From: Gullik W. <gul...@co...> - 2013-05-31 19:26:17
|
Hello Thomas, But, then can you explain my observation: Cal with only the flag -s GSM900 gives me 6-11 BTS, and i have started to "trust" the offsets reported. But kal -F 52e6 -s GSM900 Gives a *completely* different result, zero or one BTS detected, power extremely high I am fully satisfied with an "aliasing" discussion, but this was NOT what I expected. (actually I believe the results without the F flag better, since I KNOW there are multiple BTS in 900 band) 3 or 4 ops. So, why does not -F 52e6 -s GSM900 give a similar view? Is it because my B100 does something wrong, or is it because.....?? I actually used cal to estimate my clock offset, which seems to be about 200 hz in 900 MHz band, ( extremely good, I am lucky) with std oscillator. But I do not understand the -F 52e6 result.... Gullik On 05/31/2013 08:03 PM, Thomas Tsou wrote: > On Wed, May 29, 2013 at 5:54 AM, Gullik Webjörn > <gul...@co...> wrote: >> Running Kal (excellent simple tool) kal -s GSM900 I get 6-11 base stations. >> >> I get a message about inexact sample rate >> >> kal -F 52e6 -s GSM900 gives me nothing > Kal attempts to tune to an integer multiple of the GSM rate, which > requires USRP1 clock sampling at 52 MHz. If that rate is not > available, then the closest rate is used and there is no concern. The > final result is normalized by the actual rate anyways, so whether you > see the message or not doesn't really make a difference. > > Thomas |