Re: Python OOT module not showing up in GRC

[Roman A Sandler]

Hi,

I figured out the issue. As discussed in this previous thread,
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/discuss-gnuradio/2015-08/msg00194.html
,
I needed to make a config.cong file at ~/.gnuradio and add the following
lines to it:

```
[grc]
local_blocks_path = /usr/local/share/gnuradio/grc/blocks
```

Given how well gr_modtool automatically sets everything up, I am not sure
why this wasn't automatically done - but seems like it should be in the
future.

-Roman




On Sat, Jul 18, 2020 at 9:00 AM  wrote:

> Send Discuss-gnuradio mailing list submissions to
> discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/
> 
> listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> discuss-gnuradio-requ...@gnu.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> discuss-gnuradio-ow...@gnu.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Discuss-gnuradio digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>1. Re: Discuss-gnuradio Digest, Vol 213, Issue 17 (Anselm Karl)
>2. Python OOT module not showing up in GRC (Roman A Sandler)
>3. Re: Python OOT module not showing up in GRC (Ron Economos)
>4. GSoC 2020: New Blog Post for Week 8 (Alekh)
>5. Re: Python OOT module not showing up in GRC (Barry Duggan)
>
>
> --
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 17 Jul 2020 18:04:11 +0200
> From: Anselm Karl 
> To: discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Discuss-gnuradio Digest, Vol 213, Issue 17
> Message-ID:
> <
> cakcs5r0d+bufdh2fqasbm_z7zzyhf4_yzrpmbwxqbarqaxs...@mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
>  schrieb am Fr., 17. Juli 2020, 18:03:
>
> > Send Discuss-gnuradio mailing list submissions to
> > discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >
> 
> https://lists.gnu.org/
> 
> mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > discuss-gnuradio-requ...@gnu.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > discuss-gnuradio-ow...@gnu.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Discuss-gnuradio digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >1. Project call today (Marcus Müller)
> >2. Re: Problem with Gnuradio convolution encoder/decoder! (rear1019)
> >3. Re: Project call today (Glen Langston)
> >4. Re: Problem with Gnuradio convolution encoder/decoder!
> >   (George Edwards)
> >5. Re: Project call today (Marcus Müller)
> >6. gnuradio (+ friends) packages for conda on Linux, macOS, and
> >   Windows (Ryan Volz)
> >7. Re: gnuradio (+ friends) packages for conda on Linux, macOS,
> >   and Windows (Glen Langston)
> >8. Creating synchronized USRP source block (Marcin Wachowiak)
> >9. problem in making a project  (Yasser Attarizi)
> >   10. Re: GPIO lines on RPi4 (jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr)
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:35:59 +0200
> > From: Marcus Müller 
> > To: GNURadio Discussion List 
> > Subject: Project call today
> > Message-ID: <68eff59d-ab19-cda4-eac1-962a3c024...@kit.edu>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
> >
> > Hi bestest SDR community,
> >
> > Heads up: the July project all is happening in 30 minutes.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Marcus
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2020 18:53:38 +0200
> > From: rear1019 
> > To: discuss-gnuradio@gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: Problem with Gnuradio convolution encoder/decoder!
> > Message-ID: <20200716165338.GA1065@thewire.localdomain>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> >
> > On Thu, 16 Jul 2020 at 07:40:14 -0600, George Edwards wrote:
> > > […]
> > > I have also tried some of the other CC encoder/decoder blocks and they
> > > failed.
> > >
> > > I will appreciate any help or suggestions about the CCSDS 27 or the CC
> > > encoder/decoder in GNURadio.
> >
> > Which version of GNU Radio do you use? The convolutional decoder is
> 

Re: aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[Marcus D. Leech]

On 07/20/2020 12:06 PM, jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr wrote:

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency of my analysis: the considered 
Nyquist
zone is during sampling, and not during decimation. Setting LO to 56.95 MHz 
works
perfectly, thank you.

JM

--
JM Friedt, FEMTO-ST Time & Frequency/SENSeOR, 26 rue de l'Epitaphe,
25000 Besancon, France
Glad to hear it.  For others trying this, proper real-mode support for 
Basic_RX on X310 was introduced in UHD 3.13.1

Re: aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr]

Thank you for pointing out the inconsistency of my analysis: the considered 
Nyquist
zone is during sampling, and not during decimation. Setting LO to 56.95 MHz 
works
perfectly, thank you.

JM

--
JM Friedt, FEMTO-ST Time & Frequency/SENSeOR, 26 rue de l'Epitaphe,
25000 Besancon, France

July 20, 2020 5:43 PM, "Brian Padalino"  wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr 
> 
> wrote:
> 
>> Indeed second Nyquist zone before decimation.
>> My thought was
>> 143.05 MHz -> transpose by 100 MHz using the DDC (NCO at 100 MHz considering 
>> the
>> 200 MHz sampling rate) to reach 43.05, and after transposition, decimating 
>> to reach
>> 8 MS/s (I do have Epcos B3607 SAW filters 140+/-3 MHz frontend to select 
>> only the
>> signal I am interested in).
>> It is in the decimation process that I was thinking of being in the third
>> Nyquist zone after decimation, which is incorrect because 8 MS/s is -4 to 
>> +4, so that
>> 43.05 is in the 6th Nyquist zone after decimation (\in[36:44] MHz).
> 
> This seems weird.
> 
> Sampling 143.05MHz at 200MHz real will produce the desired signal at 56.95MHz 
> and conjugated, won't
> it? Since it's real, it'll appear at both positive and negative frequencies, 
> with the negative
> component being conjugated.
> So if you mix with 56.95MHz, it will take the conjugated negative signal of 
> the conjugated desired
> signal and mix it to 0Hz. Then you can go through the decimation filtering 
> however you want and
> everything is centered at 0Hz.
> 
> Right?
> 
> Brian

Re: aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[Marcus D. Leech]

On 07/20/2020 11:29 AM, jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr wrote:

Indeed second Nyquist zone before decimation.
My thought was
143.05 MHz -> transpose by 100 MHz using the DDC (NCO at 100 MHz considering the
200 MHz sampling rate) to reach 43.05, and after transposition, decimating to 
reach
8 MS/s (I do have Epcos B3607 SAW filters 140+/-3 MHz frontend to select only 
the
signal I am interested in).
It is in the decimation process that I was thinking of being in the third
Nyquist zone after decimation, which is incorrect because 8 MS/s is -4 to +4, 
so that
43.05 is in the 6th Nyquist zone after decimation (\in[36:44] MHz).

Thanks, JM

The signal will be coming out of the ADC at 56.5Mhz, which you should be 
able to just ask the DDC to pick off and give you your desired 8MHz

   of bandwidth--I think it's as uncomplicated as that.

The BASIC_RX implementation still accepts tuning requests, and those 
just direct the DDC to do the right thing.  This should "just work", unless

  there's breakage in the BASIC_RX implementation...

Re: aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[Marcus D. Leech]

On 07/20/2020 11:42 AM, Brian Padalino wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr 
 
> wrote:


Indeed second Nyquist zone before decimation.
My thought was
143.05 MHz -> transpose by 100 MHz using the DDC (NCO at 100 MHz
considering the
200 MHz sampling rate) to reach 43.05, and after transposition,
decimating to reach
8 MS/s (I do have Epcos B3607 SAW filters 140+/-3 MHz frontend to
select only the
signal I am interested in).
It is in the decimation process that I was thinking of being in
the third
Nyquist zone after decimation, which is incorrect because 8 MS/s
is -4 to +4, so that
43.05 is in the 6th Nyquist zone after decimation (\in[36:44] MHz).


This seems weird.

Sampling 143.05MHz at 200MHz real will produce the desired signal at 
56.95MHz and conjugated, won't it?  Since it's real, it'll appear at 
both positive and negative frequencies, with the negative component 
being conjugated.


So if you mix with 56.95MHz, it will take the conjugated negative 
signal of the conjugated desired signal and mix it to 0Hz.  Then you 
can go through the decimation filtering however you want and 
everything is centered at 0Hz.


Right?

Brian
Certainly in older support for BASIC_RX, you could sort-of treat it like 
any other daughter-card, and issue a tune request, and it would deliver

  a complex base-band centered at the desired frequency.

What I don't recall is whether this was completed for X310 or not...

Re: aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[Brian Padalino]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 11:32 AM jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr <
jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr> wrote:

> Indeed second Nyquist zone before decimation.
> My thought was
> 143.05 MHz -> transpose by 100 MHz using the DDC (NCO at 100 MHz
> considering the
> 200 MHz sampling rate) to reach 43.05, and after transposition, decimating
> to reach
> 8 MS/s (I do have Epcos B3607 SAW filters 140+/-3 MHz frontend to select
> only the
> signal I am interested in).
> It is in the decimation process that I was thinking of being in the third
> Nyquist zone after decimation, which is incorrect because 8 MS/s is -4 to
> +4, so that
> 43.05 is in the 6th Nyquist zone after decimation (\in[36:44] MHz).
>

This seems weird.

Sampling 143.05MHz at 200MHz real will produce the desired signal at
56.95MHz and conjugated, won't it?  Since it's real, it'll appear at both
positive and negative frequencies, with the negative component being
conjugated.

So if you mix with 56.95MHz, it will take the conjugated negative signal of
the conjugated desired signal and mix it to 0Hz.  Then you can go through
the decimation filtering however you want and everything is centered at 0Hz.

Right?

Brian

Re: aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr]

Indeed second Nyquist zone before decimation.
My thought was
143.05 MHz -> transpose by 100 MHz using the DDC (NCO at 100 MHz considering 
the 
200 MHz sampling rate) to reach 43.05, and after transposition, decimating to 
reach 
8 MS/s (I do have Epcos B3607 SAW filters 140+/-3 MHz frontend to select only 
the 
signal I am interested in). 
It is in the decimation process that I was thinking of being in the third 
Nyquist zone after decimation, which is incorrect because 8 MS/s is -4 to +4, 
so that
43.05 is in the 6th Nyquist zone after decimation (\in[36:44] MHz).

Thanks, JM

--
JM Friedt, FEMTO-ST Time & Frequency/SENSeOR, 26 rue de l'Epitaphe,
25000 Besancon, France

July 20, 2020 5:20 PM, "Marcus D. Leech"  wrote:

> On 07/20/2020 07:37 AM, jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr wrote:
> 
>> I'd like to analyze a higher Nyquist zone with a X310 fitted with a BasicRX:
>> trying to listen at 143.5 MHz (GRAVES), I can transpose by 100 MHz but am 
>> still
>> far from the ~8 MS/s sampling I can use on the Gb Ethernet interface. Since 
>> the
>> signal is only in the third Nyquist zone, I'd like to tell the BasicRX/DDC 
>> *not*
>> to anti-alias (CIC filter ?) the received signal. It tried playing with the
>> Bandwidth parameter of the USRP Sink but no improvement there.
>> 
>> Is there a way to alias on purpose the signal with X310+BasicRX ?
>> 
>> Thanks, JM
>> 
>> --
>> JM Friedt, FEMTO-ST Time & Frequency/SENSeOR, 26 rue de l'Epitaphe,
>> 25000 Besancon, France
> 
> The X310 has a 200MHz ADC clock by default, so 143.5MHz would be in the 2nd 
> Nyquist zone, would it
> not?

Re: aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[Marcus D. Leech]

On 07/20/2020 07:37 AM, jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr wrote:

I'd like to analyze a higher Nyquist zone with a X310 fitted with a BasicRX:
trying to listen at 143.5 MHz (GRAVES), I can transpose by 100 MHz but am still
far from the ~8 MS/s sampling I can use on the Gb Ethernet interface. Since the
signal is only in the third Nyquist zone, I'd like to tell the BasicRX/DDC *not*
to anti-alias (CIC filter ?) the received signal. It tried playing with the
Bandwidth parameter of the USRP Sink but no improvement there.

Is there a way to alias on purpose the signal with X310+BasicRX ?

Thanks, JM

--
JM Friedt, FEMTO-ST Time & Frequency/SENSeOR, 26 rue de l'Epitaphe,
25000 Besancon, France

The X310 has a 200MHz ADC clock by default, so 143.5MHz would be in the 
2nd Nyquist zone, would it not?

aliasing with X310 BasicRX (higher order Nyquist zone) ?

[jean-michel.fri...@femto-st.fr]

I'd like to analyze a higher Nyquist zone with a X310 fitted with a BasicRX:
trying to listen at 143.5 MHz (GRAVES), I can transpose by 100 MHz but am still
far from the ~8 MS/s sampling I can use on the Gb Ethernet interface. Since the
signal is only in the third Nyquist zone, I'd like to tell the BasicRX/DDC *not*
to anti-alias (CIC filter ?) the received signal. It tried playing with the
Bandwidth parameter of the USRP Sink but no improvement there.

Is there a way to alias on purpose the signal with X310+BasicRX ?

Thanks, JM

--
JM Friedt, FEMTO-ST Time & Frequency/SENSeOR, 26 rue de l'Epitaphe,
25000 Besancon, France