Table 2 Comparison Between LED’s and LD’s (Shading Denotes an Advantage)
Characteristic LED’s LD’s
Spectral width 25–100 nm
(10–50 THz)
<
10
0
5
to 5 nm
(< 1 MHz to 2 THz)
Modulation Bandwidth Tens of kiloherz to tens of megahertz Tens of kiloherz to tens of gigahertz
E/O Conversion Efficiency 10–20% 30–70%
Eye Safety Generally considered eye-safe
Must be rendered eye-safe, especially for
<
1400
nm
Cost Low Moderate to high
some of the means to overcome them. Section II describes
how to achieve a high SNR, which is the single most
difficult problem faced by the designer of an infrared link.
Multipath distortion on infrared channels is characterized
in Section III. Section IV provides a survey of various
modulation techniques for infrared systems, comparing
their power and bandwidth efficiencies, and characterizing
their performance on multipath channels. In Section V,
angle-diversity receivers and quasidiffuse transmitters are
discussed. Multiple-access techniques are the subject of
Section VI. Section VII describes an experimental 50-Mb/s
diffuse infrared link, and Section VIII provides some con-
cluding remarks.
II. D
ESIGN OF POWER-EFFICIENT LINKS
Achieving a high electrical SNR is the single biggest
problem facing the designer of an infrared link. The diffi-
culty arises for two reasons. Firstly, the SNR of an IM/DD
link depends upon the square of the received optical average
power. This implies that one should transmit at relatively
high power, but available transmitter power may be limited
by considerations of eye safety and power consumption.
It also implies that one should design the link so as to
minimize path loss and employ a receiver having a large
light-collection area. Second, in many environments there
exists intense ambient infrared noise, which introduces
white shot noise and low-frequency cyclostationary noise
into the receiver. This noise can be minimized through
optical filtering and by employing a directional receiver,
which can separate the desired signal from the ambient
noise.
A. Infrared Transmitters and Eye Safety
The wavelength band between about 780 and 950 nm is
presently the best choice for most applications of infrared
wireless links, due to the availability of low-cost LED’s
and laser diodes (LD’s), and because it coincides with the
peak responsivity of inexpensive, low-capacitance silicon
photodiodes. The primary drawback of radiation in this
band relates to eye safety: it can pass through the human
cornea and be focused by the lens onto the retina, where it
can potentially induce thermal damage [49]. The cornea is
opaque to radiation at wavelengths beyond about 1400 nm,
considerably reducing potential ocular hazards, so that it has
been suggested that the 1550-nm band may be better suited
for infrared links. Unfortunately, the photodiodes presently
available for this band, which are made of germanium or
InGaAs, have much higher costs and capacitances per unit
area than their silicon counterparts. To our knowledge, at
present, all commercially available systems operate in the
shorter-wavelength band.
Table 2 presents a comparison between LED’s and LD’s.
LED’s are currently used in all commercial systems, due
to their extremely low cost and because most LED’s emit
light from a sufficiently large surface area that they are
generally considered eye-safe. Typical packaged LED’s
emit light into semiangles (at half power) ranging from
about 10
–30 , making them suitable for directed transmit-
ters. Nondirected transmitters frequently employ multiple
LED’s oriented in different directions. Potential drawbacks
of LED’s include: 1) typically poor electro-optic power con-
version efficiencies of 10–20% (though new devices have
efficiencies as high as 40%), 2) modulation bandwidths that
are limited to tens of MHz in typical low-cost devices, 3)
broad spectral widths (typically 25–100 nm), which require
the use of a wide receiver optical passband, leading to
poor rejection of ambient light, and 4) the fact that wide
modulation bandwidth is usually obtained at the expense of
reduced electro-optic conversion efficiency.
LD’s are much more expensive than LED’s, but offer
many nearly ideal characteristics: 1) electro-optic conver-
sion efficiencies of 30–70%, 2) wide modulation band-
widths, which range from hundreds of MHz to more than 10
GHz, and 3) very narrow spectral widths (spectral widths
ranging from several nm to well below 1 nm are available).
To achieve eye safety with an LD requires that one pass
the laser output through some element that destroys its
spatial coherence and spreads the radiation over a suffi-
ciently extended emission aperture and emission angle. For
example, one can employ a transmissive diffuser, such as
a thin plate of translucent plastic. While such diffusers can
achieve efficiencies of about 70%, they typically yield a
Lambertian radiation pattern, offering the designer little
freedom to tailor the source radiation pattern. Computer-
generated holograms [29] offer a means to generate custom-
tailored radiation patterns with efficiencies approaching
100%, but must be fabricated with care to insure that any
residual image of the LD emission aperture is tolerably
weak.
The eye safety of infrared transmitters is governed by
International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards
[49]. It is desirable for infrared transmitters to conform to
the IEC Class 1 allowable exposure limit (AEL), implying
that they are safe under all foreseen circumstances of use,
and require no warning labels. At pulse repetition rates
KAHN AND BARRY: WIRELESS INFRARED COMMUNICATIONS 271