Amr Mohamed (amrm@ece.ubc.ca) Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:21:05 -0800
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
- New Message to:eece563@listhost.ece.ubc.ca
- Reply to:Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21
- Next message: zhipeng wang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- Previous message: Ed Casas: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- In reply to: gordon yang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- Next in thread: zhipeng wang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- Reply: zhipeng wang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
From: "Amr Mohamed" <amrm@ece.ubc.ca> Subject: Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21 Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 10:21:05 -0800But variance is 0dB not 0. So, the variance is actually 1=10^0 which means that X is not constant, isn't that correct? Also, I think the PL(d0) in both cases (forward link and the co-channel link) is the same because the bases have the same Gain and d0 is constant=1Km. So, if we need the ratio of the two paths loss, we do not actually need Gm and Gb or the frecuency, is that correct? Rgds, Amr > On Fri, Jan 28, 2000 at 08:35:28AM -0800, gordon yang wrote: > > > > Hint: the sum of two uncorrelated Gaussian RV is also Gaussian > > > RV. > > > > For problem 3-21, since the variance of B1's path loss is 0, do > > we actually just have one RV? > > Oh, my. Yes, you're right. I didn't notice that one "RV" was > actually a constant. That should simplify things. >
- Next message: zhipeng wang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- Previous message: Ed Casas: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- In reply to: gordon yang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- Next in thread: zhipeng wang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- Reply: zhipeng wang: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"