I ran "su root" in the terminal window to give me admin priviledges for the
build.
By the way the statement that Fedora Core 5 is known to be shipped with all
the dependencies doesn't tally with my experience. FTTW is missing as is
wxPython. If you want Doxygen documentation you'll need to downl
Can somebody enlighten me regarding authorization level for a user on network computer running on Fedora Core 5. Does it need root access to the network computer for GNU Radio development? If always not, then what is the other option for that?
___
Discu
On Thu, Sep 28, 2006 at 01:26:18PM -0400, Lee Patton wrote:
> The tutorials moved:
> http://www.nd.edu/~jnl/sdr/docs/
Unless they have recently been updated, they are getting to be quite
out of date. That is why we took the link down.
Also, since they are not under our control, we have been unab
On Friday 29 September 2006 12:33, Brian Padalino wrote:
> I am really surprised on how you guys are so anti-spreadsheets.
>
> A lot of the RF engineers where I work like using them when designing
> their receive and transmit chains for calculating tolerances and all
> sorts of noise figures.
>
> O
I am really surprised on how you guys are so anti-spreadsheets.
A lot of the RF engineers where I work like using them when designing
their receive and transmit chains for calculating tolerances and all
sorts of noise figures.
One even modeled the front end amplifier gain stages for which DAC
va
On Friday 29 September 2006 12:03, Daniel O'Connor wrote:
> On Friday 29 September 2006 11:49, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> > BTW: I do these calculations in my head - pretty much primary school
> > stuff really.
>
> Yeah, depends what level of accuracy you need though :)
How accurate do you need it
On Friday 29 September 2006 11:49, Berndt Josef Wulf wrote:
> BTW: I do these calculations in my head - pretty much primary school stuff
> really.
Yeah, depends what level of accuracy you need though :)
--
Daniel O'Connor software and network engineer
for Genesis Software - http://www.gsoft.com.
On Friday 29 September 2006 11:33, Brian Padalino wrote:
> You could open Google Spreadsheets in the web browser you've probably
> already got open. Not only that, but you can share it with your
> buddies for collaborative editing so everyone can use it!
Or write it in javascript..
> Or you coul
I guess this is the difference big between RF engineers and academics -
applied versus theory. Spreadsheets can help in doing conversion/calculations
but doesn't stop people from using these values out of context as for this
you need to know what you're doing.
BTW: I do these calculations in my
All,
We've created release candidate 3.0rc1 for testing:
http://gnuradio.org/releases/gnuradio/gnuradio-3.0rc1.tar.gz
The tarball contains most of the components that exist on the trunk;
however several have been held back because they are either experimental
in nature or will likely be moved to
You could open Google Spreadsheets in the web browser you've probably
already got open. Not only that, but you can share it with your
buddies for collaborative editing so everyone can use it!
Or you could just write a bc script to to handle it. That uses much
less memory, I am sure.
Or we coul
On Friday 29 September 2006 10:13, Brian Padalino wrote:
> A spreadsheet could work just the same without all the Tcl/Tk
> silliness or input verification problems.
Yeah, a spreadsheet, so lightweight compared to a memory hungry Tcl/Tk
application.
12623 radar 1 1030 11972K 6068K se
A spreadsheet could work just the same without all the Tcl/Tk
silliness or input verification problems.
On 9/28/06, Daniel O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Friday 29 September 2006 09:21, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
> I have to say that I like dBs, too. All you have to do is remember two
>
On Friday 29 September 2006 07:30, Jason Hecker wrote:
> > lot more about it, and looking for better parts, but I've learned to ask
> > the experts early ;) Any ideas?
>
> I used to write software for a radar. It used separate antennas for
I still do :)
> transmit and receive for several reasons
On Friday 29 September 2006 09:21, John Ackermann N8UR wrote:
> I have to say that I like dBs, too. All you have to do is remember two
> things: 3dB doubles the power, and 10dB is 10 times the power, and from
> that you can SWAG just about anything.
A guy at work wrote a handy program in Tcl/Tk f
I have to say that I like dBs, too. All you have to do is remember two
things: 3dB doubles the power, and 10dB is 10 times the power, and from
that you can SWAG just about anything.
John
Berndt Josef Wulf said the following on 09/28/2006 07:26 PM:
> It don't see how this makes the calculati
It don't see how this makes the calculation of RF power any easier, to the
contrary it confuses the issue.
cheerio Berndt
On Thursday 28 September 2006 17:50, John Gilmore wrote:
> > transmit power converted to dBm (1 dBm == 1 mW) minus the attenuator
> > loss = output power in dBm.
> >
> > E.g
Hi
> I have zero experience building a system like this. I'll be thinking a
> lot more about it, and looking for better parts, but I've learned to ask
> the experts early ;) Any ideas?
I used to write software for a radar. It used separate antennas for transmit
and receive for several reasons t
From your reply I think you are referring to problem 1B.
I am indeed.
This is great. I did not know you had checked in the siso code in
gr_trellis. I am now more anxious to go study it more carefully. I am glad
I commented.
As a side note, this algorithm is the basis of all "turbo-l
Hi Eric. Yes it seems that the problem is that my oscilloscope just ain't
fast enough! I've spoken to some of our engineering guys here and they
concur.
However I have another related question now. As I've said, I just want to
get the IQ outputs from the FPGA onto the pins. Now I see that the USB
Achilleas Anastasopoulos wrote:
Bob,
Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing before
we declare that we agree:
Problem 1: KNOWN CHANNEL.
In this case everything is quite straightforward, and all related
problems have been solved 20 years ago.
A) The receiver that minimizes SEQUENCE
< http://sdr.nd.edu/docs/ > is more reliable; JNL's doc's will likely
change once we get ourselves a bit more organized w/r.t. our WWW
presence (while JNL's group "own" sdr.nd.edu, we're still migrating
documents over onto it and have yet to implement a WiKi or other
means for keeping thing
My active radar code has been working for some time, but I'm just now
getting around to thinking about real-world tests. The difficulty I'm
facing at the moment is how to isolate the transmitter and receiver
while still providing decent power on target. I'm looking for
suggestions.
Right now, us
Bob,
Let's make sure we are talking about the same thing before
we declare that we agree:
Problem 1: KNOWN CHANNEL.
In this case everything is quite straightforward, and all related
problems have been solved 20 years ago.
A) The receiver that minimizes SEQUENCE error probability is
essentially
The tutorials moved:
http://www.nd.edu/~jnl/sdr/docs/
On Thu, 2006-09-28 at 12:16 -0500, TM Tiwari wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I was serching for the tutorials but I could not find it. Can you
> please help me in this regard, because I am just about to start the
> GNU Radio project?
>
> Thank you
>
>
Hi Eric,I was serching for the tutorials but I could not find it. Can you please help me in this regard, because I am just about to start the GNU Radio project?Thank youTarun
___
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org
Achilleas:
You and I essentially agree.
I personally believe that maximum likelihood sequence estimation is
suboptimal in comparison to a more completely Bayesian approaching built
upon computationally feasible implementations of the EM algorithm.
Since we can and should take a non-causal ap
Toby,
for me the term "equalization" is equivalent to
"sequence detection in ISI channels".
If by "equalization" you mean "linear" or "decision feedback"
equalization this is another story.
I am not sure how the gr-trellis stuff will be useful to you if
you do not want to do sequence detection,
> transmit power converted to dBm (1 dBm == 1 mW) minus the attenuator
> loss = output power in dBm.
>
> E.g.
> 100 mW -> 20dBm
> 20dBm - 15 db att = 5 dBm
> 5 dBm -> 3.2 mW
Actually, I think 0 dBm = 1 mW.
dB's are a royal pain in the butt. They eluded me for years because
they required a
29 matches
Mail list logo
