Hi Ahmad,
You covered a lot in your presentation (DME Receiver Performance and EMC Comparison for ACT versus TDD) and we didn't get a chance to follow-up with meaningful discussion. It looks like that we all generally under estimate the time needed for presentation and also the time needed for follow-up discussion. This particularly becomes a problem when a single presentation covers many topics. It may make sense to break down our future big presentations into smaller ones so that there is enough time to focus the discussions around limited number of topics.
Anyway, since we didn't have time to discuss, I may put together a few slides to summarize my questions and provide feedback.
In the meantime, let me ask a question about the graph that you showed on slide 9. I am not sure what message you were trying to convey with these graphs. But that graph may suggest that in an ACT receiver the power of noise grows over time. To me, this graph simply shows the very basic fact about noise and random processes that the longer you observe a random variable, the more likely that you would see outliers with larger amplitude corresponding to the tail of the distribution. This behavior has nothing to do with an ACT receiver and applies to any system with noise including a TDD system. You can see below that a one-line Matlab command that shows this behavior for a simple noise source and independent of ACT/TDD receivers. In particular, there is nothing in an ACT receiver that may suggest an every-increasing noise power that degrades the performance over time.
In my presentation (Electromagnetic Sensitivity: ACT vs TDD), I highlighted a detailed analysis of why the upstream receiver in an ACT system is immune to more than 120 mv of EMI in the worst case scenario. I also showed that the ACT upstream receiver is at least 10 dB more robust over all frequencies comparing to a TDD receiver that operates in a nominal scenario. Your slide and the graph suggest that you have doubts about my analysis and conclusions. Would you clarify, beyond the hand-waving argument that you presented in your graph, what part of my analysis you're not happy with?
Thanks,
-Hossein
semilogx( randn(1e7,1), '.' )