OK !! Thank you very much for the tips. Next week I will use it in my PC of
the lab. ;)

The delay is in the data, not in the modulated signal. And I insert the
average between the previous and the next sample.

Greetings

2014-10-08 14:53 GMT+02:00 Marcus Müller <marcus.muel...@ettus.com>:

> Hi,
>
> On 08.10.2014 14:38, Carlos Alberto Ruiz Naranjo wrote:
> > Delay Block is controlled by Satellite Orbit and Satellite Orbit by
> > "simulated clock". The output of Satellite Orbit is the delay (samples).
> > Can I know the nitems_read of Delay Block from other block (Satellite
> > Orbit)?
> Yes. It's a public function, as you can see in the documentation I linked.
> >
> > Maybe a solution is to introduce Orbit Satellite in Delay block, but this
> > is really inefficient to do tests.
> Good point, but you should be able to test your "calculate transmission
> delay from an integer" functionality externally; also, there's no reason
> to have something like a class "delay_calculator", with methods you call
> from your modified delay block. You can test that very easily isolated.
> >  And a problem if I want to change the
> > Delay block for your solution (FFT).
> Well, yes, if you change approaches, the old approach will no longer
> apply. That's a design decision you'll have to make.
>
> >
> > Really the delay is in the non-modulated signal.
> I don't understand this sentence, sorry.
>
> Greetings,
> Marcus
>
> >
> >
> >
> > 2014-10-08 13:43 GMT+02:00 Jeff Long <willco...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> If you're comparing real time (system clock) to your sample stream,
> you'll
> >> get jitter, not drift, using a throttle. Throttle maintains a sample
> rate
> >> over time, but operates on blocks, and also is running under a
> non-realtime
> >> operating system.
> >>
> >> If you're talking about drift between the clock on your receiver and the
> >> real world, that's normal and you have to find ways to deal with it.
> >>
> >> - Jeff
> >>
> >> On 10/08/2014 07:33 AM, Carlos Alberto Ruiz Naranjo wrote:
> >>
> >>> Yes, it is not a real time clock. This "clock" tracks the current time
> >>> of the signal in GNURadio.clock2 and clock1 have a drift because the
> >>> number of counted samples are different.
> >>>
> >>> For example, if it pass 10230000 samples the delay block is entering
> the
> >>> delay in signal time = 1 second.
> >>> 1 second in the real world (later I replay the signal with a USRP).
> >>>
> >>> 2014-10-08 13:18 GMT+02:00 Martin Braun <martin.br...@ettus.com
> >>> <mailto:martin.br...@ettus.com>>:
> >>>
> >>>     If you don't have hardware involved, you have no 'clock'. And as
> such,
> >>>     it can't drift.
> >>>
> >>>     M
> >>>
> >>>     On 10/08/2014 12:29 PM, Carlos Alberto Ruiz Naranjo wrote:
> >>>     > Sorry, I have explained bad: S
> >>>     > I have the signal saved in a file and 10230000 samples are one
> >>> second
> >>>     > (in the real world).
> >>>     >
> >>>     > In the first graph I have two clocks (counters samples). When
> >>> passing
> >>>     > 102300 samples it increase0.01 seconds.
> >>>      > In the first watchthis time controls the position of the
> >>>     satellite and
> >>>      > hisdelay in this time. It allows to know what signal time is
> >>>     passing in
> >>>     > the delay block.
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     > But I have a problem: clock 2 (a test clock) and clock 1 haven't
> the
> >>>     > same time; it has a drift.
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     > Then, I must use clock 2 (
> >>>     > count the samples in the delay block output, not input). But it
> >>> creates
> >>>     > a loop.
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     > 2014-10-08 12:07 GMT+02:00 Marcus Müller <
> marcus.muel...@ettus.com
> >>> <mailto:marcus.muel...@ettus.com>
> >>>      > <mailto:marcus.muel...@ettus.com <mailto:
> marcus.muel...@ettus.com
> >>>>>> :
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     Hello Carlos,
> >>>     >     On 08.10.2014 09:10, Carlos Alberto Ruiz Naranjo wrote:
> >>>     >     > I generate the signal from a file (10230000 samples/s) to a
> >>> file. My
> >>>     >     > sampling clock drifts significantly :S
> >>>     >     No. Unless I misunderstood you, you have a big misconception:
> >>>     >     "sampling clock" is *not* the rate at which your samples pass
> >>> through
> >>>     >     your processing chain (ie. GNU Radio). It is the time base at
> >>> which they
> >>>     >     are measured, or simulated to, mathematically.
> >>>     >     The device/software that actually captures the samples and
> >>> saves them
> >>>     >     has a fixed clock. If that clock changes too much a)
> compensate
> >>> that in
> >>>     >     software, if possible or b) get a better device.
> >>>     >     This is digital signal processing. Real world time has *no*
> >>> meaning
> >>>     >     here, everything is measured relative to the interval between
> >>> two
> >>>     >     sampling times. You can process the signal as fast or slow as
> >>> you want
> >>>     >     to (as long as that doesn't lead to things like overflows),
> and
> >>> nothing
> >>>     >     in the processing chain should care.
> >>>     >     >
> >>>     >     > - Picture one: Counter Clock 2 is correct but Counter
> Clock 1
> >>> no.
> >>>     >     > Then I should use the second configuration, but it is not
> >>> allowed because I
> >>>     >     > have a loop, right?
> >>>     >     I don't understand your graph, sorry :(
> >>>     >
> >>>     >     Greetings,
> >>>     >     Marcus
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>     >
> >>>      > _______________________________________________
> >>>      > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> >>>      > Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org>
> >>>      > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> >>>      >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>     _______________________________________________
> >>>     Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> >>>     Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org <mailto:Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org>
> >>>     https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> >>> Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> >>>
> >>>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> >> Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> >>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
Discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

Reply via email to