I am not here to pester about own company - I do NOT work for this but just
to share experience:
For antenna remoting, etc RF-over-fiberoptic we found www.miteq.com is the
best, somehwhat EXPENSIVE but tech specs are best in the world (noise, gain
flatness, etc). As you know fiberoptic is the ONLY solution for LOSSLESS &
SAFE transmitting RF over a long distance e.g. from antennas, on
ship/aircraft, etc because first unlike Coax cable fiber doesn't suffer from
excessive loss (you can have a 10-kilometer link no problem!), second it's
hard to intercept (if you break fiber it iwll be notices, while Coax cable
can be tapped in illegally), third it's immensely interference-immune, etc,
etc. though mor eexpensive.

That we found perfcect for Antenna remoting when facilities cannot be built
near each antenna (antenna array), also for spying/military application
fiber is safer than coax cble, and finally on aircrafts, etc you would
prefer fiberoptic due to its immunity to interference (life-safety issues).
So www.miteq.com I found by clicking on "components & assemblies" (NOT
satellite comm)--the clicked "fiberoptic products", they even posted
datasheets and brochures there (maybe too much info!)

Marco Licetti wrote:
I am not here to pester about own company - I do NOT work for this but just
to share experience:
For antenna remoting, etc RF-over-fiberoptic we found www.miteq.com is the
best, somehwhat EXPENSIVE but tech specs are best in the world (noise, gain
flatness, etc). As you know fiberoptic is the ONLY solution for LOSSLESS &
SAFE transmitting RF over a long distance e.g. from antennas, on
ship/aircraft, etc because first unlike Coax cable fiber doesn't suffer from
excessive loss (you can have a 10-kilometer link no problem!), second it's
hard to intercept (if you break fiber it iwll be notices, while Coax cable
can be tapped in illegally), third it's immensely interference-immune, etc,
etc. though mor eexpensive.

That we found perfcect for Antenna remoting when facilities cannot be built
near each antenna (antenna array), also for spying/military application
fiber is safer than coax cble, and finally on aircrafts, etc you would
prefer fiberoptic due to its immunity to interference (life-safety issues).
So www.miteq.com I found by clicking on "components & assemblies" (NOT
satellite comm)--the clicked "fiberoptic products", they even posted
datasheets and brochures there (maybe too much info!)




I'm a little confused here. Fiberoptic cables don't carry RF, they only
transmit light. What I read in the advertising is a "bandwidth" of upto
atleast 11Ghz. This is a data rate not a RF energy transmission capacity.
Fiberoptic cable is made of "glass" which is nonconductive to RF energy.
Can you expand on the subject.

Dave Nagel

Hi Marco

Yes but its more of use in a commercial/military than amateur radio
environment.

I remember that certain cellular site installs I was involved in ran
fiber from a the "main" RF TX/RX device to a remote location. The remote
location simply had a broadband amplifier for the separate TX and RX.
This was used in an underground railway station going out to maybe 3-4
locations. It was more cost effective doing it this way than by long
coax runs at 900/1800MHz.

It will be a cost/benefit tradeoff of whatever RF/SMOF/RF interface
device you have to purchase vs the cost of coax vs fiber.

This is something an amateur radio person isnt likely to do for his/her
hobby. I also doubt whether it will be commercially viable for amateur
radio manufacturers to include fiber interfacing.

OBTW you can tap/intercept optical fibre .

Cheers Bob W5/VK2YQA

Marco Licetti wrote:
I am not here to pester about own company - I do NOT work for this but just
to share experience:

OK. Just one comment: intercepting fiberoptics is more complicated/costly
than metal "wires"

Not if you are in the business of spying! grin It takes a machine that
can penetrate or couple to the fiber without damaging its throughput
(much). I mean given that fiber splicing uses a pretty expensive machine
itself I doubt am eavesdropping device would be much harder to
manufacture... Your next big expense is to sort through the reams of
data that pass through the link!

Do you see it as being viable for amateur radio hobbyists or was your
post for general technical interest only? Perhaps I am missing some
possibilities here..

Cheers Bob

Marco Licetti wrote:
OK. Just one comment: intercepting fiberoptics is more complicated/costly
than metal "wires"

On Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:31:06 -0500, Bob Bob wrote:

It takes a machine that
can penetrate or couple to the fiber without damaging its throughput
(much).

Hi Bob,

Having done it often, I can say it is far, far simpler than that. It
is obtained through the evanescent mode and optical couplers just like
RF couplers work on the exactly the same principle. You simply abrade
the surfaces of two conjoined lengths of fiber optic; mate them like
snakes along their length; and wah-lah as the French would say.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

I fiber many channels of RF in the course of my job and found Miteq a
bit over rated and extra pricey. I’ll stick with ORTEL for reliable
RF/Fiber links.
Bob


Marco Licetti wrote:
I am not here to pester about own company - I do NOT work for this but just
to share experience:
For antenna remoting, etc RF-over-fiberoptic we found www.miteq.com is the
best, somehwhat EXPENSIVE but tech specs are best in the world (noise, gain
flatness, etc). As you know fiberoptic is the ONLY solution for LOSSLESS &
SAFE transmitting RF over a long distance e.g. from antennas, on
ship/aircraft, etc because first unlike Coax cable fiber doesn't suffer from
excessive loss (you can have a 10-kilometer link no problem!), second it's
hard to intercept (if you break fiber it iwll be notices, while Coax cable
can be tapped in illegally), third it's immensely interference-immune, etc,
etc. though mor eexpensive.

That we found perfcect for Antenna remoting when facilities cannot be built
near each antenna (antenna array), also for spying/military application
fiber is safer than coax cble, and finally on aircrafts, etc you would
prefer fiberoptic due to its immunity to interference (life-safety issues).
So www.miteq.com I found by clicking on "components & assemblies" (NOT
satellite comm)--the clicked "fiberoptic products", they even posted
datasheets and brochures there (maybe too much info!)

These cellular extenders (that I am familiar with) were a simple way to
put a broadband "antenna" at a remote location and have it behave as if it
was connected by coax. One sector antenna of a cell site could be
allocated to the remote location and all the control and system interface
wasn't complicated in any way -- except for accounting for the coverage area
(which was usually a RF hole needing coverage).
With the amount of equipment required to do it right (modulate the RF onto
the fiber and demodulate it and amplify it back to the required level), it
would be just as easy for a ham to simply put the rig at the remote location
and send control and audio up the fiber -- if he really wanted the
advantages of fiber.
There are fiber boxes that do this for a fraction of the cost of the
"RF" type --- they have audio and digital interfaces. If you can do it on
the Internet, fiber is simple as well.

73, Steve, K9DCI





"Bob Bob" wrote in message
...
Hi Marco

Yes but its more of use in a commercial/military than amateur radio
environment.

I remember that certain cellular site installs I was involved in ran
fiber from a the "main" RF TX/RX device to a remote location. The remote
location simply had a broadband amplifier for the separate TX and RX.
This was used in an underground railway station going out to maybe 3-4
locations. It was more cost effective doing it this way than by long
coax runs at 900/1800MHz.

It will be a cost/benefit tradeoff of whatever RF/SMOF/RF interface
device you have to purchase vs the cost of coax vs fiber.

This is something an amateur radio person isnt likely to do for his/her
hobby. I also doubt whether it will be commercially viable for amateur
radio manufacturers to include fiber interfacing.

OBTW you can tap/intercept optical fibre .

Cheers Bob W5/VK2YQA

Marco Licetti wrote:
I am not here to pester about own company - I do NOT work for this but
just
to share experience:

Richard,

Having done it often, I can say it is far, far simpler than that. It
is obtained through the evanescent mode and optical couplers just like
RF couplers work on the exactly the same principle.

I'm told that this approach is relatively easy to detect in that it requires a
fair amount of mechanical motion to achieve. Single-mode fiber is often used
to detect minute changes in, e.g., bridges, and the idea is that -- while
there may be other causes of significant mechanical motion to a fiber --
detecting it in the case of a secure line is cause for investigation.

I've also been told, however, that you can use completely non-invasive
(mechanically) techniques to sniff fiber... something involving the
back-scatter of neutrons or somesuch. Don't know how much of that was
science-fiction vs. readily doable with the funding of a major government,
though.

On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 12:56:35 -0700, "Joel Kolstad"
wrote:

Richard,

Having done it often, I can say it is far, far simpler than that. It
is obtained through the evanescent mode and optical couplers just like
RF couplers work on the exactly the same principle.

I'm told that this approach is relatively easy to detect in that it requires a
fair amount of mechanical motion to achieve.

Hi Joel,

You mean the actual abrasion preceding the bonding?

Single-mode fiber is often used
to detect minute changes in, e.g., bridges,

Yes, I am very familiar with those applications. They are wholly
devoted to that use, not data.

and the idea is that -- while
there may be other causes of significant mechanical motion to a fiber --
detecting it in the case of a secure line is cause for investigation.

You are describing paranoia. Somehow, I think in the heady dot.com
days when 95% of this stuff was put into surplus, absolutely no one
worried about this. OK, maybe someone, no one here knows who they
are.

I've also been told, however, that you can use completely non-invasive
(mechanically) techniques to sniff fiber... something involving the
back-scatter of neutrons or somesuch. Don't know how much of that was
science-fiction vs. readily doable with the funding of a major government,
though.

Heh heh, that was probably dreamt up by the paranoid ones. Experience
has always shown that "security experts" (those who roll their own)
are the most vulnerable. You don't need advanced degrees in
interstellar physics to read their mail. Simply look at the DVD
encryption model. It was busted by 35 lines of code. Look at
Homeland Security, and then think Katrina.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC