On Mon, 09 Apr 2012 22:51:35 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:
>> > Is it common to use matched filtering to recover the original signal >> > in optics? >> >> Matched filtering is used to _recover_ a signal only by those who don't >> understand it. > > You got that exactly backwards. > >> It is used to _determine_the_presence_or_absence of a particular signal >> -- the one that matches the filter -- in a degraded channel. > > After you IMPRODUCT the FFT of the signal times the FFT of the template > in Excel, why be satisfied with just the convolution? > > Why not IMSQRT the product while in the frequency domain -- this must be > the easiest deconvolution of all time -- and then take FFT^-1 to take a > look at the cleaned up signal? > > Come on folks! I don't want to call this "obvious" or a "no brainer" > because of the _extremely_ remote chance there may be some IP here but > this _must_ have been done 70+ years ago.
I finally realized what the source of the friction is between you and the rest of us here:
You, in your inexperience and lack of training, are infinitely better than all of us combined, even though many of us do DSP for a living.
As painful as this may sound to you, there is clearly only one answer:
Get the hell off the group, and go be a @#$% genius by yourself. True, you'll be lonely. But, you won't have us dragging you down.
So -- get along.
-- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com