zhipeng wang (zhipengw@ece.ubc.ca) Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:30:00 -0800 (PST)
- 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: wong chung: "Assignment 2: problem 4.17"
- Previous message: Amr Mohamed: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- In reply to: Ed Casas: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 14:30:00 -0800 (PST) From: zhipeng wang <zhipengw@ece.ubc.ca> Subject: Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21I agree with you!:) Best regards, Zhipeng On Fri, 28 Jan 2000, Amr Mohamed wrote: > > > But 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: wong chung: "Assignment 2: problem 4.17"
- Previous message: Amr Mohamed: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"
- In reply to: Ed Casas: "Re: Ass #1 problem 3-21"