A Few FFTs Short of MPC

What has been and is being called "matched filtering" might better be
called "a few steps short of complete match filtering" [which has the
often desirable effect of _adding_ in some low pass filtering].

Noise is often at higher frequencies so no one is going to complain
too much about this fortuitous get-more-by-doing-less situation.
North didn't have time to be mathematically politically correct during
a war, certainly not before machines costing less than a few days pay
could calculate a dozen 1024 FFTs in seconds.

Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
jerry rigs.  Since there isn't any major war going on recovering the
original signal can now be considered, if only as a matter of form.
This is easy to do in the frequency domain.  Just take the square root
of the product of signal X template.  Excel makes this operation on
complex numbers easy with IMSQRT.

Now you can see the results of the frequency & phase angle matching
without the seemingly inherent low pass filtering effects obscuring
the match.

Engineers like to get lucky with Fortuna but they also like dedicated
operations.  Do the _complete_ matched filter.  After the original
signal is recovered _then_ you add in whatever additional filtering
you think is necessary.

Even for signal detection recovering the original signal will often be
a better route.  What would be easier to detect?  A triangle or a
square wave?


Bret Cahill


"The mind invents things more easily than words.  That's why so many
bad terms come into existence."

-- Tocqueville

On Apr 15, 11:20&#4294967295;am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> What has been and is being called "matched filtering" might better be
> called "a few steps short of complete match filtering" [which has the
> often desirable effect of _adding_ in some low pass filtering].
>
> Noise is often at higher frequencies so no one is going to complain
> too much about this fortuitous get-more-by-doing-less situation.
> North didn't have time to be mathematically politically correct during
> a war, certainly not before machines costing less than a few days pay
> could calculate a dozen 1024 FFTs in seconds.
>
> Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
> jerry rigs. &#4294967295;Since there isn't any major war going on recovering the
> original signal can now be considered, if only as a matter of form.
> This is easy to do in the frequency domain. &#4294967295;Just take the square root
> of the product of signal X template. &#4294967295;Excel makes this operation on
> complex numbers easy with IMSQRT.
>
> Now you can see the results of the frequency & phase angle matching
> without the seemingly inherent low pass filtering effects obscuring
> the match.
>
> Engineers like to get lucky with Fortuna but they also like dedicated
> operations. &#4294967295;Do the _complete_ matched filter. &#4294967295;After the original
> signal is recovered _then_ you add in whatever additional filtering
> you think is necessary.
>
> Even for signal detection recovering the original signal will often be
> a better route. &#4294967295;What would be easier to detect? &#4294967295;A triangle or a
> square wave?
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "The mind invents things more easily than words. &#4294967295;That's why so many
> bad terms come into existence."
>
> -- Tocqueville

I think the term is jury rigged, not jerry rigged

What has been and is being called "matched filtering" might better be
called "a few steps short of complete match filtering" [which has the
often desirable effect of _adding_ in some low pass filtering].

Noise is often at higher frequencies so no one is going to complain
too much about this fortuitous get-more-by-doing-less situation.
North didn't have time to be mathematically politically correct
during
a war, certainly not before machines costing less than a few days pay
could calculate a dozen 1024 FFTs in seconds.


Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
jerry rigs.  Since there isn't any major war going on recovering the
original signal can now be considered, if only as a matter of form.
This is easy to do in the frequency domain.  Just take the square
root
of the product of signal X template.  Excel makes this operation on
complex numbers easy with IMSQRT.


Now you can see the results of the frequency & phase angle matching
without the seemingly inherent low pass filtering effects obscuring
the match.


Engineers like to get lucky with Fortuna but they also like dedicated
operations.  Do the _complete_ matched filter.  After the original
signal is recovered _then_ you add in whatever additional filtering
you think is necessary.


Even for signal detection recovering the original signal will often
be
a better route.  What would be easier to detect?  A triangle or a
square wave?


Bret Cahill


"The mind invents things more easily than words.  That's why so many
bad terms come into existence."


-- Tocqueville

On Apr 15, 12:39&#4294967295;pm, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@peoplepc.com> wrote:
> What has been and is being called "matched filtering" might better be
> called "a few steps short of complete match filtering" [which has the
> often desirable effect of _adding_ in some low pass filtering].
>
> Noise is often at higher frequencies so no one is going to complain
> too much about this fortuitous get-more-by-doing-less situation.
> North didn't have time to be mathematically politically correct
> during
> a war, certainly not before machines costing less than a few days pay
> could calculate a dozen 1024 FFTs in seconds.
>
> Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
> jerry rigs. &#4294967295;Since there isn't any major war going on recovering the
> original signal can now be considered, if only as a matter of form.
> This is easy to do in the frequency domain. &#4294967295;Just take the square
> root
> of the product of signal X template. &#4294967295;Excel makes this operation on
> complex numbers easy with IMSQRT.
>
> Now you can see the results of the frequency & phase angle matching
> without the seemingly inherent low pass filtering effects obscuring
> the match.
>
> Engineers like to get lucky with Fortuna but they also like dedicated
> operations. &#4294967295;Do the _complete_ matched filter. &#4294967295;After the original
> signal is recovered _then_ you add in whatever additional filtering
> you think is necessary.
>
> Even for signal detection recovering the original signal will often
> be
> a better route. &#4294967295;What would be easier to detect? &#4294967295;A triangle or a
> square wave?
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "The mind invents things more easily than words. &#4294967295;That's why so many
> bad terms come into existence."
>
> -- Tocqueville

I believe you shoyuld address the jury rigged comment.....

What has been and is being called "matched filtering" might better be
called "a few steps short of complete match filtering" [which has the
often desirable effect of _adding_ in some low pass filtering].

Noise is often at higher frequencies so no one is going to complain
too much about this fortuitous get-more-by-doing-less situation.

Moreover North didn't have time to be mathematically politically
correct during a war, certainly not before machines costing less than
a few days pay could calculate a dozen 1024 FFTs in seconds.

Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
jerry rigs.  Since there isn't any major war going on recovering the
original signal can now be considered, if only as a matter of form.
This is easy to do in the frequency domain.  Just take the square root
of the product of signal X template.  Excel makes this operation on
complex numbers easy with IMSQRT.

Now you can see the results of the frequency & phase angle matching
without the seemingly inherent low pass filtering effects obscuring
the match.

Engineers like to get lucky with Fortuna but they also like dedicated
operations.  Do the _complete_ matched filter.  After the original
signal is recovered _then_ you add in whatever additional filtering
you think is necessary.

Even for signal detection recovering the original signal will often be
a better route.  What would be easier to detect?  A triangle or a
square wave?


Bret Cahill


"The mind invents things more easily than words.  That's how so many
bad terms come into existence."


-- Tocqueville

On Apr 15, 5:12&#4294967295;pm, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> What has been and is being called "matched filtering" might better be
> called "a few steps short of complete match filtering" [which has the
> often desirable effect of _adding_ in some low pass filtering].
>
> Noise is often at higher frequencies so no one is going to complain
> too much about this fortuitous get-more-by-doing-less situation.
>
> Moreover North didn't have time to be mathematically politically
> correct during a war, certainly not before machines costing less than
> a few days pay could calculate a dozen 1024 FFTs in seconds.
>
> Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
> jerry rigs. &#4294967295;Since there isn't any major war going on recovering the
> original signal can now be considered, if only as a matter of form.
> This is easy to do in the frequency domain. &#4294967295;Just take the square root
> of the product of signal X template. &#4294967295;Excel makes this operation on
> complex numbers easy with IMSQRT.
>
> Now you can see the results of the frequency & phase angle matching
> without the seemingly inherent low pass filtering effects obscuring
> the match.
>
> Engineers like to get lucky with Fortuna but they also like dedicated
> operations. &#4294967295;Do the _complete_ matched filter. &#4294967295;After the original
> signal is recovered _then_ you add in whatever additional filtering
> you think is necessary.
>
> Even for signal detection recovering the original signal will often be
> a better route. &#4294967295;What would be easier to detect? &#4294967295;A triangle or a
> square wave?
>
> Bret Cahill
>
> "The mind invents things more easily than words. &#4294967295;That's how so many
> bad terms come into existence."
>
> -- Tocqueville

Jury or jerry?

Bret Cahill wrote:

<snip>

Actually I've been thinking a Vlad vs Bret cage match might be
entertaining. 

On Apr 15, 6:56&#4294967295;pm, stan <smo...@exis.net> wrote:
> Bret Cahill wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> Actually I've been thinking a Vlad vs Bret cage match might be
> entertaining.

You are tossing marshmallows.....

On 4/15/2012 11:20 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:

   ...

> Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
> jerry rigs.

I resent that. The word is "jury rig".

   ...

Jerry
-- 
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
�����������������������������������������������������������������������

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 23:25:37 -0400, Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 4/15/2012 11:20 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
>
>   ...
>
>> Mathematicians, however, aren't satisfied with "well it woOOorks"
>> jerry rigs.
>
>I resent that. The word is "jury rig".
>   ...
>
>Jerry

Dangit.   After the story about doing the field weld with an in-place
car battery and multiple pairs of sunglasses I was pretty certain it
was named after you.   ;)


Eric Jacobsen
Anchor Hill Communications
www.anchorhill.com