Sentence examples for a range error from inspiring English sources

Consequently, an estimation error standard deviation of one chip time results in a range error in the order of 240 m for IS-95 and around 80 m for WCDMA since chip period is a little more than three times higher for IS-95 in relation to WCDMA.

Fig. 6 Simulated MSE with a ranging error of 1 m Table 2 Summary of the simulated MSE with a ranging error of 1 m   Medium ranging error simulation results summary Estimators Mean (dB) STD (dB) Maximum (dB) Minimum (dB) LLS 16.8 0.6 28.3 12.0 SDP 11.8 0.2 15.9 7.4 CLS 17.2 1.0 24.3 10.2 Two-step 10.0 0.2 10.0 6.9.

Fig. 5 Simulated MSE with a ranging error of 0.1 m Table 1 Summary of the simulated MSE with a ranging error of 0.1 m   Low ranging error simulation results summary Estimators Mean (dB) STD (dB) Maximum (dB) Minimum (dB) LLS −3.1 0.6 7.6 −8.1 SDP −2.2 0.5 4.5 −9.9 CLS −5.1 0.5 3.7 −9.1 Two-step −10.1 0.3 −10.1−10.1.

Generally, the attempt to measure a range can have one of three results: a dropped range packet, a large range error, also called an outlier, or a successful range attempt.

This well-established finding is often interpreted as a signature of a saccadic range error (Kapoula, 1985) during reading (McConkie et al., 1988).

The method leads to a predicted range error that increases at a typical rate of 100 m per day, approximately a 10-fold improvement over individual TLE's propagated with their associated analytic propagator (SGP4).

This gain reduced for higher SNRs where errors tended to a minimum floor of of 0.04 T c, a corresponding range error of around 3 m in WCDMA.

A large range error can be caused by fading or by a system problem, such as the scan window being too small relative to channel delay spread.

For a target at 10-cm depth, this difference in velocity will introduce a depth range error of approximately 1.6 mm.

This systematic linear component of oculomotor error, the so-called landing position function, has been explained in terms of a saccadic range error (SRE, [3]).

The derived emissivity and surface temperature over different ground features have compared with field observation as well as those in the literature and found in an accepted range (error of around 1 2%).