Thanks for the response. I was mainly interested in passive radar and also was into the idea of passive WiFi radar. As I said I have been reading research papers like this one http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6020778/ . This paper has a method of using WiFi AP for passive target detection. This could further be used for applications as well and the algorithms are also said to work for other types of signals as well. I am also looking into WiFi passive radar using symbol reconstruction as well for better results. What is your opinion on this? Thanking you, Suraj Hanchinal
On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Martin Braun <martin.br...@ettus.com> wrote: > Suraj, (and going back to the ML), > > first question is: What are *you* interested in? We have suggested 4 > overarching topics (SAR, Passive Radar, Apps, Multi-antenna). You'd have > to be *extremely* productive to get more then one or two done during GSoC. > > You've indicated interest in passive radar and multi-antenna, and > specifically pointed out the idea of using Wifi signals (great project!) > for passive radar. Frankly, if you can pull that off, that would cover > both the passive radar side, and the apps side (because you could build > something on top of your wifi passive radar to e.g. catch speeding cars, > or maybe do something completely different. > > Thinking outside of the wifi signal topic for a moment, there's plenty > of people who have done passive radar with GNU Radio, but ironically not > with gr-radar. A simple cross-correlation approach based on any existing > broadcast signal would be a good start, too. Plus, you can use wifi > dongles for such an application. It would be nice to have out-of-the-box > passive radar experiments ready to run provided in gr-radar. > Another "downside" of the current codes is that for experiments, you > need devices that have both native support for timed commands, high > bandwidth, and Tx capabilities -- basically, USRPs. A passive radar > example could also work with RTL SDR dongles. That would be a cheaper > intro to the toolbox. > > Cheers, > Martin > > On 03/05/2018 06:50 AM, suraj hanchinal wrote: > > Thanks a lot for the response. I have read about the passive radar > > signal processing as well as parts of your thesis on ofdm radar to > > familiarise myself with the above mentioned technique. I have also > > studied the entire code of gr- radar to familiarise myself with that. I > > am also reading up on research papers for the same. I wanted to ask > > about the scope of the implementation in the sense that what should the > > extension to the toolbox contain. Please enlighten me on this. > > > > Thanking you, > > Suraj Hanchinal > > > > On Mar 1, 2018 1:19 AM, "Martin Braun" <martin.br...@ettus.com > > <mailto:martin.br...@ettus.com>> wrote: > > > > On 02/24/2018 05:34 AM, suraj hanchinal wrote: > > > Hello Everyone, > > > I am planning to apply for GSoc 2018. I was very interested and > would > > > love to work on the gr-radar toolbox. I was interested > specifically in > > > implementing passive-radar and multi-antenna support to gr-radar. > > Since > > > a passive radar system would need a multi-antenna support anyways, > I > > > think they could be implemented together. I have been reading some > > > research papers regarding passive radars to get a better > understanding > > > and I think implementing a passive radar to use FM transmitters > nearby > > > to locate objects as a good starting point and then turn to using > wifi > > > access points in an area as the next step. I am currently > developing a > > > proper write-up as well for the same. I would kindly request you to > > > point out any things I should know of or just general suggestions > > on the > > > subject. I would also kindly request the mentors Martin Braun and > > Stefan > > > Wansch to enlighten me on this. > > > > Suraj, > > > > thanks for your interest in GSoC and gr-radar! Passive radar would > > indeed be a pretty nifty addition. It's probably easier to get better > > results using more high-bandwidth signals with better > cross-correlation > > properties, such as terrestrial TV stations. > > > > Note that I assume that you have some familiarity with the signal > > processing fundamentals of passive radar. That said, you can do a lot > > better than cross-correlating when doing passive radar with OFDM > > signals, but that's a little too much to lay out in a short email > (in a > > nutshell, you can recreate the original tx'd signal and use symbols > as > > samples in the time-frequency domain to generate range/Doppler > diagrams > > without having to worry about cross-correlation artefacts). > > > > Also go check out Juha Vierinen's work (e.g., this: > > https://hackaday.com/2015/06/05/building-your-own-sdr- > based-passive-radar-on-a-shoestring/ > > <https://hackaday.com/2015/06/05/building-your-own-sdr- > based-passive-radar-on-a-shoestring/>, > > an old blog post I googled real quick). And of course Jean-Michel's > work > > that Phil mentioned. > > > > -- M > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org> > > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio > > <https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio> > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
