the Epic Fail of Nyquist WDM

More or less the final act of my career as an aca­d­e­mic researcher, I put the ideas of the post the Art of Nyquist WDM into a sub­mis­sion to Pho­ton­ics Tech­nol­ogy Let­ters – with a few extra sim­u­la­tions and fig­ures that I thought showed the advan­tages and draw­backs of the con­cept quite well. Alas, I guess PTL is not the right place for con­cep­tual papers. Unless you can dia­gram the influ­ence of every para­me­ter, present a work­ing imple­men­ta­tion, and make a detailed com­par­i­son to every pos­si­ble com­pet­ing tech­nol­ogy – within three pages – you’re bound to have your paper rejected.

I take this lightly now because I no longer care about pub­lish­ing, but it’s actu­ally quite sad. I won’t be re-writing the paper to make the review­ers like it; instead I’ll post it here in its cur­rent form for any­one to do with it as he or she pleases.

Down­load the paper.
Down­load the MATLAB code to gen­er­ate the Nyquist-modulated sig­nals (poorly com­mented and uses func­tions from the free Optilux library and the com­mu­ni­ca­tions tool­box).

The proper cita­tion would be

M. Win­ter, “Nyquist Pulse Sig­nalling for Spec­trally Effi­cient Terabit/s Super­chan­nels,” utterly rejected by Pho­ton­ics Tech­nol­ogy Let­ters in March 2011.

The print ver­sion would have had an addi­tion acknowl­edg­ment sec­tion, men­tion­ing fruit­ful dis­cus­sions with René Schmogrow and Wolf­gang Freude from KIT, which I for­got to put into the draft but which really is quite impor­tant. As far as I know, René will keep pur­su­ing the idea. I wish him more luck with the review­ers.

last posts in Nyquist WDM:


  • Marcus wrote:

    One of the review­ers actu­ally requested a ref­er­ence to a rel­e­vant paper by the Pog­gi­olini group (there were already two ref­er­ences to papers by that group on that topic in the sub­mis­sion) – oooh, I won­der who that reviewer could have been…

  • Damn, that sucks! Die Idee hat­ten wir auch und woll­ten das dem­nächst mal aus­pro­bieren ;-) Mal schauen ob das klappt.

  • Robert Emmerich wrote:

    Well that post is mag­nif­i­cent!

    I just down­loaded the paper and like the proper cita­tion, I’m think­ing about re using it… won­der if Prof. Peter­mann would care?

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared.