5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A good solid text, October 1, 1999
By A Customer
This review is from: Digital Communication Receivers: Synchronization in Digital Communication Volume I, Phase-, Frequency-Locked Loops, and Amplitude Control (Wiley ... and Signal Processing) (Volume 1) (Hardcover)
Mathematically a bit daunting, but don't be put off, the text reads well and does a good job of explaining the math. Note that the companion volume (volume II) to this book was eventually published under the title "Digital Communication Receivers".
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Chapter 9 Riddled with Serious Misconceptions, September 12, 2008
This review is from: Digital Communication Receivers: Synchronization in Digital Communication Volume I, Phase-, Frequency-Locked Loops, and Amplitude Control (Wiley ... and Signal Processing) (Volume 1) (Hardcover)
In the entire area of the application of the Langevin-equation, and the equivalent Fokker-Planck (FP) equation, there is a great deal of confusion. The reason is that researchers insist on using methods from the theory of stochastic processes without realising the physical foundations. Chapter 9 of this book by Meyr et al. is shattered by misconceptions regarding the applicability of the FP method and is an example showing the infection in the engineering literature has not been cleared up as yet. The authors and publisher apparently failed in making sure a competent independent review of their material before public dissemination.
"The higher order moments ... might ... be thought of to be important too in the non-gaussian case. Surprisingly, this turns out not to be the case as will be demonstrated now" (p. 344). After that announcement of a surprise, indeed, and resulting from an utterly flawed derivation the authors publish very general, but very misleading conclusions about the FP method. Such as: "the diffusion approximation applies as [the noise] n(t) approaches a white (not necessarily gaussian) process; ... becomes independent of the amplitude distribution as n(t) approaches white noise" (p. 346); "we may replace the actual process n(t) by a gaussian process with the same spectral density at the origin"; "no assumption on the amplitude distribution was required" (p. 347). The authors invoke then authority for support by providing references and state: "For a rigorous derivation of the white noise limit we refer to the book by Gardiner [17, p. 210] and the paper by Kushner [18]." In this way the book makes readers believe in consistency and integrity as if the referenced material from the relevant mainstream physics literature would support the presented general claims in the engineering domain. In reality, however, such consistency does not exist at all; it is a fake. One can easily check: (1) The given reference by Gardiner is based upon the condition of the noise process itself being a Markov process - i.e., with statistically independent increments. (2) Kushner establishes detailed conditions that need to be verified (!) before an (only) asymptotically valid diffusion approximation may be applied; in fact, Kushner warns about the difficulties with approaches like: "As the bandwidth of n(.) increases, thereby 'justifying' the 'almost independence' assertion" - by some nebulous sort of central limit theorem argument (p. 347).
Rather than providing well justified arguments the bluff of pseudoscience by false justification continues by quoting even more authority. The authors refer (p. 347) as well to N.G. van Kampen as if also his work would directly or indirectly support their general claims. This linkage is like a slap in the face, and in the context of Chapter 9 must appear absurd to readers who are familiar with the work of van Kampen, "one of the most outstanding theoretical physicists of the second half of the 20th century" (Physics World). It is van Kampen, who makes us aware of the danger of juggling with equations and indulging in mathematics, that is, "by eliminating the bothersome connection with reality and the knowledge of the physics of the system" ('Views of a Physicist', World Scientific Publishing). Van Kampen's book 'Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry', North-Holland, is well-known and praised especially for its "excellent introduction to the use (and avoidance of abuse) of master equations" (Physics Today).
The only true justification for the application of the FP method can be found by taking the real equations that describe the physical system in question, as a starting point. After which, one can think up approximations. Often authors wish to formulate these approximations as if they were fundamental descriptions. This, apparently, leads to FP-equations being applied to Markov processes, or also to physical processes that can not really be approximated by continuous Markov processes for the scope of the intended analysis, e.g., the first time that the physical process escapes from some set (First Passage problem). The FP equation's "elegant mathematical properties should not obscure the fact that its application in physical situations requires a physical justification, which is not always obvious, in particular not in nonlinear systems" (N.G. van Kampen) - including synchronization systems.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Unless you are writing a paper on PLL don't buy this book, September 23, 2004
This review is from: Digital Communication Receivers: Synchronization in Digital Communication Volume I, Phase-, Frequency-Locked Loops, and Amplitude Control (Wiley ... and Signal Processing) (Volume 1) (Hardcover)
I would not recommend this book for anyone who has to design a simply PLL. The book covers all the possibly ways to analyze a PLL (the author is showing off) but practical applications (e.g. a simply receiver) to connect all the theory is missing. A book with most of the theory with applications would be much better.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No