雷达改善因子与相位噪声及阿伦方差之间的关系

由于电子对抗技术的发展 ,对雷达提出越来越高的要求。雷达工作时经常会遇到来自致周围环境的有源或无源干扰 ;现代雷达应该具备抗各种有源和无源干扰的能力 ,作为雷达核心的频率源既要具备频率捷变能力 ,又要具备很高的频率稳定性。从而促进现代雷达频率源向着捷变频、低相噪方向发展 ,重点分析频率源的技术指标对雷达改善因子影响。     

弱电系统中的接地技术

弱电系统的接地以工作接地为主，目的是为了防止电磁干扰，保证弱电系统中设备稳定、可靠工作。分析电磁杂波干扰的产生、传输过程极其相关事例，可以得出防止杂波干扰的基本方法。随着现代电子技术的发展及应用，电磁兼容性问题的提出是必然的。ZSRG和SRPP是防止电磁杂波干扰、使弱电系统具备电磁兼容性的有效接地技术。     

介质参数对吸收体电磁散射影响的研究

二维周期渐变微波吸收体由金属基体和涂敷有耗介质构成。有耗介质的厚度、介电常数和磁导率是影响吸收体电磁散射特性的主要因素,因此有必要分析这些参数对吸收体电磁散射特性的影响。根据吸收体的二维周期性结构特点,把分析介质参数对吸收体雷达散射截面(RCS)的影响简化成分析介质参数对涂敷导体二面角RCS的影响。利用矩量法给出涂敷导体二面角的RCS随介质参数变化的计算例子,并结合天线阵列技术算出最佳介质厚度时吸收体的RCS。     

论虚拟实验在基本操作型实践性教学环节中的优势

介绍实践教学环节和基本操作型实验的特点与要求,讨论虚拟实验特点,并对虚拟实验相对于传统实验在基本操作型实践性教学环节中的优势进行归纳。     

康普顿散射对X射线热激波破坏效应的影响

本文应用ＧＲＡＹ三相物态方程及Ｌａｇｒａｎｇｅ数值模拟方法，计算并讨论了康普顿散射对Ｘ射线热激波及其破坏效应的影响。计算结果表明，对较硬的Ｘ射线谱（１５ｋｅＶＰｌａｎｃｋ谱），康普顿散造成量沉积与热击波峰压明显下降，在ＬＹ－１２铝中，能量沉积的相对差△Ｅ（ｘ）／Ｅ（ｘ）可达９％－２２％，热击波峰压的相对差△ｐｍ（ｘ）／ｐｍ（ｘ）约为１２％。     

测量表面粗糙度参数的反散射计算研究

用光的角散射分布技术测量工件表面的粗糙度参数是近几年来发展起来的新的测量技术。它具有分辨力高、非接触、区域平均和快速测量等优点,可获得多个表面粗糙度参数。采用该技术测量的实验装置角分辨力为0.1°,测量范围为0.6328μm<λ_s(空间平均波长)<40μm,0.0001<△_a(轮廓的算术平均斜率)<0.0088,2nm相似文献   

极区中层惯性重力波临界层的VHF雷达观测

本文采用移动式ＳＯＵＳＹＶＨＦ雷达１９８７年６月在挪威Ａｎｄφｙａ（６９°Ｎ，１０°Ｅ）的观测数据，研究中层惯性重力波在临界层的传播特征．数据分析结果表明，在临界层附近波动会突然衰减，波能量被背景风所吸收，惯性重力波的水平传播方向和垂直传播方向在通过临界层后会迅速发生改变，说明临界层附近会产生向下传播的能量源．并且在临界层，回波强度达到峰值，表明临界层对产生雷达回波起着重要作用．     

缝隙耦合HT对特性的分析

分析了通过窄缝隙耦俣的矩形波导Ｈ面Ｔ形接头对（以下简称ＨＴ对）的电气特性，利用等效原理和切向场连续性建立积分方程组，采用矩量法化积分方程为代数方程进行数值求解，获得散射场和等效散射参数，以Ｘ波段标准矩形波导ＨＴ接头对为例进行具体求解和计算，以及实验验证，得到良好结果。     

系统电磁兼容技术综述与展望

系统电磁兼容问题已成为飞行器等大型复杂系统全寿命周期中必须面对的客观问题。如果解决不当,不仅带来大量研制经费的浪费,同时还将导致系统从根本上丧失使用能力。系统电磁兼容问题不同于设备分系统电磁兼容问题,无论是在分析方法、设计方法、试验方法方面,均为系统工程问题。重点围绕航空飞行器研制中的电磁兼容问题,介绍一种全新的系统电磁兼容设计方法:飞机整机电磁兼容精确化协同优化设计方法。该方法有效实现了从飞机总体角度进行全机电磁兼容性设计和从飞机顶层高度提出全机电磁兼容量化指标要求。该技术不但可以实现全机电磁兼容问题在过程中得到管理和控制,并且实现了飞机全机电磁兼容设计的一次性成功,从电磁兼容角度保证了飞机的安全性。     

Characterizing slope correction methods applied to satellite radar altimetry data: A case study around Dome Argus in East Antarctica

Slope correction is important to improve the accuracy of satellite radar elevation measurements by mitigating the slope-induced error (SE), especially over uneven ground surfaces. Although several slope correction methods have been proposed, guidance in the form of stepwise algorithm on how to implement these methods in processing radar altimetric data at the coding level, and the differences among these methods need to be presented and discussed systematically. In this paper, three existing types of slope correction methods—the direct method (DM), intermediate method (IM), and relocation method (RM, further divided into RM1 and RM2)—are described in detail. In addition, their main differences and features for various scientific applications are analyzed. We conduct a systematic experiment with CryoSat-2 Low Resolution Mode (LRM) data in a physically stable area around Dome Argus in East Antarctica, where in-situ measurements were available for comparison. The slope correction is implemented separately using the three methods, with the latest high-accuracy Reference Elevation Model of Antarctica (REMA) as the a-priori topography model. The bias and precision of the slope-corrected CryoSat-2 data results from the RM2 is ?0.18 ± 0.86 m based on the comparison with the field Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) data. The results from the RM2 indicate higher precision compared to those from the RM1. According to the correlation analysis of the slope-corrected CryoSat-2 data results (RM1 and RM2), the bias enlarges and the precision becomes worse when the surface slope increases from 0 to 0.85°. After a comprehensively comparative analysis, we find that the results from the RM1 and RM2 are superior in precision (0.93 m and 0.86 m) with respect to the GNSS data. The relatively low precision (1.22 m) from the IM is due to the potential error from the a-priori digital elevation model (DEM). The DM has the lowest precision (2.66 m). Another experiment over rough topography in West Antarctica is carried out for comparison, especially between the RM1 (precision of 15.27 m) and RM2 (precision of 16.25 m). In general, the RM is recommended for the SE elimination among the three methods. Moreover, the RM2 is firstly considered over smooth topography due to the superior performance in bias and precision, while the RM1 is more suggested over the rough topography because of the slightly smaller bias and better precision. The IM relies much on the accuracy of the a-prior DEM and is not usually recommended, because of the strict requirement in the sampling time between the radar altimetry data and the a-priori DEM to avoid any surface change over time.