> All in all, this is pretty ambitious, but exciting!
> How will you tackle the OFDM signal recovery? I think your reference
> [2] is really much to be completely done in one GSoC, so it would be
> totally OK to say you just picked a reduced approach. Still, if you
> want to do that in all its glory, that would be cool, too, but I'd ask
> Martin how much work he'd expect that to be, and if necessary, reserve
> more time for the algorithmic part alone. I'm also including Jean-
> Michel Friedt of low-cost passive radar fame[A], as I hope he might
> have a moment to read and comment on your proposal.

I am not sure I can provide useful comments on the proposal, whose
various iterations I have been reading as they were being updated. Real
time passive radar processing seems challenging to me, and I would
advise looking at alternatives to the brute force cross correlation of
the Doppler shifted signal. You might want to have a look at 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279069212_Batches_algorithm_for_passive_radar_A_theoretical_analysis
and especially its Table I which lists computational complexity of
various algorithms. An updated version of the document cited by Marcus
is at http://jmfriedt.free.fr/dvbt_hardware.pdf (submitted for
publication but not yet accepted): beyond the improved batches
algorithm allowing for much faster computation, we also address using
multiple receivers in parallel, each tuned to different carrier
frequencies.

JM

-- 
JM Friedt, FEMTO-ST Time & Frequency/SENSeOR, 26 rue de l'Epitaphe,
25000 Besancon, France

_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

Reply via email to