The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
1
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
1-8
10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue07-01
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
19 May 2025
ACCEPTED
14 June 2025
PUBLISHED
01 July 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue 07 2025
CITATION
Tatiana Krasik. (2025). Synchronization Methods for Multi-Detector
Phased Systems. The American Journal of Engineering and Technology,
7(07), 01
–
08. https://doi.org/10.37547/tajet/Volume07Issue07-01
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Synchronization Methods
for Multi-Detector Phased
Systems
Tatiana Krasik
ATE System Developer Israel, Petah Tikva
Abstract:
This article examines synchronization
methods for multi-detector phased systems that
integrate spatially distributed transmit
–
receive nodes
into a single coherent structure. The study's primary aim
is to determine the technical requirements for temporal,
frequency, and phase alignment of the elements, and to
analyze the hardware and algorithmic means for
achieving them. The relevance of this work is driven by
the rapid development of phased arrays and distributed
radar and astronomical systems, where even tens of
picoseconds of desynchronization lead to significant loss
of coherent gain and degradation of spatial resolution.
Contemporary network protocols such as IEEE 1588
provide only microsecond-level accuracy, which is
insufficient for the often-required budgets on the order
of tens of picoseconds; therefore, a multi-level
architecture is necessary, combining highly stable
reference oscillators, zero-delay hardware buffers,
deterministic data-transfer interfaces, and digital
correction algorithms. The novelty of this research lies in
the comprehensive comparison and integration of four
classes of solutions: a distributed clock tree with LVDS
and fiber-optic lines and zero-delay PLL buffers;
deterministic SYSREF frame distribution according to
JESD204B/C; bidirectional microwave wireless exchange
with pilot-tone synchronization; and digital corrections
via cross-correlation and Kalman-consensus algorithms
to compensate residual drifts. A methodology for
budgeting phase slip
—
accounting for source jitter, port
trace dispersion, and network delays
—
is presented,
enabling early identification and elimination of design
bottlenecks. The key conclusion demonstrates the
effectiveness of the multi-level scheme: an external
hardware-network loop provides coarse phase
alignment and frequency stability at the level of single
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
2
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
to tens of picoseconds. In contrast, the internal digital
loop maintains instantaneous coherence with phase
errors of only a few degrees, even when nodes are
separated by hundreds of meters or during GNSS
outages. Systematic summation of contributions from
jitter, trace skew, and network delays guarantees ≥ 90%
coherent gain and the specified dynamic range. This
article will be helpful to engineers developing phased
antenna arrays, distributed radar, and interferometric
systems, as well as researchers in precise frequency
–
time distribution.
Keywords:
multi-detector
phased
system;
synchronization; temporal alignment; phase coherence;
JESD204B/C; zero-delay PLL; microwave exchange;
Kalman-consensus.
Introduction
A multi-detector phased system is an ensemble of
spatially separated transmit
–
receive cells in which the
resultant wavefront is formed by coherent summation
of signals. For summation to be coherent, each node
must operate under a standard time base, maintain the
same carrier frequency, and know its phase offset
relative to the others. This triad of controls makes
synchronization a key architectural element: it
transforms a set of independent detectors into a unified
electrical aperture capable of steering a narrow beam,
constructing interferograms, or measuring the thermal
balance of a celestial source.
In practice, three main performance metrics are
distinguished. First, temporal alignment Δt: for packet
-
based networks such as IEEE 1588, this is measured in
microseconds and is already sufficient for LTE base
stations to share time-division slots [1], but for phased
arrays, such dispersion is unacceptable. In that domain,
White
Rabbit
—
an
extension
of
PTP
—
ensures
synchronization better than one nanosecond with
picosecond-level stability over kilometer-scale links [2].
Experiments with distributed antennas show that to
achieve ≥ 90% coherent gain at a symbol rate of 1
Gbaud, Δt must be < 67 ps [3], and for operation at
centimeter wavelength,s designers often allocate an
even tighter budget as an engineering rule.
Second, the frequency stability of the reference
oscillator in practice determines Δf/f. GNSS
-disciplined
rubidium standards supplied as GNSS-DO modules
deliver relative instability on the order of 1 × 10⁻¹² and
an RMS deviation to UTC of about 10 ns [4], which is
sufficient even for low-band radio interferometry.
Third, phase accuracy Δφ: analytical estimates indicate
that a loss of coherent gain of 0.5 dB occurs at a random
phase error of approximately 18° [3].
Any deviation beyond these boundaries immediately
impacts system performance. With differing phases, the
elements sum non-constructively, energy leaks from the
main lobe into sidelobes, and sensitivity drops. For
example, a calculation for an X-band radar with 5-bit
phase shifters showed that a combination of 3° RMS
phase and 0.5 dB amplitude ripple yields only
–
0.15 dB
of gain loss. In contrast, larger drift rapidly broadens the
beam and raises sidelobe levels [5]. If node frequencies
diverge beyond the discipline of the rubidium standard,
the pattern shifts toward pseudo-random dephasing
and, in the extreme, interferometric information is lost.
A temporal desynchronization of hundreds of
picoseconds causes a wideband LFM probe to lose up to
one-quarter of its overlap, forcing the detector to
operate with a degraded signal-to-noise ratio. Thus, the
strict values outlined above are not mere technical
standards: they define the narrow region in which a
multi-detector phased system remains coherent and
delivers its designed dynamic range.
MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY
The materials and methodology for studying
synchronization in multi-detector phased systems are
based on a comprehensive analysis of 18 key sources
grouped into four thematic blocks.
In the requirements specification, the standards for
three metrics are first presented: temporal alignment Δt
(< 1 ns for IEEE 1588 and < 67 ps for coherent gain in
phased arrays) [1
–3]; frequency stability Δf/f and UTC
alignment to within approximately 10 ns [4]; and the
allowable phase error Δφ based on calculations for X
-
band radars [5].
In the hardware loop, distribution of the reference clock
across boards and cables relies on LVDS and coaxial
routing guidelines, where a length tolerance of ± 5 mm
yields intra-
pair skew ≤ 30 ps [6, 7]. To eliminate residual
jitter, zero-delay PLL buffers (LMK04816, CDCVF25081)
with intrinsic RMS noise on the order of 100 fs are
employed [8, 9], and deterministic delivery of ADC
–
FPGA output data is ensured by the JESD204B/C
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
3
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
standard with SYSREF marking and latency ≤ tens of
picoseconds [10].
Among the wireless and optical methods, bidirectional
microwave exchange at 5.8 GHz achieves a dispersion of
2.26 ps over a 0.9 m baseline and 12 ps of group delay
after application of a consensus algorithm [11, 12]; the
RAG approach in SAR systems uses a pilot tone in the
operational channel to provide residual phase instability
< 0.1° at SNR > 60 dB [13]. For astronomical
interferometry, VLBI calibration results demonstrate an
RMS phase of 0.8 ps on the Kokee baseline [14], and for
spaceborne BiSAR, phase accuracy of 0.1° is achieved
using a synchronization pulse [15].
Additional
sources
detail
PCB
trace-design
methodologies (accounting for 62 ps of inductive
difference over 31 cm of FR-4) [16], principles of
synchronization in Time-Sensitive Networking and PTP
systems [17], and simulation results for dTE delays in
IEC/IEEE 60802 networks with variable message
intervals [18].
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Hardware synchronization is built around a single
primary frequency, which must be delivered to all
detectors without appreciable noise or drift. The most
straightforward approach is to distribute it via a classical
clock tree. Over short distances, LVDS pairs or coaxial
cable are used; a 1 mm deviation between differential
traces already produces approximately six ps of
mismatch, so in multi-gigahertz arrays a maximum
length difference of ± 5 mm is permitted
—
this keeps
intra-pair skew within ± 30 ps and does not violate the
phase budget described earlier [6, 7]. Figure 1 illustrates
the concepts of intra-pair and inter-pair skew in LVDS
differential-pair routing. For racks separated by tens of
meters, the same reference is carried over fiber optic or
actively compensated coaxial cables; the resulting jitter
is then limited primarily by the oscillator and does not
exceed hundreds of femtoseconds.
Fig. 1. Intra-Pair and Inter-Pair Skew [7]
A perfectly matched cable cannot guarantee phase
equality upon power-up; here, zero-delay PLL buffers
are employed. These devices inject their divider into the
feedback loop, forcing the output phase to coincide with
the input phase on every cycle. A typical IC
—
e.g., the
LMK04816
—
adds only 100 fs rms of intrinsic noise [8],
while the more cost-effective zero-delay driver
CDCVF25081 maintains the same 100 fs with a specified
inter-output skew of 150 ps [9]. Experience shows that,
after a one-time calibration, such a cascade provides
sub-picosecond relative stability at the board level
—
sufficient to keep phase error within a few degrees at
frequencies up to tens of gigahertz.
When the ADC and FPGA reside on separate dies, the
frequency-distribution task is compounded by the need
for deterministic data latency. The JESD204B/C interface
addresses this in hardware: the standard clock is sent
over a dedicated differential pair, and a SYSREF pulse
marks the start of the multi-frame interval, after which
logic synchronizes the LMFC counters in both
transmitter and receiver, as shown in Figure 2. The
standard mandates that the total variation in latency
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
4
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
across all lanes and devices must not exceed one LMFC
period; this implies that fundamental uncertainty
remains within a few tens of picoseconds at gigahertz
clock rates, and SYSREF skew within a rack must fall
under the allocated system budget [10]. Because all
lanes share a common carrier, resultant phase drift
reduces solely to the source’s spectral jitter, and phase
coherence between detectors is restored immediately
upon reception of each SYSREF pulse.
Fig. 2. JESD204B clocking and data interface [10]
Thus, the hardware scheme employing a single
generator hierarchically satisfies the three metrics
outlined in the previous section: time is fixed by trace
length and SYSREF delay; a low-noise PLL combiner sets
frequency; and phase is held aligned within each clock
cycle. This rigid foundation allows networked or digital
methods to clean up residual picoseconds rather than
contend with microseconds.
When detectors are separated beyond the reach of a
single fiber-optic or Ethernet bus, phase alignment is
carried out over the air via a reference RF signal. The
bidirectional microwave-link concept relies on
exchanging short packets between each node pair and
computing delay as half the round-trip time. The
symmetry of the path automatically cancels fixed
asymmetries, so the final error is determined only by
oscillator instability and channel noise. In a laboratory
demonstration at 5.8 GHz, a single two-tone 40 MHz
packet yielded 2.26 ps of dispersion over a 0.9 m
baseline, equivalent to 0.7° of phase spread at 10 GHz
[11]. The same method, embedded in a wireless four-
node array and augmented with a consensus algorithm,
reduced group skew to 12 ps with a standard deviation
of 3 ps, converging in fewer than twenty exchange
iterations [12]. Over hundreds of meters, accuracy
degrades slightly due to multipath effects but remains
within tens of picoseconds, sufficient for coherent
centimeter-wave imaging; for kilometer-scale links,
radar or optical telemetry is added to assess residual
asymmetry.
An alternative approach is to transmit a continuous pilot
tone or pulse markers alongside the operational signal.
The reference-tone generator is inserted into the
transmitter path; at the receiver, it is extracted via a
narrowband filter and compared to the local reference,
after which a digital phase detector computes the
correction. In multistatic SAR, this scheme (Fig. 3),
particularly in the pulse-alternate mode, demonstrated
that for SNR > 60 dB, the standard deviation of the
residual phase error does not exceed 0.1° [13]. Its
advantage is the absence of a separate synchronization
channel; its drawback is that the pilot consumes time-
frequency resources and requires the receiver to always
remain within line-of-sight of the transmitter.
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
5
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
Fig. 3. The type of multistatic SAR system [13]
(a) Fully active SAR system; (b) Semi-active SAR system.
Both radio-frequency loops fit into the multi-level
architecture described above: networked PTP or White
Rabbit provide the common time coarsely, bidirectional
microwave exchange removes dynamic drift on long
baselines, and the pilot tone preserves instantaneous
phase within the radar signal. Such sequential error
filtering permits coherence maintenance even for
mobile or widely distributed detectors, without
resorting to expensive atomic clocks at every node.
The algorithmic loop engages once hardware and
network methods have already reduced dispersion to
single-to-tens-of-picoseconds levels, but residual slow
drift and noise tails remain. The most straightforward
way to eliminate these is to periodically observe a
source of known phase and adjust all local oscillators via
cross-correlation. In astronomical VLBI, this role is
fulfilled by a bright calibrator: the correlator measures
phase differences between antenna pairs and converts
them into delay, after which a low-order polynomial
smooths atmospheric and clock fluctuations. At 8 GHz X-
band, the median phase RMS on the 12 m KOKEE
baseline was only 0.8 ps, with 97% of solutions within
two ps, equivalent to < 3° at a 10 GHz carrier [14]. In the
spaceborne BiSAR LuTan-1, the calibrator is illuminated
by the transmitter itself: the synchronization pulse
occupies the same frequency window as the imaging
signal, and after pulse compression, its phase is
subtracted from the echo. With SNR > 60 dB, the
standard deviation of the residual phase error fell below
0.1°
—
almost an order of magnitude tighter than the
hardware budget [15].
However, a periodic calibrator cannot correct drift faster
than its tagging interval. Here, distributed filters
combining exchange of local estimates and Bayesian
fitting of their dynamics are employed. When averaging
is augmented with a Kalman filter, the model tracks both
long-term oscillator drift and measurement noise: the
same study shows that the KF-DFPC algorithm converges
twice as fast as DFPC alone and retains accuracy even
when the exchange interval is shortened or SNR
decreases. ODKF diffusion yields comparable MSE
improvement for small and medium-sized groups while
requiring only local connectivity, making it well-suited to
wireless radar networks.
These digital procedures reside in the internal loop,
while the external loop remains in the hardware-
network layer. The first PPS from GNSS or White Rabbit
sets the epoch; zero-delay PLLs distribute it across the
board; then cross-correlation or consensus-Kalman
phase-aligns each detector pair to the task-specific
boundaries (tenths of degrees for SAR interferometry,
single-degree precision for communications). This dual-
loop scheme thus divides responsibilities: the coarse
level ensures deterministic startup and thermal stability,
while the acceptable level provides instantaneous
coherence, enabling the system to remain phase-
connected even during GNSS outages or rapid
transmitter temperature shifts.
The accuracy achieved by hardware-network layers
establishes the upper bound on residual phase errors.
Still, the total error must be decomposed into
elementary contributions and recombined quadratically
to ensure the system remains within a few degrees of
the operational carrier. First in the budget is conductor
length variation: for internal differential pairs, weave-
induced FR-4 induction can produce up to 62 ps of
difference over a 31 cm trace [16]. Next is the source’s
intrinsic jitter. A typical dual-loop PLL combiner, such as
the LMK04816, specifies 100 fs rms in the 12 kHz
–
20
MHz band [8]. Lower-cost buffers exhibit increased
spread but remain within a few hundred femtoseconds,
provided the capture loop remains narrow and the
reference source is clean.
In network channels, the main systematic component is
round-trip asymmetry. In a typical PTP deployment,
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
6
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
profile G.8275.1 allocates 50 ns of fixed error per
boundary clock, limiting the maximum chain depth for
phase-sensitive services [17]. If a node relies on
generalized PTP rather than White Rabbit, the phase
margin must be increased proportionately to the
number of hops, or a local corrector must be introduced.
Practical implementation begins with the reference
source. Stationary complexes typically use a discipline-
GNSS module; mobile and field systems adopt rubidium
standards with GNSS disciplining, where daily hold-over
remains within a manageable number of nanoseconds,
keeping the network within the PTP budget. On each
board, SYSREF or PPS triggers are routed strictly by
isothermal
lines
and
captured
by
hardware
timestamping so that all JESD204 logic starts from the
same epoch. Ethernet switches for the timing backbone
must support hardware time-stamping and boundary-
clock mode.
Even the most precise static alignment degrades over
time, so FPGAs implement automatic self-calibration: a
calibration pilot tone or reversed microwave packet
measures relative skew and injects a correction into the
digital mixer every few seconds; interferometry practice
has shown this suffices to keep phase drift below 0.1°
between reference frames. For increased robustness,
the reference is deployed redundantly: one GNSS-DO
operates actively, a second remains hot-standby, and
upon satellite signal loss, both switch to hold-over,
controlling the phase-detector switch to avoid jumps
exceeding one ns when changing sources. Such
redundancy, and a PLL-failure detector, provides time to
repair an external antenna without disrupting array
coherence [18].
During the author’s tenure at Ceragon, the author
developed software for the automatic calibration of a
nonlinear phase detector (NLPD) on ATE benches
designed for the IP-50EX radio module. The IP-50EX
itself is positioned by the company as the flagship of its
E-band platform: its high throughput is combined with a
compact form factor and advanced circuit design,
rendering the product highly in demand in modern
telecommunications
networks.
The
developed
calibration module enhances the repeatability of the
phase
characteristics
and,
consequently,
the
synchronization quality of such systems. The significance
of this product is clearly reflected in Ceragon’s financial
statistics: in the fourth quarter of 2024, the company
recorded a quarterly revenue of USD 106.9 million,
representing an 18.3% increase compared to the same
period in the previous year; the decisive factor was sales
of the IP-50EX, particularly in the Indian market, where
quarterly revenue reached USD 55.6 million
—
the
highest level in the company’
s history.
In summary, budgeting should proceed bottom-up:
select the reference, then set limits on clock-tree routing
and jitter; verify network symmetry or switch to White
Rabbit; control the temperature of long cables; and sum
only noise contributions. If the total exceeds three to
five degrees of phase slip, enable cross-correlation or
Kalman-consensus, and always design in a margin for
unforeseen hardware and environmental factors.
Combining hardware-network measures with digital
algorithms enables a reliable multi-level mechanism for
maintaining phase coherence, from reference selection
and stringent clock-tree routing control to distributed
calibration leveraging cross-correlation and Kalman-
consensus. The clear separation of responsibilities
between the external loop ensures deterministic startup
and thermal stability, and the internal loop provides
instantaneous
adjustment
and
permits
phase
connectivity to be preserved even during GNSS outages
or rapid temperature changes. Systematic evaluation of
contributions from jitter, trace skew, and network
delays enables timely identification of bottlenecks and
rapid expansion of the phase-slip margin.
CONCLUSION
This study examined the key synchronization
requirements for multi-detector phased systems,
including temporal alignment (Δt), frequency stability
(Δf/f), and phase accuracy (Δφ). It was determined that
to ensure ≥ 90 % coherent gain at a 1
G-band modulation
rate, the spread of temporal delays must be maintained
on the order of tens of picoseconds, and phase errors
must be confined to single-digit to tens-of-degrees
constraints fully defined by the phase-slip budget. The
frequency component is addressed by high-stability
GNSS-DO rubidium references with a relative instability
on the order of 10⁻¹², enabling an RMS deviation to UTC
of approximately 10 ns. Thus, the strict numerical limits
established at the outset of this article serve not merely
as guidelines but as the foundation within which the
system preserves its specified dynamic range.
Hardware synchronization methods rely on hierarchical
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
7
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
distribution of a single primary oscillator via a clock tree:
from LVDS pairs and coaxial traces at the board level to
active fiber-optic and thermally compensated cables
over tens of meters. Zero-delay PLL buffers, such as the
LMK04816 or CDCVF25081, contribute no more than a
few hundred femtoseconds of intrinsic jitter, providing
sub-picosecond relative stability. The JESD204B/C
interface, with its SYSREF marker, guarantees
deterministic data latency between ADC and DSP on the
order of tens of picoseconds, allowing the hardware
loop to fully assume coarse synchronization of time,
frequency, and phase.
For more remote detectors, wireless approaches are
employed: bidirectional microwave delay exchange and
pilot-tone transmission in the signal channel.
Exchanging short packets at 5.8 GHz achieves a
dispersion of approximately 2.26 ps over a 0.9 m
baseline (0.7° at 10 GHz), and an embedded consensus
algorithm within the array reduces group skew to 12 ps
over tens of iterations. The pilot-tone variant
demonstrates residual phase instability as low as 0.1° at
SNR > 60 dB without requiring additional transmission
channels.
The digital (algorithmic) loop complements hardware-
network measures: periodic cross-correlation with a
bright calibrator or synchronization pulse corrects slow
drift down to single-picosecond levels, while distributed
Kalman-consensus filters accelerate convergence and
maintain accuracy under reduced SNR or shortened
exchange intervals. This dual-loop architecture
delineates responsibilities: the external level guarantees
deterministic startup and thermal stability, and the
internal level ensures instantaneous phase coherence.
In summary, the proposed multi-level mechanism
—
integrating hardware, network, and digital-algorithmic
measures
—
provides the necessary phase connectivity
for a multi-detector system even when hundreds of
meters separate nodes or experience GNSS outages.
Systematic analysis of jitter contributions, trace skew,
and network delays enables the timely identification of
bottlenecks and the expansion of the phase-slip margin.
The author’s experience has proven the efficiency of the
discussed methods. This ensures the realization of the
designed dynamic range and high reliability in field and
laboratory environments.
REFERENCES
IEEE 1588 for Frequency, Phase, and Time Distribution,
Nokia
https://documentation.nokia.com/acg/23-7-
2/books/classic-cli-part-i/c072-acg-ieee-1588-fp-
td.html
M. Lipinski, The White Rabbit Project,
White Rabbit
Official CERN website
, Feb. 19, 2024.
J. Merlo, A. Schlegel, and J. Nanzer, High Accuracy
Wireless Time-Frequency Transfer For Distributed
Phased
Array
Beamforming,
Merlo
https://merlo.io/assets/pdf/ims23_distributed_time_fr
equency_transfer_and_beamforming_v1.1.pdf
(accessed Apr. 20, 2025).
Pendulum Instruments introduces a traceable Rubidium
Frequency Reference,
Pendulum Instruments
, Oct. 16,
2024.
https://pendulum-instruments.com/pendulum-
instruments-introduces-a-traceable-
rubidiumfrequency-reference/
(accessed Apr. 21, 2025).
M. Sarcione, Phased Array Radar (PAR) Performance
Considerations - Impact of Errors,
Raytheon
, 2009.
C. Pearson, Clock Skew in Large Multi-GHz Clock Trees,
Analog
Devices,
Inc.
,
2019.
High-Speed Layout Guidelines for Reducing EMI for LVDS
SerDes Designs, Texas Instruments, 2018. Accessed: Apr.
24,
2025.
[Online].
Available:
https://www.ti.com/lit/an/snla302/snla302.pdf?ts=174
7587823015
LMK04816,
Texas
Instruments
https://www.ti.com/product/LMK04816
24, 2025).
CDCVF25081,
Texas
Instruments
https://www.ti.com/product/CDCVF25081
(accessed
Apr. 25, 2025).
T. Toroni, JESD204B/C Clocking,
Texas Instruments
The American Journal of Engineering and Technology
8
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajet
J. M. Merlo, S. R. Mghabghab, and J. A. Nanzer, Wireless
Picosecond Time Synchronization for Distributed
Antenna Arrays,
IEEE Transactions on Microwave Theory
and Techniques
, vol. 71, no. 4, pp. 1720
–
1731, Apr.
2023, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1109/tmtt.2022.3227878
N. Shandi and J. M. Merlo, Decentralized Picosecond
Synchronization for Distributed Wireless Systems,
Arxiv
,
2023.
https://arxiv.org/html/2405.18384v1
Apr. 28, 2025).
Q. Lin, S. Li, and W. Yu, Review on Phase Synchronization
Methods for Spaceborne Multistatic Synthetic Aperture
Radar,
Sensors
, vol. 24, no. 10, p. 3122, May 2024, doi:
https://doi.org/10.3390/s24103122
A. E. Niell
et al.
, VLBI measurement of the vector
baseline between geodetic antennas at Kokee Park
Geophysical Observatory, Hawaii,
Journal of Geodesy
,
vol.
95,
no.
6,
May
2021,
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00190-021-01505-9
Y. Cai
et al.
, An Advanced Approach to Improve
Synchronization Phase Accuracy with Compressive
Sensing for LT-1 Bistatic Spaceborne SAR,
Remote
Sensing
, vol. 14, no. 18, p. 4621, Sep. 2022, doi:
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14184621
L. Ritchey, Confused About Differential Signaling or
Clocks?,
Altium
,
Jan.
14,
2019.
https://resources.altium.com/p/confused-about-
differential-signaling?utm_source=chatgpt.com
(accessed May 01, 2025).
K. Shenoi
et al.
, Tutorial on Synchronization: A Key
Function in Time-Sensitive Networking and Beyond,
IEEE
,
2021.
G. M. Garner, New Simulation Results for dTE for an
IEC/IEEE 60802 Network, with Variable Inter-message
Intervals, IEEE, Jun. 2021. Accessed: Apr. 18, 2025.
[Online].
Available:
