Nakagami -m Noise

Hi everyone,
i was working with AWG noise and now i have to move to nakagami-m noise, is there a simple and clear formula that i can use to calculate some variables like capacity or SNR. i only found a closed form based on pdf, i didn't know how to use it for system capacity calculation. can anyone help with some references or explanation please.
Thank you in advance

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 02:59:27 -0700, User User wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> i was working with AWG noise and now i have to move to nakagami-m noise,
> is there a simple and clear formula that i can use to calculate some
> variables like capacity or SNR. i only found a closed form based on pdf,
> i didn't know how to use it for system capacity calculation. can anyone
> help with some references or explanation please.
> Thank you in advance

I took a quick look at Wikipedia's article on the Nakagami distribution.  
I think that exact closed-form solutions will be a stretch.

Also -- the article suggests that the distribution is handy for modeling 
path loss for wireless.  You seem to be suggesting that you're adding in 
Nakagami-distributed noise -- that doesn't seem right to me.

You may be the group expert on this.  Barring someone jumping in with 
references, I would suggest:

1: Look in the academic literature.

2: Flog the math yourself.

3: See if you can find closed-form solutions for upper and lower bounds 
on performance -- if your lower bound performance is good enough, you're 
done!

-- 

Tim Wescott
Wescott Design Services
http://www.wescottdesign.com

I'm looking for work -- see my website!

On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 12:00:55 -0500, Tim Wescott
<seemywebsite@myfooter.really> wrote:

>On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 02:59:27 -0700, User User wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>> i was working with AWG noise and now i have to move to nakagami-m noise,
>> is there a simple and clear formula that i can use to calculate some
>> variables like capacity or SNR. i only found a closed form based on pdf,
>> i didn't know how to use it for system capacity calculation. can anyone
>> help with some references or explanation please.
>> Thank you in advance
>
>I took a quick look at Wikipedia's article on the Nakagami distribution.  
>I think that exact closed-form solutions will be a stretch.
>
>Also -- the article suggests that the distribution is handy for modeling 
>path loss for wireless.  You seem to be suggesting that you're adding in 
>Nakagami-distributed noise -- that doesn't seem right to me.
>
>You may be the group expert on this.  Barring someone jumping in with 
>references, I would suggest:
>
>1: Look in the academic literature.
>
>2: Flog the math yourself.
>
>3: See if you can find closed-form solutions for upper and lower bounds 
>on performance -- if your lower bound performance is good enough, you're 
>done!
>

Tim's correct that the Nakagami model is used in communications
primarily for fading, and not for noise.   Noise is nearly always
Gaussian in comm systems, but the fading can be modelled by a number
of different distributions depending on the environment (e.g., Rician,
Rayleigh, Nakagami, etc., etc.).

The Rician and Rayleigh models are arguably the most fundamental for
mobile multipath with or without Line-of-Sight, respectively.   Since
references and tutorials for those are easy to find it may be useful
to study those a bit and then see how Nakagami fits in.

Here's a basic reference:

http://www.wirelesscommunication.nl/reference/chaptr03/ricenaka/nakagami.htm

Nakagami fading comes up generally in the cases of diversity combining
or MIMO.   What is your application?

Thanks a lot for you answers.
Actually i'm working on diversity in Smart Grids, using antennas with power-lines (PLC). I was considering AWGN in my research but i have received (from reviewers) some objections about that noise, saying that it can not be considered in PLC. They recommend Nakagami-m additive Noise.

On 12.10.16 12:15, User User wrote:
> Thanks a lot for you answers.
> Actually i'm working on diversity in Smart Grids, using antennas with power-lines (PLC). I was considering AWGN in my research but i have received (from reviewers) some objections about that noise, saying that it can not be considered in PLC. They recommend Nakagami-m additive Noise.


Forget PLC, the structure of power wiring is not suited for high-speed data.

-- 

-TV

On 10/12/2016 08:46 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 12.10.16 12:15, User User wrote:
>> Thanks a lot for you answers.
>> Actually i'm working on diversity in Smart Grids, using antennas with
>> power-lines (PLC). I was considering AWGN in my research but i have
>> received (from reviewers) some objections about that noise, saying
>> that it can not be considered in PLC. They recommend Nakagami-m
>> additive Noise.
>
>
> Forget PLC, the structure of power wiring is not suited for high-speed
> data.
>
Smart grids don't need high speed data. They need reliable fit and 
forget communications. Unfortunately none of the options for smart grid 
communication are entirely robust. The main contenders are low power 
wireless and PLC. Neither is going to give 100% robust results, but you 
have to live with then. The G3 and Prime PLC systems have taken a while 
to shake out the quirks, but they are capable of workable results.

Regards,
Steve

On 12.10.16 16:56, Steve Underwood wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 08:46 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>> On 12.10.16 12:15, User User wrote:
>>> Thanks a lot for you answers.
>>> Actually i'm working on diversity in Smart Grids, using antennas with
>>> power-lines (PLC). I was considering AWGN in my research but i have
>>> received (from reviewers) some objections about that noise, saying
>>> that it can not be considered in PLC. They recommend Nakagami-m
>>> additive Noise.
>>
>>
>> Forget PLC, the structure of power wiring is not suited for high-speed
>> data.
>>
> Smart grids don't need high speed data. They need reliable fit and
> forget communications. Unfortunately none of the options for smart grid
> communication are entirely robust. The main contenders are low power
> wireless and PLC. Neither is going to give 100% robust results, but you
> have to live with then. The G3 and Prime PLC systems have taken a while
> to shake out the quirks, but they are capable of workable results.
>
> Regards,
> Steve


The main problem with PLC is that it is a bloody source of RF 
interference. There are simply no free frequencies in the spectrum to 
radiate in the HF range PLC is using.

PLC couples far too well to the outside RF environment because the 
structure of a house wiring is remarkably similar to Marconi's and 
Popov's antennas from RF standpoint.

-- 

-TV

On 10/12/2016 10:30 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
> On 12.10.16 16:56, Steve Underwood wrote:
>> On 10/12/2016 08:46 PM, Tauno Voipio wrote:
>>> On 12.10.16 12:15, User User wrote:
>>>> Thanks a lot for you answers.
>>>> Actually i'm working on diversity in Smart Grids, using antennas with
>>>> power-lines (PLC). I was considering AWGN in my research but i have
>>>> received (from reviewers) some objections about that noise, saying
>>>> that it can not be considered in PLC. They recommend Nakagami-m
>>>> additive Noise.
>>>
>>>
>>> Forget PLC, the structure of power wiring is not suited for high-speed
>>> data.
>>>
>> Smart grids don't need high speed data. They need reliable fit and
>> forget communications. Unfortunately none of the options for smart grid
>> communication are entirely robust. The main contenders are low power
>> wireless and PLC. Neither is going to give 100% robust results, but you
>> have to live with then. The G3 and Prime PLC systems have taken a while
>> to shake out the quirks, but they are capable of workable results.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Steve
>
>
> The main problem with PLC is that it is a bloody source of RF
> interference. There are simply no free frequencies in the spectrum to
> radiate in the HF range PLC is using.
>
> PLC couples far too well to the outside RF environment because the
> structure of a house wiring is remarkably similar to Marconi's and
> Popov's antennas from RF standpoint.
>
Coupling between adjacent cables in long underground runs is also a 
quite problem for PLC. Some utilities really shot themselves in the 
foot, by choosing PLC schemes that operate at higher frequencies than G3 
and Prime (e.g. KEPCO in Korea). Those have some really serious 
radiation and susceptibility issues.

Regards,
Steve