> involve an application layer connection control scheme. For TX, each
> packet has a number and the device NACKs a packet if it is received when
> the buffer is full. The host then retries NACKed packets at a given
> interval and gives up if not successful after N tries. This is still a
> lot l
With all the changes and bugfixes that have percolated down CVS, do we think
we might be getting close to a 2.6 release?
Along those lines, I have not as yet had a chance to work any on the website;
I have not forgotten about it, and intend to work with it.
On other notes, one of my projects wi
Hello everyone!
Under the link below you can find my first attempt of porting Tom Sailer's good
old multimon to GNURadio:
http://ignore.net/~gandalf/gr-multimon-0.1a.tgz
It should deliver POCSAG (at rates of 512, 1200 and 2400 baud), DTMF, ZVEI and
AFSK (also at different baurates) decoders to
Hello everybody,
Is there a way to stop the FFTs from going uOuOuO all over my stdout?
I haven't looked at the guts so far, but it seems a rather odd (and on my side,
rather unwanted) behaviour.
I'm currently writing a few decoders where the decoded stuff is dumped to
stdout, so the uOuO stuff
If I get bored (not likely), I would like to try isosynchronous
transfers over USB. My thinking is a dropped packet is no worse than a
burst of interference. For radio links, the higher level protocols are
already handling error detection and correction.
Philip
On Fri, 2005-06-24 at 09:32 -0500,
Lets say that we use UDP/RTP. Most non connection-oriented protocols
involve an application layer connection control scheme. For TX, each
packet has a number and the device NACKs a packet if it is received when
the buffer is full. The host then retries NACKed packets at a given
interval and give
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 02:31:41PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:52:33PM -0700, Eric Blossom wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:40:06PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:10:35PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> > >
> > > But at what expense? you
On Fri, Jun 24, 2005 at 02:31:41PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:52:33PM -0700, Eric Blossom wrote:
>
> I don't really understand why you would want flow control.
>
Think about the transmit path.
Simplest possible test case:
Software sine wave generator talking to t
l : http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/discuss-gnuradio/attachments/20050624/e7c4b06a/V4_FX_Mini_Module.pdf--___Discuss-gnuradio mailing listDiscuss-gnuradio@gnu.orghttp://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/d
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 08:52:33PM -0700, Eric Blossom wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2005 at 12:40:06PM +0200, Harald Welte wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 04:10:35PM -0700, John Gilmore wrote:
> >
> > But at what expense? you copy data back and forth between different
> > address spaces (kernel/us
Hi,
Can you try a few things -->
1. Do not interpolate the signal right now for video ... low pass
filter it with a cutoff of some 3 Mhz and then do an AM demodulation,
extract the timing information and display the monochrome video. It
will not be very sharp but will be good enough
2. Instead o
11 matches
Mail list logo
