1992
DOI: 10.1109/26.141457
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Capture models for mobile packet radio networks

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
52
0
2

Year Published

1996
1996
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 173 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
2
52
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In the linearization procedure of Section 3, we only considered the terms corresponding to maximum SINR, which were exactly those cases where none of the interfering nodes were transmitting at the same time as the node under consideration. In contrast, the capture effects are present in Qualnet simulations, which are known to affect throughput performance considerably [51]. Nevertheless, the analytical model seems to capture the general trend and provide a striking correlation, even in a scenario with 100 nodes, where the contention degree and hidden terminals are significant.…”
Section: Model Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 90%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the linearization procedure of Section 3, we only considered the terms corresponding to maximum SINR, which were exactly those cases where none of the interfering nodes were transmitting at the same time as the node under consideration. In contrast, the capture effects are present in Qualnet simulations, which are known to affect throughput performance considerably [51]. Nevertheless, the analytical model seems to capture the general trend and provide a striking correlation, even in a scenario with 100 nodes, where the contention degree and hidden terminals are significant.…”
Section: Model Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…In most situations, however, the powers of the received signals are subject to large-scale path loss propagation, shadowing, and small-scale multipath fading [50]. Even when packets from different nodes overlap in time, it may still be possible to successfully decode the packet with the strongest received signal strength-the socalled capture phenomenon [51]. Moreover, a number of choices in system design at the PHY layer have a direct impact on the successful reception of a packet by a given receiver.…”
Section: Impact Of the Phy Layermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An interrogator can determine the RN16 of the strongest tag and request that it backscatter the . This phenomenon is known as the capture effect and is discussed in [7]. Given the last two conditions, a new efficiency metric to include these effects must be defined.…”
Section: Extending the Optimal Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It can be simplified to yield (13) because . This is definitely greater than from (7). Therefore, the efficiency of reading can be improved over if tags can be read in collided slots (i.e., captured).…”
Section: Extending the Optimal Algorithmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known that traditional WLANs are of "point-tomultipoint" architecture, with which each AP serves a number of users in a particular area and each user associates with only one AP, usually the nearest one. Although such an architecture can work well in the networks with sparse user distributions, in high density WLANs it is insufficient to meet the requirement of the resilience of transmission due to the following reasons: 1) Capture effect: The capture effect [19] [20] makes the users far away from their associated AP suffer more backoffs than others, which results in serious unfairness among users in different positions. Especially in the network with high density, the frequent collisions due to capture may starve the users far away from the AP.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%