3.1.

According to (3.1) with no care on jammer power SIR at the matched filter
output is q I2 2 E /( N 0 J / W ) q 2 /(1 J / Pn ) , where q 2 is matched filter SNR
without jammer and Pn N 0W is AWGN power within signal bandwidth.
With band-elimination filtering the resulting power SNR q J2 q 2 (1 W j / W )
(see (3.2)). Then:
(a) J Pn , W j W / 2 q I2 q 2 / 2, q J2 q 2 / 2 , and both strategies are equivalent
as for SIR/SNR;
(b) J Pn / 4, W j W / 4 q I2 (4 / 5)q 2 , q J2 (3 / 4)q 2 , and ignoring jammer is
preferable;
(c) J 2 Pn , W j W / 4 q I2 q 2 / 3, q J2 (3 / 4)q 2 , and band-elimination filtering
is better.

3.2.

Signal spectrum has identical maximums at the frequencies f1 , f 2 .

Accordingly matched filter will pass components of these frequencies with
maximal amplification. So when jammer is ignored its most harmful central
frequency is any of f1 , f 2 . With jammer having any of central frequencies
f1 , f 2 the band-elimination filter will remove the greatest part of signal
energy, maximally reducing output SNR. Therefore, with band-elimination
filtering the most harmful jammer central frequency remains to be again any
of f1 , f 2 .

3.3.

From q I2 q 2 /(1 J / N 0W ) it follows that if q 2 / q I2 101 , J / N 0W 100 . To have

q I2 / q 2 2 one needs J / N 0W 1 , i.e. 100 times wider signal bandwidth. Then
(a) Signal duration should be 100 times reduced with simultaneous
increasing signal peak-power 100 times;
(b) Spread spectrum signal of former duration should be used having
processing gain 100.

3.4.

From q J2 / q 2 1 W j / W 1/ 2 it follows that W j 0.5W , while to have only 2

percent SNR degradation it should be that W j 0.02W . Then
(a) Signal duration should be reduced 25 times with simultaneous
increasing amplitude 5 times;
(b) Spread spectrum signal of the former duration with processing gain 25
solves the same problem with no power increase.

3.5.

The SNR q J2 2 EW / J 2 PWT / J 0.5 should be increased 20 times. Then

(a) Signal duration should be 20 times decreased with simultaneous
increasing power 20 times;
(b) Without increasing peak power there is no possibility to improve SNR
using only a plain signal: W 1 / T q J2 2 P / J ;

(c) Spread spectrum signal of the former duration and power with
processing gain 20 solves the problem;
(d) Take a spread spectrum signal with 10 times wider bandwidth than
before and 2 times greater duration (processing gain is 20). Then its
energy increases 2 times and q J2 10 .
q J21 / q J2 2 P1W1T1 J 2 / P2W2T2 J 1 ,

3.6.

where subscripts 1 and 2 correspond to

situations before and after parameter changing. If P2 0.5 P1 , then
q J21 / q J2 2 2 0.02 0.25 20 0.2 and after parameter changing SNR becomes
five times higher meaning gain of the intended system.

3.7.

Let be a fraction of total jammer power J assigned to the first subband.

Then jammer power spectrum densities within the first and second subbands
are J /W0 and (1 ) J / W0 respectively. Weighting the signal and jammer
within the first subband by (1 ) / equalizes spectrum densities in both
subbands, so that we have matched filtering of the signal with total energy
E [(1 ) / ]E1 E 2 , E1 , E 2 being energies of the initial signal in each
subband, against the white noise with power spectrum density
N J (1 ) J / W0 . Therefore, the total matched filter SNR is proportional to
E1
E
E /E
1
2 or to 1 2
. The derivative of this function with respect to
1

is

so that minimizing the function is defined

by the equation /(1 ) E1 / E2 , leading to /(1 ) 3 / 4 . Hence, the
total jammer power should be divided between subbands as 3 : 4 .
( E1 / E2 ) / 2 1 /(1 ) 2 ,
2

3.8.

Power SNR at the intended matched filter output is q 2 2 E / N 0 2 PT / N 0 . Let

N s P / W denote signal power spectrum density perceived by an interceptor.
Then
(a) N s / N 0 ( P / W ) /(2 PT / q 2 ) q 2 / 2WT 25 / 800 0.03125 (15 dB);
(b) qi2 q 4 / 4WT 625 / 1600 0.391 (4.1 dB).

3.9.

To provide Pe 1.5 10 3 bit voltage SNR should be no smaller than 3 (see

(2.19)). Then qi q 2 / 2 WT means WT q 4 / 4qi2 81 /( 4 0.1) 202.5 .

3.10. WT q 4 / 4qi2 16 2 /(4 0.1) 640 W WT / T 640 10 4 6.4

corresponds to 16).

MHz

(12

dB

3.11. Numbers of keys of one bit duration for two systems equal respectively
2WT 2100 and 3WT 350 2 50 log 3 . Since log 2 3 2 the first system is more
immune to a cracking.
2

3.12. WT q 4 / 4qi2 in decibels looks as (WT ) dB 2qdB 6 qi,dB . Substitution of

figures gives for both systems the same result (WT ) dB 30 dB. Hence the two
are nearly equivalent as for the cracking immunity.
3.13. Since q 2 100 (20 dB) and N s / N 0 q 2 / 2WT 0.1, the necessary processing
gain WT q 2 / 2( N s / N 0 ) 100 / 0.2 500 .
3.14. From WT q 2 / 2( N s / N 0 ) and N s / N 0 0.2 (7 dB) it follows that for the first
system WT 100 / 0.4 250 and for the second WT 50 / 0.4 125 (17 dB
corresponds to 50).
3.15. Noise spectrum density is found as N 0 k n , k being Boltzmann constant.
Hence, N 0 1.38 10 23 103 1.38 10 20 V2/Hz. From (3.10)
Pr
Pt
Gt Gr

4D

This typically is represented in decibels as

Pt ,dB Pr ,dB 20 lg( D / w ) 20 lg 4 Gt ,dB Gr ,dB

In its turn to provide a necessary power SNR q 2 2 Pr T / N 0 the received

power should be Pr q 2 N 0 / 2T or in decibels
Pr ,dB q dB 10 lg( N 0 / T ) 10 lg 2 14 160 1.4 3 147.6

dB.

Finally Pt ,dB 147.6 100 22 5 0 30.6 dB. Converting decibels back to

watts gives approximately Pt 0.9 mW. If hypothetically only the distance
attenuation exponent grew up to 3.84, no other change were necessary in the
model, the transmit power should be increased by 18.4 lg D 82.8 dB, i.e. up
to about a hundred kilowatts. Fortunately, in practical scenarios not only
distance exponent grows but other model parameters change, so that the
resulting increase of the transmit power is not that catastrophic.
3.16. Four times drop of voltage means l 12 dB drop of power. Then according to
the lognormal law of the long-term fading with 9 dB, the probability of
the system failure
Pf

(x x)2
1 x l
l
4

dx Q Q 0.0912 .
exp

2
2
2

3

3.17. Denote all distances as shown in Figure S.4. Then the propagation difference
Reflector

D/2
Transmitter

Receiver
Figure S.4 Two-path scenario.

2 ( D / 2) 2 h 2 D ,

and phase difference between signals of two paths is

2 / w . The period of the standing wave, i.e. distance d sw between two

adjacent drops (or peaks) is determined as an increment of D , at which

changes by 2 or equivalently changes by wavelength w . Thus, the
equation may be written
( D d sw ) 2
( d )
D2
h2
h 2 w sw .
4
4
2
d

D
Using the fact that sw
it is possible to skip in the Taylor series of the
d
left-hand side all powers of sw / D but first, coming to the equation
Dd sw

w d sw ,
D 2 4h 2

and finally to the solution

d sw

w
D
2

D 4h

After substituting here the values given in the problem

d sw
1

0.3
12 10 3
6

144 10 4 9 10

0.3
2.84
12
1
180

m.

Then at the velocity V 60 km/h time interval between the wave drops will
be Tsw d sw / V 2.84 3.6 / 60 0.17 s.
3.18. If phase of the fading signal changes from one pulse (bit) to the next
significantly, reliable reference recovery is impossible and BPSK becomes
unavailable. One of possible solutions is FSK.
3.19. The lognormal fading with deviation 12 dB around 27 dB means that
probability of dropping SNR below 15 dB P(q 15 dB) Q(1) 0.16 . Bit
error probability under SNR 15 dB in the Rayleigh channel according to
(3.13) or Figure 3.16 Pe (q 15 dB) (1 / 2)[1 101.5 /(101.5 2) ] 1.5 10 2 .
Hence, bit error probability cannot be lower than

P (q 15 dB) Pe ( q 15 dB) 0.16 0.015 2.4 10 3 10 3 .

3.20. For the maximal-ratio combining the resulting power SNR according to
(3.15) qr2 2q 2 , q 2 being the power SNR per a branch. For the selection of
maximum-SNR-branch the output combiner amplitude A is the greatest of
branch amplitudes A1 , A2 , i.e. A A1 if A1 A2 and A A2 otherwise. Let
W ( A),W1 ( A) , and W2 ( A) be PDFs of amplitude at the combiner output
and in the first and second branches respectively. Then
W ( A)dA W1 ( A) P ( A2 A)dA W2 ( A) P ( A1 A)dA .
Since both branches have identical Rayleigh fading
A

P ( Ai A) 2a exp( a 2 )da 1 exp( A 2 ) ,

0

and PDF of the output combiner amplitude

W ( A) 4 A exp( A 2 )[1 exp( A 2 )] .

Then average power SNR is proportional to average squared amplitude

A2

2
3
2
2
A W ( A)dA 4 A exp( A )[1 exp( A )]dA

2 x exp( x )[1 exp( x )]dx 2 ( 2) 1.5 .

2

Therefore, gain of the selection combiner in average power SNR is 1.5

versus 2 of the maximal-ratio combiner, i.e. loss of the first to the second is
4/3 or 1.25 dB.
3.21. At first sight it may seem that the frequency space between the branches is
fit, which is equal to the coherence bandwidth, i.e. Bc 1/ ds 50 kHz,
providing 6 branches. This, however, will produce overlapping of branch
spectra, i.e. violation of branch independence. To eliminate it frequency
space should be no smaller than signal bandwidth, i.e. 60 kHz. Hence,
maximum number of branches is 300/60=5 rather than 6.
3.22. The minimum mutual time delay is between the second and third paths:
min (150 / 3) 10 8 0.5 s. To resolve these paths signal bandwidth has to be
about W 1 / min 2 MHz. With rate 20 kbps data symbol duration is no
smaller than T 50 s, while delay spread ds (6 103 / 3) 10 8 20 s,
meaning that RAKE arrangement is reasonable. Then the processing gain
will be no smaller than WT 100 .
3.23. Signal correlation spread has to be within c 1 s corresponding to
bandwidth about W 1 MHz. Since only signals with mutual delay no
smaller than c are resolved, number of RAKE fingers is within
ds / c 1 11 . With QPSK transmission data symbol duration T 100 s,
corresponding to the processing gain WT 100 .

3.24. With P being average signal power at the RAKE input signal power per
finger will be P / nd , since the input signal is just sum of independent
finger signals. Then power SNR per branch qbr2 q 2 / nd , where q 2 is input
power SNR. The combiner will increase power SNR nd times, returning it
to the initial quantity of average power SNR. So, RAKE-diversity gain is not
explained by SNR gain. Its nature is similar to the one of transmit diversity:
coherent summation of paths (preliminarily separated) reduces the signal
scattering range, thereby decreasing error probability (see also Section 10.3).