A Preliminary Study into the Effects of Common Aircraft Chemicals and Solvents on Fiber Optic Cable Transmissivity

Dennis R. Hannon, Southern Illinois University

Aaron Ramsundar, Southern Illinois University

INTRODUCTION

Optical fiber is gradually replacing copper conductor technology in many applications (Corning, 2007). Cable with core material of either glass or plastic is available, each with its advantages and disadvantages as compared to copper conductors for transmission of data along an analog or digital data bus system. Instead of a flow of electrons as in conventional copper wire such as the twisted pair arrangement common in data transfer, fiber optics use light as the transmission medium. Optical fiber exhibits a high immunity to electrical noise and can accommodate greater signal bandwidth to support multiple signals; both important considerations in aircraft applications. A number of additional advantages include: less bulk and weight, lack of spark or short circuit potential, and a lower bit error rate (BER) (U.S. Navy, 1998). Some disadvantages of fiber optics usage include the need for interface connectors and conversion circuitry to permit data interchange between fiber optic and electrical conductors and devices, but these do not outweigh the benefits in aircraft digital data bussing installations.

A typical fiber optic data link arrangement consists of a transmitter which converts an electrical signal to an optical signal, the fiber optic cable itself for carrying the light and a receiver which converts the optical signal back to electrical impulses again (Sterling, 1999). In the transmitter, circuitry may consist of an analog to digital converter, a modulator utilizing a transistor semiconductor and an infra red, visible or laser light source which is often a light emitting (LED) or laser diode, and a connector to couple and maintain alignment of the fiber optic cable to the light source. The receiver contains a coupling connector, a detector which is a semiconductor device such as a photodiode or phototransistor, and an amplifier (U.S. Navy, 1998). The amplifier raises the power level of the signal and may process or enhance the signal as necessary depending on the particular application. The receiver may also incorporate a digital to analog converter to drive an actuator or transducer as appropriate.

Either analog or digital signals may be sent along fiber optic links, but the latter is the method most commonly employed. In civilian aviation, specific Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC) specifications such as those contained in the ARINC 600 and 800 series address the nature of the signals as well as the quality, installation and maintenance of cables utilized. The military standard is MIL-STD-1773. A typical airborne fiber optics installation may also contain devices such as signal multiplexers, couplers, splitters and other devices as needs dictate.

According to Cisco Systems’ document entitled Inspection and Cleaning Procedures for Fiber Optic Connections, clean components are essential for quality connections between components and periodic cleaning of cable ends and connectors is an essential part of system maintenance. A failure at any juncture can lead to malfunction or at worst, catastrophic failure of the whole system. Because cable core diameters are microns in size, contaminants as small as dust particles and hair follicles as well as oils from human hands, solvents, or films present from vapors in the air can cause substantial reduction in cable throughput, complete blockage of the fiber core or a reflection of energy back toward the source degrading the signal (Cisco Systems, 2006).

While periodic cleaning of the end faces of fiber optic cable links in aircraft avionics systems is undertaken as part of routine maintenance or if problems develop, the effects of exposure of these cables and their interfaces to common aircraft chemicals and solvents as well as repeated cleaning regimens has not been well established (Zika, 2006). Aeronautical Radio Incorporated (ARINC) has established standards for the installation and cleaning of fiber optic cables (ARINC, 2005) and components and a number of isopropyl alcohol based fiber optic cleaning kits are available on the market. While these kits and techniques have proven successful for the most part in maintaining signal integrity, data as to the effects of chemical exposure and repetitive cleaning operations needs to be established. It has been the purpose of this research is to begin evaluation and documentation of the derogatory effects of common aircraft chemical and solvent exposure on cable transmissivity and make this data available to the industry. It is anticipated these preliminary results as well as future research will provide information useful to the overall determination of cable life cycles enhancing the safety and integrity of fiber optics usage in aircraft avionics systems.

RESEARCH PROTOCOL

The activities of this initial research have included evaluation of 10 meter lengths of plastic core fiber optic cable to represent lengths which may typically be used in aircraft installations. Representative cable specimens were cut to the specified lengths, categorized, polished, inspected, and tested to establish an initial baseline transmissivity level. Testing guidelines followed those outlined in Aeronautical Radio Incorporated Project Paper 805: Fiber Optic Test Procedures (ARINC, 2005). Each cable sample was then immersed in a different aircraft chemical or solvent for a period of time. Following a standardized cleaning regimen, multiple repeat transmissivity tests were conducted on each specimen including controls using a 650 ηM (near infrared LED) light source at specific intervals, the usual wavelength employed in 1 mm plastic fiber optic cable. Test result readings on each exposed test cable and control as identified by its exposure chemical were logged and documented in accordance with sound research practices and accepted scientific method.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Durable Materials:

Fiber Optic Test Set; Manufacturer: Industrial Fiber Optics #IF-FOM

Fiber Optic Microscope 100X; Manufacturer: Fiber Optics Instruments Sales, Inc
Fiber Optic Hot Cutter; Manufacturer: X-acto w/25 W Wall Mod L25 Iron

Crimping Tool

Fiber Optic Tool Kit; Manufacturer: Industrial Fiber Optics #IF-TK4

Professional Fiber Cutter; Manufacturer: Industrial Fiber Optics #IF-FC1

‘ST’ ferrule Polishing puck

Glass Polishing Plate

Fiber Optic/ Wire Stripper 766-A; Manufacturer: Fiber Optic Instruments Sales, Inc

4-oz Water Dispenser

Consumables:

ST (Straight Tip) Connectors

PMMA 1 mm Fiber Optic Cable (see specifications, Appendix E)

Isopropyl Alcohol

Bleached White Cotton Head Swabs

Distilled Water

Sanitary Cleaning Tissue

Fiber Optic Tool Kit

Manufacturer: Industrial Fiber Optics #IF-TK4

3 μM Polishing Film

2000-grit Polishing Paper

4 Extra KEEN Razor Blades

Solvents, Chemicals and Fuels:

Aeroshell® 80 SAE 40 Oil

AvGas 100 Low Lead

Philips 66 X/C Aviation 20-50 Oil

DOT 3 Brake Fluid

70% Isopropyl Alcohol

Jet A fuel

Lithium Grease

LPS 2 Lubricant

MEK (Methyl ethyl ketone)

Mil-5606 Hydraulic Fluid

Skydrol® Hydraulic Fluid

Spotcheck® SKC-S Cleaner

The fiber optic cable used in this study was obtained from Electronix Express, a Division of RSR Inc., of Avenel, NJ (Cat #2705FBS100M) in 100 meter spools. The cable was cut into 10 meter lengths and tagged with the name of the chemical solvent to which exposure was to be conducted. Each test specimen was paired with a control of the same length that was not subjected to exposure. Following the cutting operation, each cable end face was polished using materials in the fiber optic tool set consisting of a cutter block, razor knife, polishing puck, glass plate and abrasive paper. After polishing, the cable ends were inspected using a 100X fiber optic inspection microscope for abrasions, cracks, or scratches and re-polished if necessary.

Following initial preparation, each cable end was mounted in an industry standard “ST” type fiber optic connector for interface to the Industrial Fiber Optics Test Set. Each categorized test cable was identified by the solvent or chemical to which it was exposed and the results of each procedure and subsequent testing logged. The step by step procedure for cleaning, testing and inspection on the cables was well documented and a checklist used to assure consistency and repeatability and to minimize errors caused by inadvertent mechanical abrasion, end compression, accidental over-bending, etc.

Figure 1. Connector Assembly Figure 2. Cable End Polishing

Three successive transmissivity test readings were taken on each sample and averaged to help alleviate inherent test set measurement errors. Cable transmissivity was measured in microwatts and before and after exposure transmissivity ratios converted to decibels (dB) of signal loss (or gain) as compared to the baselines established at the beginning of each test cycle. A signal loss of about 0.4 dB or greater representing about a 9 – 10% signal loss was thought to be significant. In addition to fiber optic transmissivity, the outside diameter of each cable was measured with a micrometer both before and after chemical exposure to aid in determination of overall cable degradation from solvent exposure, which in some cases was severe.

Figure 3. Transmissivity Test Set

A control group consisting of each representative type and length of cable was established. Each uncontaminated control was subjected to identical inspection and testing as the test cable specimens. The initial baseline transmissivity and subsequent testing was conducted on each specimen, including appropriate controls, at 650 nM light wavelengths. Following initial transmissivity measurement, the cable tips were placed in the respective solvent/chemical fluids for a period of 1 week. The cables were then removed from the solvents, cleaned with isopropyl alcohol, examined, test readings taken and the data compared to each respective baseline sample measurement.

Raw data from each test measurement was recorded, interpreted and transferred to an Excel® spreadsheet and bar graph for documentation, study and comparison. The initial and mean after exposure measurement ratio was converted to decibels using the standard power ratio to decibel equation dB = 10 log P_in/P_out and displayed in as columns in Table 3. The values represent the decibel ratio difference in power transmissivity prior to and after chemical exposure.

RESULTS

Aviation Chemical	Test Cable	Initial Measurement (Control)	Test Measurement 1	Test Measurement 2	Test Measurement 3	Test Mean	dB Loss (or Gain)
Aeroshell 80 SAE 40 Oil	T1	299	288	289	261	279	0.300
AvGas 100 Low Lead	T2	308	285	273	228	262	0.702
Philips 66 X/C Aviation 20-50 Oil	T3	318	312	292	282	295	0.326
DOT 3 Brake Fluid	T4	281	262	248	249	253	0.455
70% Isopropil Alcohol	T5	307	305	295	299	300	0.100
Jet A fuel	T6	299	273	268	267	269	0.459
Lithium Grease	T7	314	305	320	320	315	-0.013
LPS 2 Lubricant	T8	300	292	306	300	299	0.015
MEK(Methyl ethyl ketone)	T9	275	0	0	0	0	NA
Mil-5606 Hydraulic Fluid	T10	326	305	314	299	306	0.275
Skydrol Hydraulic Fluid	T11	322	288	296	280	288	0.485
Spotcheck SKC-S Cleaner	T12	292	261	274	267	267	0.389
Control	T13	307	278	283	319	293	0.202

Table 1. Fiber Optic Cable Transmissivity Before and After Exposure to Aviation Solvents

Three test measurements were performed to determine repeatability of the testing procedure.

Initial and Post-Exposure Mean Measurements

Table 2. Fiber Optic Transmissivity: Initial Reading v. Post-exposure Mean

Decibel Loss (or Gain) Data

Table 3. Decibel loss (or Gain¹) Before and After Exposure to Aviation Solvents

¹ Gain expressed as a negative value on the chart

Overall Cable Changes Before and After Chemical Exposure

Aviation Chemical	Test Cable	Initial Thickness (inch)	Thickness after exposure(inch)	dB Loss (or Gain)	Observation
Aeroshell 80 SAE 40 Oil	T1	0.0877	0.088	0.300	no visual difference
AvGas 100 Low Lead	T2	0.0907	0.094	0.702	Cable recessed 1/8 inch both ends (jacket swelling)
Philips 66 X/C Aviation 20-50 Oil	T3	0.0879	0.088	0.326	no visual difference
DOT 3 Brake Fluid	T4	0.0876	0.088	0.455	no visual difference
70% Isopropyl Alcohol	T5	0.0875	0.088	0.100	no visual difference
Jet A fuel	T6	0.0905	0.092	0.459	Cable recessed 1/8 inch both ends (jacket swelling)
Lithium Grease	T7	0.0879	0.088	-0.013	no visual difference
LPS 2 Lubricant	T8	0.0854	0.09	0.015	Cable recessed 1/8 inch one end (jacket swelling)
MEK(Methyl ethyl ketone)	T9	0.0869	0.09	NA	Cable protruded 1/8 inch both ends (jacket shrunk)
Mil-5606 Hydraulic Fluid	T10	0.0879	0.091	0.275	no visual difference
Skydrol Hydraulic Fluid	T11	0.0881	0.089	0.485	no visual difference
Spotcheck SKC-S Cleaner	T12	0.0899	0.09	0.389	no visual difference
Control	T13	0.0885	0.089	0.202	no visual difference

Table 4. Cable Appearance Before and After Exposure to Aviation Solvents

INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS

Following short term (1 week) exposure to common aircraft chemicals or solvents, the more volatile compounds appeared to have the greatest effect not only on cable performance but also produced noticeable physical degradation of the cable end face structure. Again, a signal loss at or near 0.4 dB (>9%) was felt to constitute a significant change in cable performance. A loss of 3 dB or more would signify a loss of 50% or more of the original signal power. Typically, plastic fiber optic cable signal loss is about 0.2 dB per foot in addition to a 0.25 dB connector insertion loss (see Appendix E). The amount of acceptable cable loss is driven by the nature of the signal including strength of the signal launched into the cable, bandwidth of the information transmitted and the system power budget; however, since both the test and control cables experienced these losses they were not of primary concern for the purposes of this preliminary research. Of the chemicals tested, 100 low lead aviation gasoline, DOT 3 brake fluid, Jet A aviation fuel, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), Spotcheck® SKC-S cleaner, and Skydrol® hydraulic fluid caused the greatest losses. The effect of physical distortion or degradation on the cables probably contributed to this effect. In the case of, methyl ethyl ketone, a highly volatile plastic solvent, this effect degraded the cable to an extent making signal loss determination impossible.

As to the short term effects of a one week exposure and cleaning operation of cable samples to crankcase oil, generic lithium grease, and isopropyl alcohol, the signal degradation observed appeared minimal. It should be noted, that cutting back the deformed cable ends where observed by a centimeter or so, then repeating the cleaning and polishing process, restored the cables close to their original baseline values. It was felt the test equipment employed was not sensitive enough to evaluate the effects of slightly shortening the 10 meter cable test lengths.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Care should be taken to avoid exposure of fiber optic cable to most common aircraft chemicals and solvents. Especially noteworthy were the detrimental effects of aviation fuels and hydraulic fluid both of which often flow through tubing adjacent or in close proximity to electronic data bus runs. Acceptable practice has long prohibited the tying of data bus, coaxial or electrical cable to piping containing potentially corrosive fluids such as aviation fuels or hydraulic fluids (FAA, 1998). The effect of these on the plastic fiber optic cables tested reinforces this recommendation. Further, fiber optic cables should be kept clear of sumps while fluid residues of these types may accumulate. In the event of contamination of cable end faces, it may be advisable to cut the cables back slightly if possible prior to reassembling them in the connector body. Should portions along a cable length be exposed to the extent that visible distortion has occurred, the entire cable should be replaced. Splicing may be the only alternative in some instances but can be a difficult and tricky procedure (Sterling, 1999). Proper cable splicing requires particular acquired skills and experience which most airframe and powerplant or avionics technicians may lack and should be performed only by someone well trained in the art.

CONCLUSION

The initial results obtained in this study were valuable in determining whether degradation of cable throughput from the effects of common aircraft chemicals and solvents was a viable area in which to perform additional, long term exposure research. It is apparent that short term effects of some compounds are negligible but the long term effects remain unknown. Other chemicals produced marked degradation over the shot term rendering additional study on them unnecessary at this point. We plan to continue this study into the 2007 – 2008 academic year including repetitive cleaning of uncontaminated cable end faces to determine if normal cleaning procedures produce significant cumulative cable degradation over time.

REFERENCES

ARINC. (2005). ARINC project paper 806; Fiber optic installation and maintenance procedures. Annapolis: Aeronautical Radio

Incorporated.

ARINC. (2005). ARINC project paper 805; Fiber optic test procedures.

Annapolis: Aeronautical Radio Incorporated

Cisco Systems, Inc. (2006). Brochure: Inspection and cleaning procedures for fiber optic connections. Document ID: 51834

Corning, Inc. (2007). Fiber optics 101. Retrived 07/30/2007 from http://www.corning.com/opticalfiber/discovery_center/tutorials/

fiber_101/of_cc.asp.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (1998). Acceptable methods techniques and practices. AC 43.13 – 1B/2A. Government Printing Office.

Sterling, D. J., Jr. (1999). Technicians guide to fiber optics. Albany, NY:

Belmar Publishers

U.S. Navy. (1998). Naval Electricity and Electronics Training Series. 14196 Module 24. Chapter 1. Fiber optics. Government Printing Office. Washington

Zika, David. (2006). Fiber Optic Sr. Specialist Engineer Boeing IDS - St. Louis.

Personal correspondence with author.

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Name: Dennis R. Hannon

Affiliation: Southern Illinois University, College of

Applied Science and Arts

Department of Aviation Technologies

Location: Carbondale, Illinois

Title: Assistant Professor

Degrees: M.P.A., Southern Illinois University

B.S. Biological Sciences, Loyola University

Chicago, Illinois

B.S. Aviation Technology,

Southern Illinois University

Carbondale, Illinois

Contact: e-mail: dhannon@siu.edu

Phone: 618-453-9208

Name: Aaron Ramsundar

Affiliation: Southern Illinois University,

College of Applied Science and Arts

Department of Aviation Technologies

Location: Carbondale, Illinois

Title: Undergraduate Researcher

Degrees: B.S. Aviation Technologies,

Southern Illinois University

BS, Aviation Technology,

Contact: e-mail: ramsunda@siu.edu

Phone: 618-453-9208

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank the entire undergraduate research team, consisting of Scott DePringer, Brian Dugan, Joseph Dunavin, Bradley Painter and Ephraim Smalldridge, all seniors in the Aviation Technologies Avionics Specialization, for their efforts in preparing and logging samples, collecting solvents and assisting in the overall study. Special thanks are also in order to Mr. Harry Fanning and Mr. David Zika of Boeing Aerospace, St. Louis, Missouri for suggesting the realm of this research study.

APPENDIX A

Fiber Optic Cleaning Method 1 (Initial, less vigorous cleaning)

Apparatus Required

100% Pure Pharmaceutical grade bleached white cotton head swabs.

99% Isopropyl Alcohol.

100x Fiberscope

Precaution

1. Prevent contamination from fingerprints, dust, condensation, and oils from skin by thoroughly washing hands or wear powderless latex gloves while cleaning.

2. Only the cotton head should make contact with the fiber optic surface. Do not allow the wood to touch the fiber surface.

3. Always wipe in one direction not back and forth.

4. Use of canned air can cause oily deposits on the ferrule end face.

5. Gently apply swab to prevent abrasions to fiber.

6. Ensure cable is grounded ¹ to prevent static charges from building up and attracting air particles.

Procedure

1. Clean the ferrule tip using the Swab Procedure.

Swab Procedure

2. Dip cotton swab into bottle of Alcohol.

3. Vigorously shake off excess Alcohol from the swab to prevent residue.

4. Ensuring cable is grounded¹, hold the fiber vertically so the fiber surface

points to the ceiling, carefully place the base of the swab against the fiber optic surface.

5. Drag the swab across the fiber optic surface in a single stroke. Do not drag the swab back and forth.

6. Check fiber cable with fiberscope to ensure the fiber if free from solvent residue and cotton fibers.

^1- Static Charge- NEMI has done some very interesting work related to static charge and cleaning techniques. Essentially, cleaning techniques that build a static charge on the end face make that end face more likely to attract dust down the line. This isn’t particularly relevant for cleaning just prior to mating, but matters for cleaning prior to packaging, storage, or shipment.

http://thor.inemi.org/webdownload/projects/opto/Cleaning_overview031004.pdf

^2- Most information and procedures taken from Coherent website.

http://www.cohr.com/Service/index.cfm?fuseaction=forms.page&pageID=45

APPENDIX B

Fiber Optic Cleaning Method 2² (Thorough cleaning if necessary following Method 1)

Apparatus Required

Sanitary Cleaning tissue

100% Pure Pharmaceutical grade bleached white cotton head swabs.

99% Isopropyl Alcohol

100x Fiberscope

Precaution

1. Prevent contamination from fingerprints, dust, condensation, and oils from hand by thoroughly wash hands or wear powderless latex gloves while cleaning.

2. Only the cotton head should make contact with the fiber optic surface. Do not allow the wood to touch the fiber surface.

3. Always wipe in one direction not back and forth.

4. Use of canned air can cause oily deposits on the ferrule end face.

5. Gently apply swab to prevent abrasions to fiber.

6. Ensure cable is grounded ¹ to prevent static charges from building up and attracting air particles.

Procedure

1. Clean the sides of the solvent exposed ferrules with Tissue paper, with care to not contact the tip (end face) of the ferrule.

2. Use visual inspection to determine when solvent residue is removed.

3. Perform Swab Procedure to clean tip (end face) of the ferrule.

Swab Procedure

4. Dip cotton swab into bottle of Alcohol.

5. Vigorously shake off excess Alcohol from the swab to prevent residue.

6. Ensuring cable is grounded¹, hold the fiber vertically so the fiber surface points to the ceiling, carefully place the base of the swab against the fiber optic surface.

7. Drag the swab across the fiber optic surface in a single stroke. Do not drag the swab back and forth.

8. Repeat from step 4, using the other side of the swab.

9. Check fiber cable with fiberscope to ensure the fiber if free from solvent residue and cotton fibers.

^1- Static Charge- NEMI has done some very interesting work related to static charge and cleaning techniques. Essentially, cleaning techniques that build a static charge on the end face make that end face more likely to attract dust down the line. This is not particularly relevant for cleaning just prior to installing, but matters for cleaning prior to packaging, storage, or shipment.

http://thor.inemi.org/webdownload/projects/opto/Cleaning_overview031004.pdf

^2- Most information and procedures taken from Coherent website.

http://www.cohr.com/Service/index.cfm?fuseaction=forms.page&pageID=45

APPENDIX C

Polishing Method¹

Apparatus Required

3 μM Polishing Film

2000-grit Polishing Paper

100x Fiberscope

‘ST’ ferrule Polishing puck

Glass Polishing Plate

4-oz Water Dispenser

Distilled water

Precaution

1. Prevent contamination from fingerprints, dust, condensation, and oils from skin by thoroughly washing hands or wear powder-less latex gloves while polishing.
2. Ensure cable is grounded ¹ to prevent static charges from building up and attracting air particles.

Procedure

1. Start with the fiber installed in the ST connector and ready for polishing.
2. Fill the water dispenser with distilled water.
3. Using the water from the dispenser bottle, moisten the top of the glass polishing table. (This will keep the polishing paper from moving on top of the table.)
4. Wet the top of the 2000-grit paper with water from the dispenser.
5. Place the ST connector inside the polishing puck.
6. Polish the fiber in a gentle “figure 8” motion for 20 strokes.
7. After the 20 strokes, examine the end of the fiber using the fiberscope. If fiber has cloudy, not flat, or has scratches, repeat steps 4 through 6.
8. Place the 3 μM polishing film on the glass polishing table and wet the top of the film with water.
9. Polish the fiber in a gentle “figure 8” motion for 20 strokes.
10. After the 20 strokes, clean the end face using Cleaning Method 1,
11. Examine the end of the fiber using the fiberscope. The fiber should have a nice gloss.

¹ This Polishing Method was taken from the Fiber Optic Tool Kit P/N IF-TK4 manual. Picture taken from http://www.fiber-optics.info/articles/connector-care.htm

APPENDIX D

Methodology for ST Connector Installation¹

Apparatus Required

ST Connectors

Fiber Optic Hot Cutter

Professional Fiber Cutter

Extra KEEN Razor Blade Cutting Block

Fiber Optic/ Wire Stripper 766-A

PMMA 1 mm Fiber Optic Cable (see specifications)

Precaution

1. Make sure the cable is cut to desired length before installing ST connector.
2. Leave at least 1/8 inch extra fiber cable extending out of ferrule to be ground down flush and polished.
3. Be Careful to use the appropriate size hole when stripping cable to prevent scratching fiber from the wire stripper.

Procedure

1. A fiber optic cable requires two ST connectors on each side.
2. Strip the jacket from the fiber cable with Fiber Optic/ Wire Stripper about ¾ inch, enough to let the fiber extend at least 1/8 inch from ferrule end face.
3. Insert Boot and Crimp Tube onto cable as shown in diagram below.
4. Slide connector body onto fiber and on top of Crimp Tube, until about 1/8 of fiber is exposed from end face (as in Step 3 of diagram).
5. Using Crimping Tool, Compress the Crimp Ferrule on the connector onto the Crimp Tube using the correct crimping dye (hexagonal dye).
6. After the connector is crimped onto fiber cable polish the ferrule end face using the Polishing Method (this is where the fiber and the ferrule end face becomes flush).
7. After polishing, use the Cleaning Method 1, to clean ferrule end face.
8. If ‘ST’ connector is not on other side of cable then repeat procedure to install.

¹Pictures and Information taken from http://www.commspecial.com/connectorguide.htm#connectors

APPENDIX E

Fiber Optic Cable Specifications

Part Nos. 2705FBS1M, 2705FBS10M,

2705FBS100M and 2705FBS500M

Electronix Express

365 Blair Road

Avenel, NJ 07001, U.S.A.

Mechanical Properties of Plastic Optic Cable (Simplex)

Core Polymethyl Methacrylate (PMMA)

Material Cladding Fluorinated Polymer

Jacket FR-PVC, PE, FR-PE

Fiber Diameter, 1.0 mm

Cable Diameter 2.2 mm

Structure Step Index

Numerical Aperture (N.A.) 0.50

Acceptance Angle, 60°

Attenuation, dB/m @ 650nm Under 0.20

Allowable Bending Radius, Min. 25 mm

Available Temperature Range –40 ~ +70°C