A Software Defined Radio (SDR) Approach to Radar

[@stevesibert3947]

Nice Don! Glad to see you're still working with RF!

[@karlmadsen3179]

Came for the home-made radar. Stayed for Girl from Ipanema theme music.

[@n8lbv]

This man speaks truth. Also elect him. Question: how much usable range in free space can you get with something like this and that reflector? Also how much usable range with larger reflectors? Cars, water towers planes etc. Just for fun.

[@n8lbv]

I think I just answered that for myself, the eval boards put out maybe ~5dBm @2.6GHz on their own.

[@edward6179]

Next step - replace ADRV9361 with a half-dozen MPF-102s

[@steemglobal8011]

This is bad ass. Awesome project guys!

[@qrpbear]

Back in the late 80's/early 90's I used to service the X-band traffic radar guns used by the Honolulu Police Department. They were essentially the same SDR approach as described in this video. The Gunn diode transmitter simultaneously acted as the local oscillator for the receiver and supporting circuitry simply processed the audio difference frequency translating it to the equivalent speed of the moving target. With a 'tapoff' to provide an external audio output, the radar gun could also be used to detect the sounds of voices when aimed at buildings with reflective window covering.

[@malikunza9762]

great job brother! i want to know about modifications regarding ground surveillance radar. i am using adalm pluto.

[@mrdovie47]

I made a crude dish reflector for a doppler microwave lamp circuit and was able to boost the range to where it saw me moving. I think it samples the return signal and hears an audio beat when the target moves near or farther away. Very cheap radar.

[@mansordimer]

Great video. Is the matching filter implemented on the FPGA or on the software??

[@qiqsystems]

The matching filter is a correlation done with the transmit waveform, implemented in software.

[@waelaziz8277]

Great job! I am just wondering about the necessary modifications that I should make to use this project as GPR?

[@qiqsystems]

Ground Penetrating Radar would need to have different antennas, in order to work at a lower frequency. These antennas are for WiFi (2.4 GHz), which may not penetrate very far into the ground. However, I have not tried to use WiFi frequencies for GPR, so it might work better than I expect.

[@j.lucena5486]

Very good sound. Tom Jobim

[@fryderyksokol]

this is very interesting have to try on my system, than you for inspiration

[@anonhollmuller4032]

thank ;)

[@ReevansElectro]

I had no idea that you had encoded music in your signal 6:30 7:50 I love the music though!

[@qiqsystems]

Had to drop the music over a copyright claim. Just wanted some elevator music to enjoy while the demo proceeded. Oh well...

[@kurtbilinski1723]

Coincidentally, the owner of the house in the background is asking his wife, "does it seem warm in the house?"

[@marinenav8]

There are Blog ?

[@WahlVids]

Could you hypothetically use it to receive but with an omnidirectional receiver to filter and attenuate incoming signals?

[@qiqsystems]

An omni antenna does not provide gain, so the incoming signal would be closer to the noise floor. Also, it is not possible to say where the signal is coming from, since it is omni-directional. Other than saying that something is nearby, omni antennas would have limited value.

[@__CS]

Sounds like they’re talking about a Retro Encabator

[@eminrahimov4411]

Can this system detect movement or presence of human through brick wall?

[@qiqsystems]

I doubt it.

[@n8lbv]

Certainly- if they wear the appropriate aluminum clothing.

[@n8lbv]

@@qiqsystems Have no doubts. Also sell some reflective clothing.

[@n8lbv]

-ER I mean rent it. just took a look at your pricing model.

[@LilladyTK]

Ever heard of us privacy laws

[@onmyworkbench7000]

It's cool but the components are too expensive

[@xy4489]

Why not maximize the window?

[@qiqsystems]

If you prefer, maximize the window. I sometimes want access to other icons on my desktop, so I leave some of the desktop uncovered. If that isn't an issue for you, then maximizing is a good choice.

[@georgen9755]

apogee altitude 294,448 ft , wind speed of 160 knots,

[@skeets6060]

I admit I know nothing about SDR, so what is this for ?

[@qiqsystems]

Mostly for fun. But also to illustrate how radar works.

[@xy4489]

It's an ad for the company.

[@royshashibrock3990]

I'm an old timer, but I can't understand the modern fascination with "software defined" (enter application here). Any digital system is by definition software defined, even if the "program" is hard wired by an arrangement of discrete chips, because someone had to "write" the algorithm or code (software) that makes it perform its intended purpose. Radar is nothing more than sending a short RF signal burst and measuring the return time, length of return time differences (if the radar antenna is not fixed), and phase of that signal when reflected from a distant object. Doing this can allow you to deduce approximate size, distance, and if done repeatedly, speed of an object. Modulation of the wave burst is not strictly necessary. Truly accurate radar had to wait for digital time keeping techniques, and it was implemented as soon as it was available. RF carrier signals transmitted over the air MUST BE sine waves; if not, you interfere with other users of the radio spectrum. If you want to digitally generate the base frequency, we are talking frequency synthesis (this includes RF mixing for heterodyning). Want to modulate the signal using digital techniques? Go ahead...but don't claim it is a new process. All forms of modulation are almost as old as radio itself - AM, FM, PM, packet, TDM, FSK (two tone or more), and many others. Most are done digitally at this point. Digital frequency selection has been standard on radios for many years. With "software defined" radio, you are not "defining" anything. You are merely replacing what analogue sections you can with digital processes, and making it where the end user can change key parameters of the controlling algorithm...things that have been done already. This seems much like how manufacturers advertise "digital" antennae for TV reception - a new name to stimulate interest and buying frenzies, but in reality the same thing you already have. Someone here tell me where I am wrong...what am I not seeing?

[@xy4489]

Can you listen to a set of satellites broadcasting signals modulated using PRN sequences / Gold codes using a non-SDR radio? You can with a dongle that feeds raw IQ data to SW, GNU radio, and some C++ code for a correlator. Special-purpose hardware would be orders of magnitude more efficient, but that is practical only when the application is finalized, until then, the value from SDR is enormous.

[@royshashibrock3990]

@@xy4489 The answer is yes. We are still talking about modulation, and sending coded (or scrambled, or digitally interleaved) data over multiple RF carriers was around in the '70s. Multichannel receivers to aggregate information from several different sources have also been around at least as long. Data acquired via the internet has nothing to do with radio per se (although listening to music stations over an internet supplied digital stream is now sometimes called "radio.") My point is that the meaning of the word radio has always been the process of transmitting information using a radio frequency carrier signal; with the system you described, the "radio" part is still the same, even with the complex modulation scheme. As I said above, it seems to me that it is just a change in jargon to reignite the interest of the masses. Perhaps it would be better to call such a system "software defined multiple source carrier modulation."

[@JohnnyChonko]

​@@royshashibrock3990you are trying way too hard to complicate this. SDR is easy to define, no pun intended, you just seem to have a problem with its existence.

[@royshashibrock3990]

@@JohnnyChonko I am not trying to complicate it at all - I am trying to understand it (at least why it is called what it is). That's why I laid out my understanding of radio communication so someone can tell me why I am wrong. To me, the title should be "computer controlled" or "software controlled." And I have no problem with its existence. I have long ago moved on from radio to other areas of electronics.

[@karlmadsen3179]

I am going to build this and mount it on my DeLorean.

[@maheshkumar_2017]

hey can we communicate?

[@qiqsystems]

Send an email to [e-mail]

[@starbase51shiptestingfacil97]

Should refrain from using abbreviation in the title. Software Defined Radio (SDR).

[@qiqsystems]

Changed it. Good suggestion.

[@georgen9755]

2.4 giga hetz ,

[@julhoponde1656]

I Love Brazil