### TABLE III COMPARISON WITH MMAC

### TABLE III COMPARISON OF MAC-SCC, DBTMA, MULTI-CHANNEL PROTOCOL AND IEEE 802.11 Features MAC-SCC DBTMA Multi-channel protocol IEEE 802.11

2006

Cited by 1

### Table 7-2: Well-Known Port Numbers

"... In PAGE 68: ... These interfaces are previously defined in the Network Services Library portion of this chapter. Additional Interfaces The interfaces listed below in Table7 -1 show the additional commands, protocols, and service daemons that are included to ensure inter-operability between SCD conforming systems. The table includes three columns, the command name which is invoked, the RFC number for the protocol specification as maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force, and a short description of the feature provided.... In PAGE 68: ... The table includes three columns, the command name which is invoked, the RFC number for the protocol specification as maintained by the Internet Engineering Task Force, and a short description of the feature provided. Table7 -2 shows the well-known port numbers as derived from RFC 1700 that SCD conforming systems are... In PAGE 69: ...7-2 SPARC Compliance Definition 2.3 8/16/95 Table7 -1: Required Commands Command RFC Description rlogin BSDNET Remote terminal services (BSD) rsh BSDNET Remote user shell (BSD) rcp BSDNET Remote file copy (BSD) rwho BSDNET Remote user information service (BSD) rdate BSDNET Remote uptime statistics (BSD) talk BSDNET Remote chat utility (BSD) finger rfc1288 Information server for logged on users telnet lt;many gt; Interactive terminal services ftp rfc959 File transfer protocol arp rfc826... ..."

### Table 3: The multichannel FR algorithm.

1998

Cited by 1

### Table 1. Simulation results of multichannel ANC.

2001

"... In PAGE 4: ... The convergence gain of least-squares algorithms over steepest descent algorithms for multichannel ANC systems has already been documented [1], so results about numerical stability of the recursive-least-squares algorithms will mostly be discussed here. Table1 compares the numerical stability of the different recursive least-squares algorithms. If the algorithm is... ..."

Cited by 4

### Table 1. Multi-channel examples

"... In PAGE 6: ... Since Mu[1] = Mv[1] = 00 and Mu[2] = Mv[2] = 00, we choose y = 2 for both j = 0 and 1 as a key-bit of type 1. The two paths from node 0 to node 64 of class 0 are shown in Table1 . The key-bit is shown with boldface.... In PAGE 6: ...y Case 2.2. We choose y = 2 for both j = 0 and 1. Since c(0) u = c(1) v and c(1) u = c(0) v , we have |Z0| = |Z1| = 1. The two paths from node u = 0000000001 to node v = 1101000000 are shown in Table1 . |P0| = |P1| = d(u,v)+4+|Z1| = 5+ 4+1 = 10, where d(1,64) = H(1,64)+22 = 1+4 = 5.... ..."

### Table 10 - MULTI-CHANNEL ACTION code values

1524

"... In PAGE 10: ...able 9 - SRP_LOGIN_REQ request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Table10 - MULTI-CHANNEL ACTION code values .... ..."

### Table 12 - MULTI-CHANNEL RESULT code values

1524

"... In PAGE 10: ...able 11 - SRP_LOGIN_RSP response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Table12 - MULTI-CHANNEL RESULT code values .... ..."

### Table 5 Model parameters for the multi-channel AAC scheme Parameter

in to

"... In PAGE 9: ... In order to make a fair comparison of the single and multi-channel schemes, when it comes to the single channel, the data rate is equal to 9 Mb/s that is more than the sum of the data rates of Cs and Cm channels. Table5 summarizes the input parameters for the performance study. Figs.... ..."

### Table 1: The fast multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm.

"... In PAGE 9: ... De ne e(j) m (n) = m X p=1 quot;(j) p (n ? m + p): (28) Then, we can de ne a set of IJL auxiliary coe cients b w(i;j) l (n) whose updates are given by b w(i;j) l (n + 1) = b w(i;j) l (n) ? e(j) M (n)x(i)(n ? M ? l): (29) To compute the controller outputs, the multichannel equivalent of (16) is y(j)(n) = I Xi=1 L?1 Xl=0 b w(i;j) l (n)x(i)(n ? l) ? M?1 X m=1 e(j) m (n ? 1)rm+1(n); (30) where rm(n) in this case is de ned as rm(n) = I Xi=1 L?1 Xl=0 x(i)(n ? l)x(i)(n ? l ? m): (31) In analogy with (17), rm(n) can be recursively computed as rm(n) = rm(n ? 1) + I Xi=1 nx(i)(n)x(i)(n ? m) ? x(i)(n ? L)x(i)(n ? L ? m)o: (32) Similarly, e(j) m (n) has an update similar to that in (18), as given by e(j) m (n) = 8 gt; gt; gt; lt; gt; gt; gt; : K X k=1h(j;k) 1 (k) (n) if m = 1 e(j) m?1(n ? 1) + K X k=1h(j;k) m (k) (n) if 2 m M : (33) Collecting (24), (29), (30), (32), and (33), we obtain an alternative, equivalent implementation of the multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm. Table1 lists the operations of this implementation,... In PAGE 13: ....2.2 An Alternate Implementation Although useful, the delay-compensation method in (37), (39), and (41) can be prohibitive to implement when the number of channels is large, as its complexity grows as O(IJKM). We now consider an alternate implementation that uses many of the existing quantities within the e cient multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm in Table1 while avoiding the formation of the ltered input signal values. For this derivation, consider the de nition of (j;k) m (n) in (40).... In PAGE 14: ... Table 5 lists the operations for this alternative form of the LMS algorithm for multichannel active noise control. This algorithm requires JKM + J(M + 1)(M ? 1) more MACs per iteration than does the ltered{X LMS algorithm in Table1 . If M ? 1 M lt; (4I + 1)K; (47) then this implementation is more computationally-e cient than that in (37), (39), and (41).... In PAGE 16: ... Figure 3 shows the unattenuated air compressor noise signal, in which the bursty nature of the compressor noise is clearly evident, along with the average error power envelopes of the original ltered{X LMS and LMS algorithms applied to this data, in which the step sizes for each algorithm were chosen as = 0:1 and = 0:2, respectively. Shown for comparison in Figure 4 are the average error power envelopes of the adjoint LMS/CPFE algorithm, the fast ltered{X LMS algorithm in Table1 , and the new multichannel LMS algorithm in Table 5, in which the step sizes for each algorithm were chosen as = 0:05, = 0:1, and = 0:2, respectively. As can be seen, the fast multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm outperforms the adjoint LMS/CPFE algorithm in its convergence rate, and the multichannel LMS algorithm performs the best of the three due to the lack of coe cient delay within the parameter updates.... In PAGE 20: ... Table1 : The fast multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithm. Table 2: Complexity comparison, standard and fast multichannel ltered{X LMS algorithms, L = 50, M = 25.... ..."