Apologies everyone. I forgot to link the proposal below. Here is the proposal.
GSoC proposal : https://github.com/surajhanchinal/GSoC_proposal/blob/master/My%20GSoC%20Proposal.pdf Thank you. Regards, Suraj Hanchinal On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 1:23 AM, suraj hanchinal <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
