y2‐m2‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 20 2 29.21427 5 y2‐m3‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 20 3 27.23855 5 y2‐m4‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 19 4 26.48714 5 y2‐m5‐f5‐Particle Area.xls 18 5 24.01204 5 y2‐m1‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 1 21.99345 6 y2‐m2‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 9 2 14.25762 6 y2‐m3‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 9 3 13.48884 6 y2‐m4‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 12 4 18.30095 6y2‐m5‐f6‐Particle Area.xls 9 5 13.365 6 y2‐m1‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 1 41.48543 7 y2‐m2‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 16 2 26.54291 7 y2‐m3‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 13 3 22.28486 7 y2‐m4‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 15 4 24.56444 7 y2‐m5‐f7‐Particle Area.xls 13 5 21.63423 7 y2‐m1‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 1 34.77756 8 y2‐m2‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 11 2 18.28879 8 y2‐m3‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 12 3 21.46884 8y2‐m4‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 12 4 20.44092 8 y2‐m5‐f8‐Particle Area.xls 12 5 20.11359 8

Dust Applied: Yes Cleaner: Blue reel Air Ionizer: No File ID Mating rc Channel MT‐A‐3‐contaminated core 1‐Particle Area.xls 3 31.04727 1 MT‐A‐4‐core 1‐Particle Area.xls 4 28.94016 1 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 1‐Particle Area.xls 5 25.03218 1 MT‐A‐3‐contaminated core 2‐Particle Area.xls 3 15.57309 2 MT‐A‐4‐core 2‐Particle Area.xls 4 20.01054 2 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 2‐Particle Area.xls 5 11.35719 2 MT‐A‐3‐core 3‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 3 41.187 3 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 3‐Particle Area.xls 5 82.374 3 MT‐A‐1‐contaminated core 4‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1 35.07956 4

1‐

MT‐A‐2‐contaminated core 4‐Particle Area.xls 2 51.13698 4 MT‐A‐3‐contaminated core 4‐Particle Area.xls 3 27.32281 4 MT‐A‐4‐core 4‐Particle Area.xls 4 15.006 4 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 4‐Particle Area.xls 5 16.25911 4 MT‐A‐1‐contaminated core 5‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 1 17.78084 5 MT‐A‐2‐contaminated core 5‐Particle Area.xls 2 35.18481 5 MT‐A‐3‐contaminated core 5‐Particle Area.xls 3 28.81679 5 MT‐A‐4‐core 5‐Particle Area.xls 4 18.05444 5 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 5‐Particle Area.xls 5 18.0661 5 MT‐A‐4‐core 6‐Particle Area.xls 4 32.24082 6 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 6‐Particle Area.xls 5 31.37292 6 MT‐A‐3‐core 7‐Particle Area.xls 3 98.81116 7 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 7‐Particle Area.xls 5 87.31583 7 MT‐A‐1‐contaminated core 8‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 1 28.94456 8 MT‐A‐2‐contaminated core 8‐Particle Area.xls 2 25.71784 8 MT‐A‐3‐contaminated core 8‐Particle Area.xls 3 28.84328 8 MT‐A‐4‐core 8‐Particle Area.xls 4 29.07383 8 MT‐A‐5‐CORE 8‐Particle Area.xls 5 28.95275 8 MT‐B‐3‐contaminated core 1‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 3 29.76177 1 MT‐B‐4‐core 1‐Particle Area.xls 4 27.74675 1 MT‐B‐5‐core 1‐Particle Area.xls 5 26.88811 1 MT‐B‐4‐core 2‐Particle Area.xls 4 13.61951 2 MT‐B‐5‐CORE 2‐Particle Area.xls 5 12.22671 2 MT‐B‐3‐core 3‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 3 37.515 3 MT‐B‐4‐core 3‐Particle Area.xls 4 37.83467 3 MT‐B‐5‐CORE 3‐Particle Area.xls 5 87.482 3 MT‐B‐1‐contaminated core 4‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 1 23.32635 4 MT‐B‐2‐contaminated core 4‐Particle Area.xls 2 24.00391 4 MT‐B‐3‐core 4‐Particle Area.xls 3 49.50608 4 MT‐B‐4‐core 4‐Particle Area.xls 4 45.59207 4 MT‐B‐5‐CORE 4‐Particle Area.xls 5 24.18659 4 MT‐B‐3‐Contaminated core 5‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 3 29.46444 5 MT‐B‐4‐core 5‐Particle Area.xls 4 74.48949 5 MT‐B‐5‐CORE 5‐Particle Area.xls 5 39.31611 5 MT‐B‐3‐contaminated core 6‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 3 45.27861 6 MT‐B‐4‐core 6‐Particle Area.xls 4 42.46179 6

MT‐B‐5‐CORE 6‐Particle Area.xls 5 41.55825 6 MT‐B‐3‐core 7‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 3 55.51784 7 MT‐B‐5‐CORE 7‐Particle Area.xls 5 51.70045 7 MT‐B‐1‐last2‐dust on 8‐Particle Area.xlsmate 1‐ 1 26.42986 8 MT‐B‐2‐contaminated core 8‐Particle Area.xls 2 24.048 8 MT‐B‐3‐contaminated core 8‐Particle Area.xls 3 23.53084 8 MT‐B‐4‐core 8‐Particle Area.xls 4 26.10852 8 MT‐B‐5‐CORE 8‐Particle Area.xls 5 24.63024 8

Appendix C: Particle Speed Values

Samples Experiment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 avg stdv

AI -9.07 -6.73 -8.82 -

13.12 -

16.49 -7.24 -

17.12 -

19.04 -

19.03 -

23.68 -9.38 -

13.41 -

16.64 -

11.02 -

14.34 -

13.68 4.98

B 7.39 -

30.45 -

19.00 -

16.03 -5.95 -5.70 -9.04 -3.91 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -

10.34 11.4

0

NAI -2.98 -2.49 -6.17 -5.29 -3.24 -8.78 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a -4.82 2.41

Y -

11.99 -4.29 -

17.39 -5.53 -

16.29 -

19.21 -6.77 -

13.20 -7.55 -

26.22 -

10.46 -7.74 -

14.94 -

16.48 n/a -

12.72 6.16

US CONEC -7.73 -0.87 -

12.64 -

12.59 -6.58 -

10.35 -5.81 -

11.08 -9.09 -6.08 -5.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a -8.03 3.56

Appendix D: Insertion and Return Loss Values

Insertion Loss

receive: 51910‐10 ch1 ch2 ch3 ch4 ch5 ch6 ch7 ch8 ch9 ch10 ch11 ch12 R&R1 -0.07 -0.1 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08 -0.07 -0.07 -0.03 -0.05 -0.13 0 -0.02R&R2 -0.13 -0.15 -0.05 -0.08 -0.17 -0.07 -0.1 -0.08 -0.11 -0.28 -0.05 -0.04R&R3 -0.08 -0.11 -0.04 -0.06 -0.12 -0.08 -0.1 -0.06 -0.07 -0.2 -0.03 -0.06R&R4 -0.07 -0.11 -0.06 -0.07 -0.1 -0.08 -0.09 -0.05 -0.05 -0.15 -0.01 -0.04R&R5 -0.06 -0.1 -0.07 -0.07 -0.07 -0.08 -0.09 -0.05 -0.04 -0.11 0 -0.03R&R6 -0.06 -0.08 -0.04 -0.05 -0.08 -0.06 -0.07 -0.04 -0.05 -0.16 -0.01 -0.03R&R7 -0.04 -0.08 -0.09 -0.06 -0.04 -0.08 -0.07 -0.04 -0.03 -0.07 0 -0.03R&R8 -0.07 -0.11 -0.05 -0.06 -0.09 -0.07 -0.07 -0.04 -0.05 -0.14 0 -0.03R&R9 -0.07 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 -0.08 -0.06 -0.07 -0.03 -0.05 -0.14 0 0R&R10 -0.07 -0.1 -0.05 -0.06 -0.08 -0.07 -0.07 -0.03 -0.05 -0.13 0 -0.02

average -0.072

-0.10

4

-0.05

5

-0.06

2

-0.09

1

-0.07

2 -0.08

-0.04

5

-0.05

5

-0.15

1 -0.01 -0.03std deviation

0.022998

0.019551

0.015092

0.009189

0.034464

0.007888

0.013333

0.015811

0.021731

0.056263

0.016997

0.015635

3 X std dev

0.068993

0.058652

0.045277

0.027568

0.103392

0.023664 0.04

0.047434

0.065192

0.16879

0.05099

0.046904

dust 1 -0.04 -0.09 -0.11 -0.07 -0.05 -0.08 -0.08 -0.07 -0.13 -0.1 -0.04 -0.19dust 2 -0.1 -0.09 -0.1 -3.31 -0.37 -0.08 -0.04 -0.04 -0.18 -0.43 -0.94 -0.93dust 3 -0.14 -0.1 -0.05 -3.36 -0.34 -0.04 -0.04 -0.03 -0.16 -0.38 -0.81 -0.57dust 4 -0.1 -0.14 -0.1 -3.46 -0.28 -0.08 -0.07 -0.05 -0.12 -0.32 -0.75 -0.64dust 5 -0.1 -0.29 -0.08 -3.18 -0.26 -0.07 -0.07 -0.05 -0.19 -0.31 -0.69 -0.71

Return Loss

receive: 51910‐10 ch1 ch2 ch3 ch4 ch5 ch6 ch7 ch8 ch9 ch10 ch11 ch12 R&R1 -75.2 -73.3 -71.8 -74.9 -72.9 -72.1 -77.6 -73.8 -72.9 -74.6 -72.9 -74.2R&R2 -70.2 -72.9 -71.2 -75.6 -74.2 -73.9 -80 -72.2 -72.2 -79 -75.3 -74.6R&R3 -80 -75.5 -71.7 -74 -73.9 -75.9 -78.5 -73.1 -74.3 -76.6 -76.4 -76R&R4 -80 -77.9 -71.3 -74.2 -74.2 -73.9 -74.9 -74.4 -74.5 -72.6 -72.9 -80R&R5 -73.5 -80 -80 -72.3 -72.7 -73.6 -79 -73.3 -73.4 -75.7 -73.8 -75.5R&R6 -79.5 -80 -73 -73.7 -75.2 -74.7 -78 -74.4 -74.3 -77.3 -77 -77.6R&R7 -80 -80 -73.5 -78.2 -77.1 -78.6 -77.6 -80 -75.1 -80 -75.8 -80R&R8 -80 -77.9 -72 -79.2 -78.3 -80 -76 -75.5 -74.2 -80 -75.3 -76.9R&R9 -80 -77.9 -69.7 -78.2 -76.8 -80 -80 -78.2 -75.6 -78.5 -74.5 -80R&R10 -76.8 -75.5 -72.9 -77.8 -80 -80 -80 -74.8 -71.3 -80 -75.6 -77.6

average -77.52

-77.0

9

-72.7

1

-75.8

1

-75.5

3

-76.2

7

-78.1

6

-74.9

7

-73.7

8

-77.4

3

-74.9

5

-77.2

4std deviation

3.501047

2.673928

2.780268

2.366174

2.42581

3.082585

1.729611

2.404186

1.32732

2.54866

1.399405

2.211184

3 X std dev 10.50

314 8.02

1783 8.34

0803 7.09

85217.27

74319.247756

5.188834

7.212558

3.981959

7.645979

4.198214

6.633551

average + 3X std dev

-88.02

31

-85.1118

-81.0508

-82.9085

-82.8074

-85.5178

-83.3488

-82.1826

-77.7

62

-85.0

76

-79.1482

-83.8736

average ‐ 3X std dev

-67.01

69

-69.0682

-64.3692

-68.7115

-68.2526

-67.0222

-72.9712

-67.7574

-69.7

98

-69.7

84

-70.7518

-70.6064

dust 1 -48.8 -54.4 -47.5 -31.6 -34.9 -69.4 -76.3 -55.7 -54.5 -65 -45.6 -53.3dust 2 -46.7 -52.4 -46.9 -32 -36.2 -70.4 -77.2 -54.8 -56.9 -41.6 -46.2 -35.2dust 3 -45.5 -50.6 -46.6 -30.5 -40.3 -70.9 -58.2 -51.2 -38.7 -40.8 -43.5 -37.8dust 4 -47.8 -55.9 -47.6 -29.7 -42.7 -70.9 -61.2 -51.3 -63.1 -39.8 -41 -38dust 5

Insertion Loss Return Loss

channel channel

launch receive: 19604C 5 6 7 5 6 719603B 1 0.01 0.07 0 62.4 62.9 63.6 2 0.01 0.08 0 62.8 63.2 63.2 3 0.02 0.08 0 62.6 63 63.4 4 0 0.07 0 63.2 63.7 64.1 5 0.01 0.08 0.01 62.5 63.1 63.6 6 0.01 0.08 0.02 62.7 63.5 63.8 7 0.01 0.08 0 62.8 63.6 64.1 8 0 0.07 0.01 63 63.3 63.8 9 0 0.07 0 63.2 63.8 64.2 10 0.01 0.07 0.02 63.7 64.4 64.8 average 0.008 0.075 0.006 62.89 63.45 63.86 std deviation 0.00632 0.00527 0.0084 0.39285 0.45031 0.46 3 X std dev 0.01897 0.01581 0.0253 1.17856 1.35093 1.3799 average + 3X std dev 0.02697 0.09081 0.0313 61.7114 62.0991 62.48 Trial 1: DUST 1 0.05 0.12 0.39 61.5 61.4 46.8 Trial 2: DUST 2 0.05 0.08 0.03 61.8 61.2 63.4 Trial 1: POST 1 mate after cleaning 0.01 0.05 0 62.7 63.1 63.6 Trial 2: POST 1 mate after cleaning 0.03 0.12 0 73.4 71.2 70.9 receive: 19604B 5 6 7 5 6 751611‐23 1 0.04 0.08 0.14 66 68.4 68.2 2 0.03 0.09 0.15 67.7 69.1 69.1 3 0.03 0.09 0.14 69.9 69.2 69.5 4 0.05 0.11 0.17 67.1 69 69.3 5 0.04 0.1 0.16 70.3 70 68.3 6 0.05 0.11 0.16 71.1 70.4 69.4 7 0.03 0.08 0.13 70.2 70.4 68.8 8 0.06 0.1 0.14 70 69.1 69.3 9 0.05 0.1 0.13 69.9 69.4 68.9 10 0.08 0.12 0.14 70.6 68.9 68.8 average 0.046 0.098 0.146 69.28 69.39 68.96 std deviation 0.01578 0.01317 0.0135 1.70737 0.66575 0.4477 3 X std dev 0.04733 0.0395 0.0405 5.12211 1.99725 1.3431 average + 3X std dev 0.09333 0.1375 0.1865 64.1579 67.3928 67.617 DUST 1 1.86 0.43 0.62 41.1 33.4 52.9 POST 1 mate after cleaning 0.04 0.04 0.06

effects of particle contamination in fibre optics ... · effects of particle contamination in fibre...

Documents