论文部分内容阅读
7.工作方式的比较根据前面的研究,显而易见,在工作方式“短 Z”和“长 Z”的有效信号干扰比之间的区别,仅在于前者的总干扰信号 S_K 还要由[O_0]决定,而后者的总干扰信号 S_L 还要取决于[O_n]。因为根据在选通时间的数次量测有[O_0](?)[O_n],另外它们在总干扰信号中占的比重很小,这就意味着,工作方式“长 Z”非但不会使 Z-PWD 驱动线路显著地简化,反而加重了它的负载,因此“长 Z”并不比“短 Z”优越。当然上述结论只有在下列的假定下才能成
7. Comparison of working methods According to the previous studies, it is obvious that the difference between the effective signal interference ratios of working modes “Short Z” and “Long Z” is only that the former total interference signal S_K is also determined by [O_0] , While the latter’s total disturbing signal S_L also depends on [O_n]. Because [O_0] (?) [O_n] is measured several times over the gated time and their proportion in the total interference signal is small, this means that the “long Z” mode of operation not only does not Z-PWD drive line is significantly simplified, but increased its load, so “long Z” is not superior to “short Z”. Of course, the above conclusion can only be made under the following assumptions