It can also be seen that the interference level corresponding to the protection criteria is exceeded for more than 20% of the time. The situation is also depicted on Figure 14 below showing in red the interfered portion of images (vs the non-interfered in white). 14 Interfered portion of images (in red) vs non-interfered (in (Over the UK JTG options A1 and D1) – It appears obvious that in these situations, the Sentinel-3 sensor will be totally ineffective over most land and coastal areas, in particular all urban and suburban areas. Finally, 13 provides the levels of interference in excess for the 3 RLAN density options (D1, D2-low and D2-High) and antenna Options A1 and A3. 13 Interference in excess (over the UK) Scenario Active RLAN Nb of active Interference in Extrapolated density (Nb per RLAN over the excess for for antenna inhabitant per UK antenna Option A3 320 MHz) (in 320 MHz) Option A1 (A1 4 dB) – JTG Option D1 0.0048 305 009 7.8 dB 3.8 dB JTG Option D2-low 0.00897 567 918 10.6 dB 6.6 dB JTG Option D2-high 0.0897 5 679 180 20.6 dB 16.6 dB (D2-Low +10 dB) 3.2.7 Dynamic analyses results over London metropolitan Figure 15 gives the cumulative distribution functions of interference corresponding to a deployment of 567 918 RLANs over the UK, including 115 737 RLANs over London metropolitan area (Option D2-low) and antenna Option A1. 15 Interference for Sentinel-3 (Over London Metro options A1 and D2-low) – It can be seen that the EESS (active) protection criterion is largely exceeded by 16.6 dB (–104.1 dBW). It can also be seen that the interference level corresponding to the protection criteria is exceeded for 100% of the time. Finally, Table 14 provides the levels of interference in excess for the 3 RLAN density options (D1, D2-low and D2-High) and antenna Options A1 and A3.
It can also be seen that the interference level corresponding to the protection criteria is exceeded for more than 20% of the time. The situation is also depicted on Figure 14 below showing in red the interfered portion of images (vs the non-interfered in white). 14 Interfered portion of images (in red) vs non-interfered (in (Over the UK – JTG options A1 and D1) It appears obvious that in these situations, the Sentinel-3 sensor will be totally ineffective over most land and coastal areas, in particular all urban and suburban areas. Finally, 13 provides the levels of interference in excess for the 3 RLAN density options (D1, D2-low and D2-High) and antenna Options A1 and A3. 13 Interference in excess (over the UK) Scenario Active RLAN density (Nb per inhabitant per 320 MHz) Nb of active RLAN over the UK (in 320 MHz) Interference in excess for antenna Option A1 Extrapolated for antenna Option A3 (A1 – 4 dB) JTG Option D1 0.0048 305 009 7.8 dB 3.8 dB JTG Option D2-low 0.00897 567 918 10.6 dB 6.6 dB JTG Option D2-high (D2-Low +10 dB) 0.0897 5 679 180 20.6 dB 16.6 dB 3.2.7 Dynamic analyses results over London metropolitan Figure 15 gives the cumulative distribution functions of interference corresponding to a deployment of 567 918 RLANs over the UK, including 115 737 RLANs over London metropolitan area (Option D2-low) and antenna Option A1. 15 Interference for Sentinel-3 (Over London Metro – options A1 and D2-low) It can be seen that the EESS (active) protection criterion is largely exceeded by 16.6 dB (–104.1 dBW). It can also be seen that the interference level corresponding to the protection criteria is exceeded for 100% of the time. Finally, Table 14 provides the levels of interference in excess for the 3 RLAN density options (D1, D2-low and D2-High) and antenna Options A1 and A3.
R15-WP5A-C-0650!N24!MSW-E.docx