From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on

I was trying to design a bandlimited pseudorandom signal with constant
envelope for radar/sonar and like applications. I.e. frequency
modulation with smoothed transitions. The problem is closely related to
CPM for data transmission, however the optimization criteria are not
quite the same. In particular, it turns out that optimal value for
normalized deviation is higher then 0.5, optimal h ~0.6..0.7.
Another observation: the binary CPM signal with BT ~ 0.3 and h ~ 0.8
makes for the best possible (?) rectangular spectrum shape, however its
autocorrelation properties are worse then optimal.

Could you suggest a good reading on this matter?

Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com
From: John on
On Apr 25, 8:28 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> I was trying to design a bandlimited pseudorandom signal with constant
> envelope for radar/sonar and like applications. I.e. frequency
> modulation with smoothed transitions. The problem is closely related to
> CPM for data transmission, however the optimization criteria are not
> quite the same. In particular, it turns out that optimal value for
> normalized deviation is higher then 0.5, optimal h ~0.6..0.7.
> Another observation: the binary CPM signal with BT ~ 0.3 and  h ~ 0.8
> makes for the best possible (?) rectangular spectrum shape, however its
> autocorrelation properties are worse then optimal.
>
> Could you suggest a good reading on this matter?
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

http://books.google.com/books?id=RwMpVSOXdJQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=digital+phase+modulation&source=bl&ots=7qKVpiwre8&sig=kqxvTHpdWkgcWYxNryZSxyaSk8c&hl=en&ei=k-PUS6uMEYT48AbgssSqDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false

John
From: John on
On Apr 25, 8:28 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
> I was trying to design a bandlimited pseudorandom signal with constant
> envelope for radar/sonar and like applications. I.e. frequency
> modulation with smoothed transitions. The problem is closely related to
> CPM for data transmission, however the optimization criteria are not
> quite the same. In particular, it turns out that optimal value for
> normalized deviation is higher then 0.5, optimal h ~0.6..0.7.
> Another observation: the binary CPM signal with BT ~ 0.3 and  h ~ 0.8
> makes for the best possible (?) rectangular spectrum shape, however its
> autocorrelation properties are worse then optimal.
>
> Could you suggest a good reading on this matter?
>
> Vladimir Vassilevsky
> DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultanthttp://www.abvolt.com

BTW, I came to the conclusion on a prior project that CPM cannot have
impulse-like autocorrelation. For my project I switched to SQPSK with
a PN sequence (different on I and Q) and accepted suboptimal peak/avg
ratio in exchange for ideal autocorrelation.

John

John
From: Steve Pope on
Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote:

>I was trying to design a bandlimited pseudorandom signal with constant
>envelope for radar/sonar and like applications. I.e. frequency
>modulation with smoothed transitions. The problem is closely related to
>CPM for data transmission, however the optimization criteria are not
>quite the same. In particular, it turns out that optimal value for
>normalized deviation is higher then 0.5, optimal h ~0.6..0.7.
>Another observation: the binary CPM signal with BT ~ 0.3 and h ~ 0.8
>makes for the best possible (?) rectangular spectrum shape, however its
>autocorrelation properties are worse then optimal.
>
>Could you suggest a good reading on this matter?

I have no idea as to literature, but I likewise have had
trouble sometimes receiving an h = 0.5 signal as well as
I would like or would have expected, and had to push to
a higher value of h.

I assume it's simply because I don't know the best algorithms
for what I'm trying to do.


Steve
From: Vladimir Vassilevsky on


John wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:28 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>I was trying to design a bandlimited pseudorandom signal with constant
>>envelope for radar/sonar and like applications. I.e. frequency
>>modulation with smoothed transitions. The problem is closely related to
>>CPM for data transmission, however the optimization criteria are not
>>quite the same. In particular, it turns out that optimal value for
>>normalized deviation is higher then 0.5, optimal h ~0.6..0.7.
>>Another observation: the binary CPM signal with BT ~ 0.3 and h ~ 0.8
>>makes for the best possible (?) rectangular spectrum shape, however its
>>autocorrelation properties are worse then optimal.

> BTW, I came to the conclusion on a prior project that CPM cannot have
> impulse-like autocorrelation.

Can you clarify?
I am getting the main autocorrelation lobe just like it supposed to be
according to the bandwidth, however there is a second lobe at ~ -7dB, a
third at -20..-30 dB and so on till it gets to the autocorrelation floor.

> For my project I switched to SQPSK with
> a PN sequence (different on I and Q) and accepted suboptimal peak/avg
> ratio in exchange for ideal autocorrelation.

I thought about it. With or without offset, filtered QPSK has near
gaussian amplitude distribution. It is not very obvious if better
autocorrelation will compensate for PAPR.


Vladimir Vassilevsky
DSP and Mixed Signal Design Consultant
http://www.abvolt.com




>
> John
>
> John
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: RLB Weighting
Next: Kalman Assumption