[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] OFDM Updates
From: |
CHIN-YA HUANG |
Subject: |
Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] OFDM Updates |
Date: |
Tue, 01 Apr 2008 01:18:40 +0800 |
Thanks Bob.
However, what I concern is Tom mentioned that the released code has some error
in the receiver, doesn't it? We did experiment, and really see some problems in
receiver. That's why I sent e-mail to see if I can get more information about
the problem since I have no idea how to modify it.
Chin-Ya
----- Original Message -----
From: Bob McGwier <address@hidden>
Date: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:54 pm
Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] OFDM Updates
To: CHIN-YA HUANG <address@hidden>
Cc: address@hidden
> I wonder if you are told several more times that it is already
> released
> in an svn branch if you will finally look to see how to get it?
>
> http://gnuradio.org/trac/browser/gnuradio/branches/developers/trondeau/ofdm
>
> That took me less than 2 minutes to find. It will take you less than
>
> two minutes to figure out how to do an svn download on that source.
>
> What doesn't work is up to you to fix. That is the nature of GPL
> projects such as this one.
>
> Have fun.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> CHIN-YA HUANG wrote:
> > Hi Tom,
> >
> > Would you mind release your modified code for me as reference
> first? Thanks
> >
> > Chin-Ya
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Tom Rondeau <address@hidden>
> > Date: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:50 am
> > Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] OFDM Updates
> > To: CHIN-YA HUANG <address@hidden>
> > Cc: address@hidden
> >
> >
> >> CHIN-YA HUANG wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hello Tom,
> >>>
> >>> Based on your information below I know the problem will be
> receiver.
> >>>
> >> However, if I want to solve the receiver's problem. Where is the
> >> starting point you suggestion? From the gnu-radio core part?
> >>
> >>> Chin-Ya
> >>>
> >>>
> >> This problem will be fixed once I get time to merge my current
> branch,
> >>
> >> which will be in a few days, hopefully.
> >>
> >> Tom
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> From: Tom Rondeau
> >>> Subject: [Discuss-gnuradio] OFDM Updates
> >>> Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2008 14:09:58 +0000
> >>> User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
> >>> For anyone working with the OFDM code, my latest check-in to the
>
> >>>
> >> trunk fixes some of the main issues of transmitting over the air.
>
> >> Using benchmark_ofdm_rx and benchmark_ofdm_tx on different
> machines, I
> >> am now able to successfully capture most packets with any
> modulation
> >> at the appropriate signal level.
> >>
> >>> I say most packets because there is still an issue involved in
> the
> >>>
> >> receiver where the regenerator signal pops up before the peak
> detector
> >> signal resets it and causes a problem in the packet sampler. To
> see
> >> what I mean, run
> >>
> >>> "benchmark_ofdm.py --log"
> >>>
> >>> And look at the output of the regen and peak detector blocks:
> >>> gr_plot_char.py ofdm_sync_pn-regen_b.dat ofdm_sync_pn-peaks_b.dat
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> This will plot a series of 0's with a few 1's, where the peaks
> >>>
> >> occur. The peak detector sends it out once, and then the
> regenerator
> >> takes over. For every packet, there is one output of the peak
> >> detector. If you look, sometimes the peak detector will hit just
> after
> >> a regenerated signal. By this point, it's too late and the
> >> ofdm_sampler has already triggered off of the regen signal and
> ignores
> >> the peak.
> >>
> >>> It's a bit of a hassle, but I'll look into it soon. Any help is
> >>>
> >> appreciated, though :)
> >>
> >>> Tom
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> > address@hidden
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> AMSAT Director and VP Engineering. Member: ARRL, AMSAT-DL,
> TAPR, Packrats, NJQRP, QRP ARCI, QCWA, FRC. ARRL SDR WG Chair
> "Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
> Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are, by
> definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
>
>