Milestone-Proposal talk:Fiber optic connectors

From IEEE Milestones Wiki

Advocates and reviewers will post their comments below. In addition, any IEEE member can sign in with their ETHW login (different from IEEE Single Sign On) and comment on the milestone proposal's accuracy or completeness as a form of public review.

Advocate for this Milestone Proposal -- John Vardalas (talk) 20:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I've been asked to be the advocate for this proposal. I'm currently developing a list of external expert reviewers. My goal is to get three reviewers. For the moment I have two who have agreed to review the proposal. When their reviews are ready they will be posted on this Discussion Page. When I have a third reviewer, his, or her, review will also be posted.

Once all the reviews are posted we can proceed with the evaluation of this proposal. In the meantime I am bringing myself up to speed on this proposal. I'm looking forward to moving this Milestone forward to the next step in the process.

John Vardalas, Ph.D. Member, IEEE History Committee

First external review of proposal -- John Vardalas (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Posting of a review by Dr. Mitsuru Kihara, Professor, Osaka Electro-Communication University, Japan. This is an exact copy of his review.


"The proposal shows that the proposers invented the physical contact (PC) connection technology that have proved fundamental in supporting the performance and reliability of fiber optic connectors. The proposers used the PC connection technology to develop an SC connector and an MPO connector as representative simplex and multiplex fiber optic connectors. Both connectors are widely used throughout the world.

I agree that the work is historically significant for optical fiber communication systems. Many fiber optic connectors that are currently in practical use are based on the invented PC connection technology. I think that proposers established clear historical significance. Their arguments are technically strong. The answers adequately support the Milestone claim.

Many kinds of fiber optic connectors have been developed and currently used in optical fiber network systems. Fiber connections, except fusion splices, are classified into two types of connection states. One is a connection with physical contact (PC), and the other uses refractive-index matching material. PC-type connectors are mostly used for intra-office fiber connections and premises where frequent reconnections are required. In contrast, connectors and mechanical splices with refractive-index matching material are mostly used in outside facilities, where frequent reconnections are unnecessary. Therefore, PC-type connectors have superior operability.

The work contributes to realize physical contact (PC) connection technology and most major PC-type connectors that are currently in practical use throughout the world. The PC connection technology have important factors such as push-pull coupling mechanism and high-precisely polishing ferrule end-face. Using the PC connection technology, the proposers have developed SC and MPO connectors. Both SC and MPO connectors could realize excellent operability and high density connection. In addition, both SC and MPO connectors employed plastic-molded components and they could lead to cost-effective connection. Consequently, the invented PC connection technology and these developed SC and MPO connectors are historically important for optical fiber communication systems.

Finally, I think that the wording of the citation is accurate.


My advice:

With the answers to “What obstacles (technical, political, geographic) needed to be overcome?”, In second sentence of second paragraph: The sentence “and they use an expensive ceramic ferrule” should be deleted. This is why SC connectors also use a ceramic ferrule and could not lead to low cost.

With the “Supporting texts and citations to establish the dates, location, and importance of the achievement”, Reference [2]: This journal article is in Japanese. If possible, the appropriate journal article in English should be used."