Hi Martin Thank you Martin for the suggestions. You are right about the vagueness. I was not able to properly communicate all the ideas in my head. I have actually thought about the clutter removal algorithms and have updated the proposal with the same. As you and Marcus said, the schedule was way too tight and I had not given time for code reviewing and pull requests. I have updated that as well. I have included a basic GUI which should be enough to demonstrate the capabilities of the toolbox. Also I have written about signal recovery as well as signal synchronization. I have added which devices will be supported and have used a simple WiFi based algorithm instead of the very complicated one. I will link the proposal below.
Thank you, Regards, Suraj Hanchinal On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 2:49 AM, Martin Braun <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/23/2018 11:26 AM, Müller, Marcus (CEL) wrote: > > Hi Suraj, > > > > thank you very much for sending us your proposal! This already looks > > very nice. Can I wish for you to add something like a rough block > > diagram that describes how your simulated illuminator, your signal > > recoverer, your radar estimator and your clutter reducer work > > together, and which information you plan on letting these exchange? > > That would allow us to "mentally" map what you're doing each week in > > your proposed timeline to components of the system. > > > > All in all, this is pretty ambitious, but exciting! > > > Sure is! > > There's a couple of typos in the proposal, and I always think that > distracts from the quality of content and the content itself. > > My main issue with this proposal is its vagueness. I would recommend you > expand the sections that explain the algorithms you want to implement *a > lot*. In particular, we need to know if you've understood the underlying > math, DSP, and implementation requirements. > Do you have thoughts on a clutter removal algorithm? Like Marcus says, > it will better to do a simple approach first. You could, e.g. remove all > zero-Doppler targets. > As a result of this vagueness, I believe the timeline is probably > inaccurate. > > GUIs are nice, but you should either make them stretch goals, or actual > first-class citizens. > It's always better to limit your main deliverables to make sure there's > time for cleanup and merging. What if the gr-radar maintainer has issues > with your pull requests? You're planning to add a of stuff. Were you > planning on submitting PRs continuously? If so, I recommend writing that. > > I'm also curious how you do your signal recovery. > > The overall proposal is interesting, though, no doubt about that! > > -- M > > > > > > > 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. > > > > Best regards, Marcus > > > > [A] http://jmfriedt.free.fr/URSI.pdf On Fri, 2018-03-23 at 12:54 > > +0530, suraj hanchinal wrote: > >> Hello Everyone, I am Suraj Hanchinal, a second year undergraduate > >> in Electrical Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology, > >> Kanpur. I had approached the mailing list and communicated with > >> Martin Braun, the mentor and others regarding the gr-radar toolbox > >> extension idea. I decided to work on adding passive radar support > >> to the toolbox after these discussions. I have finally completed > >> the proposal [1] and I would like feedback as well as suggestions > >> for improvement on the proposal. > >> > >> Thank you, > >> > >> Regards, Suraj Hanchinal > >> > >> Proposal [1] > >> https://github.com/surajhanchinal/GSoC_proposal/blob/master/My%20GSoc% > 20Proposal.pdf > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio > >> mailing list [email protected] > >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio > >> mailing list [email protected] > >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio > > > _______________________________________________ > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio >
_______________________________________________ Discuss-gnuradio mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
