Channel Mismatching in Sidelobe Canceler: Limitations and Remedies

After a brief recall of the Sidelobe Canceler (SLC) working principle, including the derivation of a general formula for the Cancellation Ratio (CR), the effects of channel mismatching are investigated. In particular, curves providing CRvalues as a function of amplitude and phase channel mismatching, radar bandwidth, and jammer direction of arrival (JDOA) are provided for the cases of one and two auxiliary antennas. Subsequently, a time -space processor for performance restoration is analyzed in detail. In addition to the above mentioned quantities, the attainable CR value is expressed as a function of the space-time processor parameters. The contribution of the paper is related to the derivation of a number of mathematical equations of CR for several cases of practical interest for the radar engineer. In addition, several curves are presented to assist design of SLC systems.     

Descartes’s changing mind

Descartes is always concerned about knowledge. However, the Galileo affair in 1633, the reactions to his Discourse on method, and later his need to reply to objections to his Meditations provoked crises in Descartes’s intellectual development the import of which has not been sufficiently recognized. These events are the major reasons why Descartes’s philosophical position concerning how we know and what we may know is radically different at the end of his life from what it was when he began. We call this later position Descartes’s epistemic stance and contrast it with his earlier methodological, metaphysical realism. Yet Descartes’s epistemic views cannot be separated from other aspects of his work, for example, his views concerning God, causality, metaphysics, and the nature of science. A further meta-implication is that serious errors await any scholar who cites early Cartesian texts in support of late Cartesian positions, or who uses later texts in conjunction with early ones to support a reading of Descartes’s philosophy.     

Mutation of the matrix metalloproteinase 2 gene (MMP2) causes a multicentric osteolysis and arthritis syndrome.

The inherited osteolyses or 'vanishing bone' syndromes are a group of rare disorders of unknown etiology characterized by destruction and resorption of affected bones. The multicentric osteolyses are notable for interphalangeal joint erosions that mimic severe juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (OMIMs 166300, 259600, 259610 and 277950). We recently described an autosomal recessive form of multicentric osteolysis with carpal and tarsal resorption, crippling arthritic changes, marked osteoporosis, palmar and plantar subcutaneous nodules and distinctive facies in a number of consanguineous Saudi Arabian families. We localized the disease gene to 16q12-21 by using members of these families for a genome-wide search for homozygous-by-descent microsatellite markers. Haplotype analysis narrowed the critical region to a 1.2-cM region that spans the gene encoding MMP-2 (gelatinase A, collagenase type IV; (ref. 3). We detected no MMP2 enzymatic activity in the serum or fibroblasts of affected family members. We identified two family-specific homoallelic MMP2 mutations: R101H and Y244X. The nonsense mutation effects a deletion of the substrate-binding and catalytic sites and the fibronectin type II-like and hemopexin/TIMP2 binding domains. Based on molecular modeling, the missense mutation disrupts hydrogen bond formation within the highly conserved prodomain adjacent to the catalytic zinc ion.     

Why the Afshar experiment does not refute complementarity

A modified version of Young's experiment by Shahriar Afshar demonstrates that, prior to what appears to be a “which-way” measurement, an interference pattern exists. Afshar has claimed that this result constitutes a violation of the Principle of Complementarity. This paper discusses the implications of this experiment and considers how Cramer's Transactional Interpretation easily accommodates the result. It is also shown that the Afshar experiment is analogous in key respects to a spin one-half particle prepared as “spin up along x”, subjected to a nondestructive confirmation of that preparation, and post-selected in a specific state of spin along z. The terminology “which-way” or “which-slit” is critiqued; it is argued that this usage by both Afshar and his critics is misleading and has contributed to confusion surrounding the interpretation of the experiment. Nevertheless, it is concluded that Bohr would have had no more problem accounting for the Afshar result than he would in accounting for the aforementioned pre- and post-selection spin experiment, in which the particle's preparation state is confirmed by a nondestructive measurement prior to post-selection. In addition, some new inferences about the interpretation of delayed choice experiments are drawn from the analysis.