Talk:Radar signal characteristics

I have created this article to form background information for some Radar topics, particularly Pulse-Doppler radar, which needs some work. I'll link it to the appropriate articles once I've sorted out some formatting issues. --Terry C 20:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Text added by Emforensics removed to here

User Emforensics added the following text to the article. Whilst I don't necessarily disagree with his point, it is inappropriate to put a rebuttal there. Here in the Discussion page or even my Discussion page (since I wrote it originally) would have been more appropriate.

I have made detailed comments below:

Rebuttal: This creates the impression that the purpose of the pulse width (pulse duration makes more sense, since the unit of measurement is time) is to define the dead-zone, whereas its real purpose is to ensure that the radar emits sufficient energy that the reflected pulse is detectable by its receiver.

TJC Comment. The term 'pulse width' is standard in radar circles, so it should be what is used in the article. I have no problem with clarifying it and will now do so. Also, it was never intended to convey the message that pulse width is specified to determine the dead zone, but at least one person thinks that's what the text means, so I will clean it up.

The amount of energy that can be delivered to a distant target is the product of two things: the output power of the transmitter, and the duration of the transmission. Yes, it is true to say that the pulse duration determines the dead-zone, that is the zone around the point of origin - the radiating antenna; but that is a consequence, rather than a purpose. It also determines the range discrimination, i.e. the capacity of the radar to distinguish between two targets fairly close together, at any range, with similar azimuth and elevation angles as viewed by the radar - with an unmodulated pulse, the range discrimination is approximately equal in distance to half of the pulse duration. Most importantly, however, it constrains the maximum detection range of a target.

TJC Comment. This is all good stuff, but it would have been better to enhance the article rather than critique it within it's text. I'll clean it up. I have a similar comment about the 'Amplification' in the PRF section. The information isn't wrong; it's just the wrong way to present it.

I think that it must be added many subjects to this text.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.185.163.137 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]