On Thu, Jul 01, 2010 at 11:35:13AM -0400, Marcus D. Leech wrote:
> On 07/01/2010 11:31 AM, Tom Rondeau wrote:
> >> Actually, my frequency-domain coefficient generator is based loosely on
> >> some earlier Swinburne
> >> code, and then I use the Gnu Radio FFT filter block, after turning the
> >> fr
On Thursday, July 01, 2010 11:35:13 am Marcus D. Leech wrote:
> Oh, I agree that it's in the tradition of Gnu Radio filters. It's just
> that after you've finished reading
> paper after paper about FFT filters for de-dispersion, with everything
> being expressed in the
> frequency domain, it's
On 07/01/2010 11:31 AM, Tom Rondeau wrote:
>> Actually, my frequency-domain coefficient generator is based loosely on
>> some earlier Swinburne
>> code, and then I use the Gnu Radio FFT filter block, after turning the
>> frequency-domain
>> coefficients into time-domain ones (for some bizarre rea
> Actually, my frequency-domain coefficient generator is based loosely on
> some earlier Swinburne
> code, and then I use the Gnu Radio FFT filter block, after turning the
> frequency-domain
> coefficients into time-domain ones (for some bizarre reason, the Gnu
> Radio FFT filter takes
> its coe
On 07/01/2010 07:28 AM, Bruce Stansby wrote:
> Hi Marcus
>
> I havn't quiet got my head around coherant dedispersion myself, I use in
> coherant. Basically as far as I'm aware it does all the delays in fourier
> space. It is generally far superior to the standard incoherant method but for
> sear
Hi Marcus
I havn't quiet got my head around coherant dedispersion myself, I use in
coherant. Basically as far as I'm aware it does all the delays in fourier
space. It is generally far superior to the standard incoherant method but for
searching is ineficient as it can not usually be done in rea
