1 / 14

Some RLAN-Radar Interference Examples

Some RLAN-Radar Interference Examples. Outline. Boeing-EC tests in King City Area DFS in the field at various distances WMO examples Hungary Poland Argentina. “normal” no RLAN. RLAN at 3 km. RLAN at 6.4 km. RLAN at 16.7 km. Poland. Hungary. EZE Radar. PERG Radar. PAR Radar.

duke
Download Presentation

Some RLAN-Radar Interference Examples

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Some RLAN-Radar Interference Examples

  2. Outline • Boeing-EC tests in King City Area • DFS in the field at various distances • WMO examples • Hungary • Poland • Argentina

  3. “normal” no RLAN

  4. RLAN at 3 km

  5. RLAN at 6.4 km

  6. RLAN at 16.7 km

  7. Poland

  8. Hungary

  9. EZE Radar

  10. PERG Radar

  11. PAR Radar

  12. Simulation with no CAC

  13. Summary • Radar can see commercial RLAN’s • Interference can be substantial and seriously degrade radar signals (Hungary, Poland, Argentina)

  14. DFS Operations • DFS detects main beam or sidelobes of radar • Can jump out and use another band • AP creates interference in radar • Caveat: no interference if DFS detects back or side lobes • Vacates channel in milliseconds for 30 min • msec is slow, will create interference • Does not monitor the channel in 30 min • AP uses channel again, creates interference, vacates • AP constantly creating interference on 30 min cycle • Therefore, many AP’s create interference continuously • Q: is the ITU urban model adequate? See Abbas study • Canadian proposal requires monitoring for 10 min before re-use • Other countries on a longer radar cycle; 10 min is not adequate for them

More Related