efficient FFTs at our sampling frequency. (It's fast up to
factors of 11.) Does that matter? No idea!
Everything is confusing. Thanks for reading. :-)
Jamey
On Mon, Jun 8, 2015, 11:21 PM Jamey Sharp wrote:
> Nice work tracking down that 1575MHz interference, everyone! I wish I'd
Nice work tracking down that 1575MHz interference, everyone! I wish I'd
been there just to see how you figured it out, 'cause that sounds like deep
magic to me.
Another thing we could try: manually tune the gain, disabling AGC, to find
out what level of gain corresponds to the signal we're seeing.
There was a request off-list for more background on this stuff, because
we're using plenty of jargon. One of the big goals for this group is
education, so I'm eager to help people understand what's going on. But I
don't want to answer questions privately, because I'm sure more people are
confused a
Awesome! And nice job on the pretty pictures!
I think this is strong evidence that we should get access to a real
satellite simulator, soon.
Though I don't understand why it saw a -14.8kHz Doppler shift. The original
file is a zero-IF sample. Did you set the HackRF at a center frequency
different
than actual signal because dithering and parasitic
> signals.
>
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 12:16 AM Jamey Sharp wrote:
>
>> I'm happy to get a copy of the file from you next time I see you. I
>> don't know if we have a sensible place to stick 200MB test files
day hackday and Sunday lab hours.
>
> --
> Kenny
> -+---+++-++---+--+-+-++--++--+-+-++--+++-+++-++-+++---++--++
>
>
>
> On Wed, 2015-06-03 at 12:14 -0700, Jamey Sharp wrote:
>> On Jun 3, 2015 7:44 AM, "Kenny" wrote:
>> > + T
On Jun 3, 2015 7:44 AM, "Kenny" wrote:
> + The STM32 which controls the MAX2769 (GPS baseband receiver) now
> dynamically configures the MAX according to instructions received by
> debug scripts so we can test all the configurations we want without
> reprogramming the STM32 each time.
I was ske
I think tonight is our last GPS study group of the year. In fact we'll
have to decide, come January, whether we want to pick it up again or
try, say, a sensor fusion study group.
So I'm planning to walk through the cross-correlation process that
everyone's been working on one more time, and then c
I just read the notes from the last two weeks of USB latency
debugging. Very interesting results! Could somebody who was there
please document whether any of the tests were performed with a hub in
the system, and what the topology was in that case?
Sarah says:
- Re-try the experiment of putting m
We had two kinds of problems with using our USB wi-fi adapters for
telemetry at our last launch: electrical issues with USB, and regulatory
limits we didn't understand on our 802.11a channel selection. Andrew et
al seem to have solved the electrical issues, and our antenna is tuned
for a different
Thanks for this feedback! If anybody takes on implementing better
physics models, please consult with Dan for advice. :-)
On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 1:15 PM, I wrote:
> Quoting Jamey Sharp :
>> Physics modelling: I don't care what piece of rocket physics you want to
>> model as
Is anyone lurking who's interested in working on sensor models or
physics models? We've been needing your help for a while now. :-)
Please reply to me privately if you just want to express interest; but
if you have questions or suggestions please reply on-list. And if you
don't like these projects
Hello Rafael!
On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 12:29 AM, Rafael Medaglia
wrote:
> ... my dissertation is about the use of model checking in an
> implementation of the communication protocol proposed by the CCSDS.
Cool! Good luck.
> I’d like to work with model checking and Barton C Massey mentioned
> tha
Wow, I'm sorry I dropped this.
We tried the 2.4 and 2.6 kernels for PowerPC from DENX:
http://www.denx.de/en/Software/GIT
Our notes, such as they are, are here:
http://psas.pdx.edu/PowerPCKernelBuilding/
Jamey
On 11/16/07, Sarah Sharp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Can someone from
14 matches
Mail list logo
