I only glanced at the academic paper when it went by a few weeks ago,
but IIRC, it offers improved performance for low [dominant] information
content samples. It's been 15+ years since I did the math, but I thought
the original function series did this well. The FFT optimizations,
however, don't -- rather like the way it's often faster to compute
multiple results and throw away the ones you don't need, than it is to
make constant culling decisions along the way. Thus, I looked at the
paper, said to myself, "this may be a good tool when I'm trying to save
battery power or when I know that I only need to identify a small number
strong signals, but it isn't going to change the world" and moved on :).
-kb7psg
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012, John Ragle wrote:
> Does anyone know any details about the "new" ultra-fast Katabi FFT, its
> coding, etc. as reported in the most recent New Scientist?
>
> John Ragle -- W1ZI
>
> --
> Sent from my lovely old Dell XPS 420
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> Elecraft mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:[email protected]
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>
______________________________________________________________
Elecraft mailing list
Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/elecraft
Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
Post: mailto:[email protected]
This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
