Does Anyone read Mr.Harris's book "Multirate signal processing for communication systems"

On May 20, 3:24&#4294967295;pm, Capt. Convolution <C.Convolut...@aol.com> wrote:
>...
>
> That web site appears to be strickly some Asian language. &#4294967295;I tried
> examining the Amazon English version of the book but was unable to
> learn anything about "integrated side-lobe level".
>
> Capt. Convolution

Have you tried
intrgrated sidelobe level
on Google?

Try equation 1 in:
Phase Coded Waveforms for Radar
www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers.../05_0112.pdf

Try equation 2 in:
HIGH RESOLUTION WEATHER RADAR THROUGH PULSE COMPRESSION
ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/134127.pdf

Try equation 3 in:
Simulation and Analysis of Pulse Compression for Weather Radars ...
www.radar.colostate.edu/publications/chandra/00519643.pdf

If you get around to actually trying a calculation, let us know. Tell
us what you have done, why and what, if any, questions remain.

Dale B. Dalrymple

On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT), dbd <dbd@ieee.org> wrote:

>On May 20, 3:24&#4294967295;pm, Capt. Convolution <C.Convolut...@aol.com> wrote:
>>...
>>
>> That web site appears to be strickly some Asian language. &#4294967295;I tried
>> examining the Amazon English version of the book but was unable to
>> learn anything about "integrated side-lobe level".
>>
>> Capt. Convolution

Hello Mr. Dalrymple,

>Have you tried
>intrgrated sidelobe level
>on Google?

Only in the most cursory way. 

>Try equation 1 in:
>Phase Coded Waveforms for Radar
>www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers.../05_0112.pdf

That URL didn't work for me. but the following did work

http://www.mitre.org/work/tech_papers/tech_papers_05/05_0112/05_0112.pdf

Unlike the other papers, the above "05_0112.pdf" paper defines
"integrated sidelobe level" in terms of the time-domain output
waveform of a matched filter.  I don't know if that makes sense or
not.  Maybe it does.  However, in the paragraph above their equation
1, the authors say: "The matched filter is a noisy signal that
produces relatively large time sidelobes".  I can't understand what
kind of thinking would cause three authors agree to say "a filter is a
signal".  What a strange, odd, thing to say!

>Try equation 2 in:
>HIGH RESOLUTION WEATHER RADAR THROUGH PULSE COMPRESSION
>ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/134127.pdf

The above PDF file is almost identical to the paper provided by Mr.
Zhi.Shen (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/123417.pdf).
The above "134127.pdf" equation 2 is identical, in every way, to the
equation 2 in the "123417.pdf" file. (The two papers were written by
the same people and their textual descriptions of their two equation
2's are word-for-word identical.

>Try equation 3 in:
>Simulation and Analysis of Pulse Compression for Weather Radars ...
>www.radar.colostate.edu/publications/chandra/00519643.pdf

The "00519643.pdf" paper defines "integrated sidelobe level" in a
manner very similar to the "123417.pdf" paper.  However, it's not
clear to me if those similar definitions are talking about the
spectrum of a signal or the frequency response of a filter.  (None of
the papers say anything about the impulse response of a filter.)

Apparently the authors of these papers assume their readers are well
versed in radar signal processing and a very-careful definition of
"integrated sidelobe level" is not necessary in their papers.

In any case, thank you thank Mr. Dalrymple for helping me investigate
this notion of "integrated sidelobe level" in my attempts to
understand the dB values given in Fred Harris' book.

>If you get around to actually trying a calculation, let us know. Tell
>us what you have done, why and what, if any, questions remain.

I confess that I have not yet done any software modeling of
"integrated sidelobe level" when the output of a filter is decimated.
I hope to do that in the next week.  If I learn something definitive,
something predictable and sensible, I will most assuredly post my
results for you and Mr. Zhi.Shen to see.  Thanks again.

Capt. Convolution.

On May 21, 3:34&#4294967295;am, Capt. Convolution <C.Convolut...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2010 17:23:58 -0700 (PDT), dbd <d...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> ,,,
> >Have you tried
> >intrgrated sidelobe level
> >on Google?
>
> Only in the most cursory way.
>
> ...  &#4294967295;I can't understand what
> kind of thinking would cause three authors agree to say "a filter is a
> signal". &#4294967295;What a strange, odd, thing to say!

Many people will label the output of a process by the name of the
process performed.
>
> >Try equation 2 in:
> >HIGH RESOLUTION WEATHER RADAR THROUGH PULSE COMPRESSION
> >ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/134127.pdf
>
> The above PDF file is almost identical to the paper provided by Mr.
> Zhi.Shen (http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/123417.pdf).
> The above "134127.pdf" equation 2 is identical, in every way, to the
> equation 2 in the "123417.pdf" file. (The two papers were written by
> the same people and their textual descriptions of their two equation
> 2's are word-for-word identical.

You may find that preprints posted for review are more readily
available on the net than the printed versions under copyright of the
publisher.
> ...

> ...
> The "00519643.pdf" paper defines "integrated sidelobe level" in a
> manner very similar to the "123417.pdf" paper. &#4294967295;However, it's not
> clear to me if those similar definitions are talking about the
> spectrum of a signal or the frequency response of a filter.

Why would that make a difference?

> &#4294967295;(None of
> the papers say anything about the impulse response of a filter.)

Sidelobes don't occur in the impulse response of a system, but in the
Fourier transform or discrete Fourier transform of the impulse
response. Many kinds of systems have impulse responses, including
filters. And filters are taught because they can usefully represent
many systems. A radar transmitter could be considered as having a
spectrum in response to the "transmit" impulse.

> ...
> >If you get around to actually trying a calculation, let us know. Tell
> >us what you have done, why and what, if any, questions remain.
>
> I confess that I have not yet done any software modeling of
> "integrated sidelobe level" when the output of a filter is decimated.
> I hope to do that in the next week. &#4294967295;If I learn something definitive,
> something predictable and sensible, I will most assuredly post my
> results for you and Mr. Zhi.Shen to see. &#4294967295;Thanks again.
>
> Capt. Convolution.

If you had tried Google in a more than cursory way you might have
noticed that there are even a number of different definitions of
"integrated sidelobe level". The choice between them depends on the
nature of the signal you are analysing, the type of analysis you are
trying to perform and what the purpose of your use of "integrated
sidelobe level" will be. Until you can communicate that, no one can
give more than a general answer. I suggest the effort at modeling to
force you to face and make some of those choices. That could give you
more specific questions.

Dale B. Dalrymple

On Fri, 21 May 2010 08:02:17 -0700 (PDT), dbd <dbd@ieee.org> wrote:


>
>If you had tried Google in a more than cursory way you might have
>noticed that there are even a number of different definitions of
>"integrated sidelobe level". The choice between them depends on the
>nature of the signal you are analysing, the type of analysis you are
>trying to perform and what the purpose of your use of "integrated
>sidelobe level" will be. Until you can communicate that, no one can
>give more than a general answer. I suggest the effort at modeling to
>force you to face and make some of those choices. That could give you
>more specific questions.
>
>Dale B. Dalrymple

Hi,
  Yes I understand.

Thank you again,
Capt. Convolution