es 1.30a, 1.30b and 1.31a, 1.31b. We observe from Figure 1.30 that the approximate analysis of PFAo is optimistic by about 1 dB, whereas from Figure 1.31 the exact and approximate results for P Do are in excellent agreement. It is now a simple matter to compute the false alarm and detection prob- abilities of the coincidence detector. Since a B out of A majority logic deci- sion with independent testing is governed by a binomial distribution, then (1.200) 1.5.2.3 Acquisition Time Performance At this point one has all the tools needed to compute the mean acquisition time performance of the matched filter system. For the worst case a priori probability distribution, it is possible to make some significant simplifica- tions. The first step in the procedure would be to rewrite the expression for worst case mean acquisition time in (1.183) (valid for a single cell in H1) in terms of the system parameters, recalling that K = ANM and Td = TIN = Tu/NuN where N is the number of chips searched in one pass and Tu is the corresponding time uncertainty. Then, using the approximations v=q = NuN 1, ANM >> 1, and the necessary modifications to allow for a multiple cell H region, it can be shown [13] that (1.201) which is a very tight approximation to the exact result in the region PACQ > .95 and qPFA<<1.1 In (1.201), P'D is the detection probability per run of the Pseudonoise Code Acquisition in Direct-Sequence Receivers multiple cell H region which from (1.185a) is given by (1.202) which can easily be generalized for the case of more than two cells in H. Note that if P(Q1) = PD(Q2), i.e., the fractional offsets for states Q1 and Q2 are E = +1/4 , then P'D = 2PD(Q1) - (PD(Q1))2, which is identical, as it should be, with (1.82) for the worst case misalignment with half-chip search- ing. Furthermore, in arriving at (1.201), allowance has been made for the pos- sibility of a reset penalty time T,(f, All T,/Tu is then the penalty time normalized by the uncertainty time) associated with the time required to realign the codes to the i