InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

tkg

12/15/21 4:53 AM

#86642 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Excellent Richard, as always, thank you pointing this out!
icon url

SteveSchiets

12/15/21 4:59 AM

#86643 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Great Richard! Thanks you for high lining us this important piece of the presentation. Simply huge!
icon url

prototype_101

12/15/21 5:58 AM

#86644 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Richard, excellent quote from Lebby, could you provide the link for us all to which presentation that came from, tia
icon url

tradero

12/15/21 6:58 AM

#86646 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Thanks Richard... Now, it is interesting the current fight between CPO (Co-Packaged Optics) solutions versus pluggable solutions... because in both cases if they want to make a significant difference to the other solution, whichever help they get (i.e. electrical polymers) should be really welcome. Otherwise they may lose the battle

Anyway, I really doubt that in both cases they agree to boicot this new tech for whichever reason. It wouldnt make sense
icon url

frobinso

12/15/21 8:25 AM

#86652 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

That is an amazing response by Dr. Lebby. Thanks for sharing the Q&A.
icon url

Rkf302

12/15/21 8:44 AM

#86654 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Richard, great catch! Thanks.
icon url

pitcook

12/15/21 9:14 AM

#86655 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Thanks, as always you are the voice of science and facts which is the reason to be on these MB's. We know every facet of a computer chip needs our material (the U word) and we have done thousands of hours of T-1 testing. Not that I am impatient, (16 or 17 years of ownership) but from your educated technical understanding, what is missing for any of these potentially thousands of customers, that would have tremendous upgrades, using the GOO, from signing a contract? What is still missing from the equation?
icon url

microchips

12/15/21 9:28 AM

#86657 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Thanks Richard. 2 Questions... First. what is the difference between CPOs and pluggable transceivers? Secondly, why do the short connections use 1310 nanometers and the long connections 1550?
icon url

theroc66

12/15/21 10:12 AM

#86660 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Thank you Richard!
As always, you bring a professional opinion to this board that casts a terrific additional light to the developing scene!
Thank you for your ongoing contribution.

Happy Holidays!

GLTAL
AR.
icon url

Scope08

12/15/21 10:20 AM

#86662 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Thanks to you and the more astute technical investors Richard, for explaining this to us. The tech nuances are lost on most of us. We appreciate it.
icon url

Pro_v12001

12/15/21 10:43 AM

#86664 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641


https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/optical-interconnect-market-89222473.html






The less than 1 km distance segment projected to grow at the highest CAGR from 2020 to 2025.
In 2019, the less than 1 km segment held the largest share of the optical interconnect market. This segment is expected to lead the market during the forecast period. The growth of the less than 1 km segment can be attributed to the transitioning of large-scale datacenters toward the adoption of high data rate components, including optical interconnects for data communication. Datacenters transmit data over short distances and require a high data transmission rate for transferring huge packets of information. The increasing requirement of high-speed communication in datacenters is also driving the market for high data rate optical interconnects such as 100G and 400G for a distance of less than 1 km.
icon url

theroc66

12/15/21 10:58 AM

#86669 RE: Richard_LaRiv #86641

Richard,
Is it ok for me to repost this on other forums?
With credits of course.
AR.