> 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
