Maker Pro
Maker Pro

DIY Radar.. tip?

S

Scott Stephens

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
...
Take two pieces of copper pipe, one that fits inside the other with some
gap, like a coax cable, but with a thick center conductor. Minimize the
gap, since it's going to be a capacitor. Mount it vertically in the tank,
and just monitor the capacitance. You'll have to calibrate it, of course.
(your stuff has a different dielectric constant than air, probably.)

Good Luck!
Rich

If you pulse or chirp radar down the 'leaky' waveguide it works real
good too!

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

**********************************
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
If you pulse or chirp radar down the 'leaky' waveguide it works real
good too!
Actually, the two concentric pipes are just a capacitor. You run it at
normal RLC meter frequencies - in fact, you could use an RLC meter,
as long as it can resolve fractional pf - I don't know how many it
would be, but the formulas are out there. When I was in the USAF,
on the way to/from the flight line I'd hear guys from the engine
shop talking about the fuel quantity indicator and picofarads in
the same breath. And I saw a thing that looked very much like a
tube, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a float. ;-)

Hey, how about a float, and "full" and "empty" switches?
Or "Full", "Buy Oil Now" and "Freeze Tonight" switches? ;-)

Cheers!
Rich
 
S

Scott Stephens

Jan 1, 1970
0
Rich said:
Actually, the two concentric pipes are just a capacitor. You run it at
normal RLC meter frequencies - in fact, you could use an RLC meter,
as long as it can resolve fractional pf - I don't know how many it
would be, but the formulas are out there. When I was in the USAF,
on the way to/from the flight line I'd hear guys from the engine
shop talking about the fuel quantity indicator and picofarads in
the same breath. And I saw a thing that looked very much like a
tube, and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a float. ;-)

Hey, how about a float, and "full" and "empty" switches?
Or "Full", "Buy Oil Now" and "Freeze Tonight" switches? ;-)

I would suspect for a linear length of line, a linear capacitance would
be measured. Might well be simpler to measure capacitance with clean
fuel, rather than needing a radar that is insensitive to inhomogeneous
slurries like sewage.

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

**********************************
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 05:31:28 -0700, Andrey wrote:
[fixed top-post]
http://www.speff.com

To do FMCV out of it, Varactor should be povered up with rump voltage - this
is simple.

Then you need mixer which makes "F transmitted minus F reflected". The
difference frequency is function of distance. You will also need some kind
of blanking circuit for detector to cut away moments when rump swings back

The faster you can re-tune the gunn, the shorter distance you can measure

Andrey


I think what you are talking about is an FM homodyne radar.

There is an equation for FM homodyne radar resolution. It is R=C/(2*BW).
This can be found in any radar text book.

R is resolution, C is the speed of light in the medium, and BW is the
bandwidth of the transmit chirp.

So if C is 300 Mega meters per second, then 50 Megacycles of chirp
bandwidth will give you 3 Meter resolution. Not too good for a tank level
indicator.

I don't think fast retuning of the Gunn matters at all. You can chirp
quite slowly without affecting range resolution at all. And a slow chirp
will give a lower IF which will be easier to deal with. The idea is that
you transmit and receive at the same time. You have to do this anyway,
because otherwise you won't have anything to mix against (they call it
homodyne because the transmit pulse is mixed against the receive pulse).

One (of the many) problem you haven't addressed is that there could be a
fairly strong return from the bottom of the tank, depending on how
strongly the fluid attenuates the RF signal. This may be a stronger signal
than the surface level, and thus will dominate "F reflected."

To avoid this problem, you can do an FFT on the IF, and you will then have
a data set representing return strength vs range. In fact, this can be
thought of as a 1-d image.

One of the other problems might be that the RF will bounce around inside
the tank many times, leading to a whole host of phantom returns in the 1-d
image. Sorting this all out could be difficult. The easiest way to fix the
problem would be to put RF absorber material inside the top dome of the
tank. Then the reflections bouncing off of the fluid surface will be
absorbed at the top of the tank and will not bounce back down toward the
fluid surface.

--Mac
 
R

Rich Grise

Jan 1, 1970
0
I would suspect for a linear length of line, a linear capacitance would
be measured. Might well be simpler to measure capacitance with clean
fuel, rather than needing a radar that is insensitive to inhomogeneous
slurries like sewage.
I'd think that if there's liquid water that can be filtered out, you
could just keep the big chunks out of your sensor capacitor with some
kind of screen or something. When the level goes up, and then down,
it could affect the reading from the coating of crud, but maybe only
once.

Thanks!
Rich
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
Any ideas what these costs roughly?
Or what an app with the chip mentioned later in this thread would end
up? :)

The tank is approx 1.5 diameter circular. And maybe some meters length.
But the important is the 1.5 length as the rest is simple trigonometry.
The outdoor temperatures here are usually -10 to 30 celsius. And -25 to
40 on the extreme. "medium" humidity. The tank is approx .5 meters
underground. So that stabelizes conditions further. I wonder wheather
penetration of glassfibre will succed with precision not affected to
much. Centimeter precision is enough.

There is an equation for radar resolution. It is BW=C/(2*R). This can be
found in any radar text book.

R is resolution, C is the speed of light in the medium, and BW is the
bandwidth of the transmit chirp.

So if C is 300 Mega meters per second, then to get 0.01 M resolution, you
need 15 GHz of bandwidth.
As for EM interference, I don't think that's an issue because it will
likely need way less power than a 802.11b wlan device and be underground
in soil that is full with water.

If you are going to just make it and install it you'll probably be OK, but
you won't easily get FCC approval easily for something that intentionally
transmits 15 GHz of bandwidth.

I've thought a simple way to do it would be to cause some slight RFI
noise by a high dI/dt generation through a squarewave pulse possible
reduced through a capacitor or coil. And then have a capacitor wich is
charged between the positive flank of transmission. And the change of
input. The charge should be in relation to the timedelay (distance). And
measured through voltage over it with a ADC.

Well, the basic idea of using a very sharp pulse is probably sound as that
is likely the only way you will get 15 GHz of bandwidth in a DIY project.
But I'm not sure if you appreciate just how sharp a 15 GHz BW pulse will
be. Detection might be non-trivial.

Anyway, I don't know much about generating pulses, but I think one way to
do it is to ramp collector (or drain) voltage on a transistor until it
avalanches. Some transistors are rated for repeat avalanche operation.

Doubtless some of the folks here will know good ways to generate very
sharp pulses. ;-)

[snip]

--McKenzie
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
They can be tuned a lot farther than +/- 50 MHz if you can swing the
varactor across its full 0-20V (or so) range.

I've often wondered about the kind of resolution you could get from a
chirp radar made with those puppies.

As stated elsewhere, there is an equation:

R = C/(2 * BW)

where R is resolution, C is the speed of light, and BW is the bandwidth,
in Hz. So 50 MHz of BW corresponds to 3 M resolution. If you can get more
than 50 MHz, you can get proportionally better resolution.
I still have a couple of 100 mW
parts around here, so maybe one of these days....

Keep us advised!


--Mac
 
There is an equation for radar resolution. It is BW=C/(2*R). This can be
found in any radar text book.
R is resolution, C is the speed of light in the medium, and BW is the
bandwidth of the transmit chirp.
So if C is 300 Mega meters per second, then to get 0.01 M resolution, you
need 15 GHz of bandwidth.

R=C/(2*BW) so:

c=2.997*10**8
bw=14.9*10**9
c/(2*bw) = .01 (m/Hz*s ?)

If the required precision is 0.01 meters and the method is based on
reflection. A wave should preferebly be completed with a wavelength of 0.02 m.
Given f=(c/lambda) and T=1/f, 1/(c/lambda) should give the cycle time. Which
in this case would be:
(1/(c/.02))*10**12 = 66.733 ps

To generate this a di/dT where T=16.683ps should be enough?

Infact because what is measured is the the wavefront (I hope :) it should be
possible to let the T of di/dT be 66.733. However I guess experimentation
will have show what actually works out.
If you are going to just make it and install it you'll probably be OK, but
you won't easily get FCC approval easily for something that intentionally
transmits 15 GHz of bandwidth.

If they can't measure it, it's not likely they will bother. Soil tend to be
a good conductor (compare to how deep ground radar goes).
Besides doing the measure every hour should be enough.
Well, the basic idea of using a very sharp pulse is probably sound as that
is likely the only way you will get 15 GHz of bandwidth in a DIY project.
But I'm not sure if you appreciate just how sharp a 15 GHz BW pulse will
be. Detection might be non-trivial.

As for detection if echoes won't screw the thing up, and it should be ok
because hopefully the shortest path between tx and rx is straight reflection.
Impulses from other rf sources should be ok, considering the timespan is
short (kind of avoiding bullets in the matrix due speedy action :).

In the actual detection I though of letting a mosfet conduct immediatly
when the di/dt rise is done. Causing a capacitor to be "slowly" charged. And
when the wavefront hits the rx antenna another mosfet breaks the charge
through discharge of the capacitor of the input to the first one.
The capacitor charged between the tx and rx event should then correspond to
the time.

(Should I choose something else than mosfet?)

Another approach would be to setup some logic chips where the logic levels
is in a race condition based on input. And the resulting spike is integrated
through the means of a capacitor. A catch is if the gates will manage this
because they have a latency time of 3-4 ns on the fastest avail. But maybe
they get the propagation correct.

(getting phase and amplitude for multiple quantas in more advanced apps would
be really tought in these timedomains :)
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Jan 1, 1970
0
Spehro said:
Ok, here's a 10.525GHz (X-band) Gunn diode transceiver with 50MHz of
varactor tuning.

http://www.shfmicro.com/10ghz.pdf

Anyone want to take this further?


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

This modulator could form the basis of a passable FMCW system where the
range resolution is achieved by the frequency resolution of the Fourier
spectral content of the beat frequency of the return with transmitted
signal. IIRC the X-band Gunn diode oscillators do not have particularly
good phase noise characteristics and the voltage control coefficient of
frequency is not spectacularly linear- and all of this varies strongly
with temperature- your part exhibits 25MHz/oC. Since your 'target' is
the ideal from the standpoint of stationarity and unambiguously short
range- meaning no practical constraints on chirp duration, the key here
would be to buy linearity by tightening up that FM span- and not try to
broaden it. You ought to be able to put together a minimalist system
with a wideband high resolution I/Q A/D acquisition using lengthy
coherent integration, requiring precision locking of the sampling clock
to X-band source, across multiple chirps and heavy windowing to achieve
the high resolution in frequency.
 
K

Klave

Jan 1, 1970
0
But now try to build one. This *was* a request for a DIY project.

Don

The DIY version of this radar is best approached with reference to
LLNL patents. Although the RF part is not trivial at all, the
"equivalent time sampler" takes care of the speed of light problem.
The various patents available at McEwan's site have more than enough
information for designing and building a radar rangefinder.

Single target accuracies of under 1cm are possible. Multiple targets
depends on factors such as bandwidth and the amount by which one
target interferes with another, this then becomes a "range resolution
issue".

Some other non trivial issues
* The approved use according to FCC or other RF regulating bodies
* Antenna design
* Close in operation (less than a metre or 2) will depend heavily on
antenna matching and good board layout to reduce mutual interference.

GK

Link:
http://www.mcewantechnologies.com/DataBase/PatentMaint/PatentsList_High.asp
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
This modulator could form the basis of a passable FMCW system where the
range resolution is achieved by the frequency resolution of the Fourier
spectral content of the beat frequency of the return with transmitted
signal. IIRC the X-band Gunn diode oscillators do not have particularly
good phase noise characteristics and the voltage control coefficient of
frequency is not spectacularly linear- and all of this varies strongly
with temperature- your part exhibits 25MHz/oC. Since your 'target' is
the ideal from the standpoint of stationarity and unambiguously short
range- meaning no practical constraints on chirp duration, the key here
would be to buy linearity by tightening up that FM span- and not try to
broaden it. You ought to be able to put together a minimalist system
with a wideband high resolution I/Q A/D acquisition using lengthy
coherent integration, requiring precision locking of the sampling clock
to X-band source, across multiple chirps and heavy windowing to achieve
the high resolution in frequency.

What you describe is homodyne detection coupled with an FM chirp. This is
an FM homodyne radar.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a simple formula
for the range resolution, and it depends only on the bandwidth of the
frequency chirp (and the speed of light).

The formula is:

R=C/(2 * BW)

Where R is the resolution, C is the speed of light, and BW is the
bandwidth.

The basic structure of an FM homodyne is a frequency source, a transmit
antenna, a receive antenna, a mixer followed by a low-pass filter followed
by an ADC. The two inputs to the mixer are the transmit chirp and the
received signal. The low-pass filter blocks out the sum frequency, so what
is left is the difference frequency. In the case of a single down-range
target, the IF will be a spectrally-pure single frequency.

What you propose is somehow zooming in on that frequency by sampling with
a high bandwidth ADC. But that is the wrong approach. For a given chirp,
a higher sample rate will not give you better frequency resolution. The
only thing that can do that is sampling for a longer time. But in this
case, the sample duration is really fixed. It is the same as the chirp
duration. And if you sample longer than that, you are not collecting
information about the target (think about it).

The bottom line is, if your sample duration is equal to your chirp
duration, your range resolution will always be exactly C/(2 * BW). Work
out a few examples and you will see what I mean.

So if you want to "zoom in" on the IF frequency, the only way to do it is
to interpolate after the Fourier transform (or, equivalently, zero pad the
data before the Fourier transform).

From an information theory standpoint, the zero pad (or interpolation)
operation cannot add any information that wasn't there to begin with. This
is important to keep in mind.

I don't know anything about Gunn diodes, but if they have a lot of phase
noise (as you say), it will be difficult to do coherent integrations. And
if you can't keep the frequency ramp linear, the IF will itself be a
modulated sine wave, and it will be more difficult to nail down what its
frequency is.

Also, there is no need for a high bandwidth ADC. If you keep the ramp rate
low, the IF will be in the audible range, especially for close-in targets.
(work out some examples with realistic ramp rates).

And there is no need for I/Q modulation. I can't fully explain this, but
it is a fact (and you can check a radar text book if you don't believe me).

--Mac
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
R=C/(2*BW) so:

c=2.997*10**8
bw=14.9*10**9
c/(2*bw) = .01 (m/Hz*s ?)

If the required precision is 0.01 meters and the method is based on
reflection. A wave should preferebly be completed with a wavelength of 0.02 m.
Given f=(c/lambda) and T=1/f, 1/(c/lambda) should give the cycle time. Which
in this case would be:
(1/(c/.02))*10**12 = 66.733 ps

To generate this a di/dT where T=16.683ps should be enough?

I can't answer this question. If you want to pursue this further, I think
you should start a new thread, but think in terms of ultra short pulse
generation and detection, since that is what you need to do.

Since I have now read some of the links other people put in this thread, I
see that the way to do this is to put a waveguide in the tank, and send
your pulse down the waveguide. You should get a reasonably strong
reflection from the surface of the liquid, and you might get another one
from the end of the wave guide (bottom of the tank).
Infact because what is measured is the the wavefront (I hope :) it should be
possible to let the T of di/dT be 66.733. However I guess experimentation
will have show what actually works out.



If they can't measure it, it's not likely they will bother. Soil tend to be
a good conductor (compare to how deep ground radar goes).
Besides doing the measure every hour should be enough.

Right. What I was trying to say is that you are not going to turn this
into an approved product since it is an intentional radiator. But now I
think you could argue that it is not a radiator, since you would probably
use a wave guide to contain the radiation.
As for detection if echoes won't screw the thing up, and it should be ok
because hopefully the shortest path between tx and rx is straight reflection.
Impulses from other rf sources should be ok, considering the timespan is
short (kind of avoiding bullets in the matrix due speedy action :).

I agree. Also, you could take several readings and throw out any that seem
wild.
In the actual detection I though of letting a mosfet conduct immediatly
when the di/dt rise is done. Causing a capacitor to be "slowly" charged. And
when the wavefront hits the rx antenna another mosfet breaks the charge
through discharge of the capacitor of the input to the first one.
The capacitor charged between the tx and rx event should then correspond to
the time.

(Should I choose something else than mosfet?)

I don't know, and I don't think too many people are reading this thread
anymore. Like I said, start a new thread. I have seen this basic idea used
for precise timing, but not with MOSFETS.

As I recall, the circuit measured the time from when a pulse was received
until the next clock rising edge by charging a capacitor with a current
source during the intervening time. At the end of it, the voltage on the
cap was a measure of the time. But this was with ECL logic and some pretty
fancy calibrated current source. I didn't really understand it.
Another approach would be to setup some logic chips where the logic levels
is in a race condition based on input. And the resulting spike is integrated
through the means of a capacitor. A catch is if the gates will manage this
because they have a latency time of 3-4 ns on the fastest avail. But maybe
they get the propagation correct.

Again, I don't know.
(getting phase and amplitude for multiple quantas in more advanced apps would
be really tought in these timedomains :)

Like I said, maybe you should start a new thread. The basic parts
of the problem are:

1) design wave guide to put in tank
2) send sharp pulse (or step) type waveform down waveguide
3) detect first return pulse
4) somehow measure interval between pulse generation and pulse return.

I'm pretty sure that a very fast logic chip with a series resistor and a
high-speed oscilloscope could give you resolution of maybe 5 centimeters,
or so. But I'm not sure how to design a simple reliable detector that
could measure this.

The wave would look like this: (Use courier or something like that)



________________
/
/
______/
/
/
0V ____/

time ---->

The first rising edge occurs when the driver goes high. For a time,
all it feels is the transmission line impedance, so it flattens out.
When the reflection from the surface of the liquid hits the resistor,
we get a second rising edge.

Later, there would be a final rising edge, when we hit the open-circuited
end of the wave guide. Or the waveguide could be terminated in a
short-circuit. In fact, this is better. Then the reflection would be
negative and would cause the waveform to go back to zero volts.

It is important that the source impedance be very closely matched to the
transmission line impedance.

--Mac
 
F

Fred Bloggs

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mac said:
What you describe is homodyne detection coupled with an FM chirp. This is
an FM homodyne radar.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a simple formula
for the range resolution, and it depends only on the bandwidth of the
frequency chirp (and the speed of light).

The formula is:

R=C/(2 * BW)

Where R is the resolution, C is the speed of light, and BW is the
bandwidth.

The basic structure of an FM homodyne is a frequency source, a transmit
antenna, a receive antenna, a mixer followed by a low-pass filter followed
by an ADC. The two inputs to the mixer are the transmit chirp and the
received signal. The low-pass filter blocks out the sum frequency, so what
is left is the difference frequency. In the case of a single down-range
target, the IF will be a spectrally-pure single frequency.

What you propose is somehow zooming in on that frequency by sampling with
a high bandwidth ADC. But that is the wrong approach. For a given chirp,
a higher sample rate will not give you better frequency resolution. The
only thing that can do that is sampling for a longer time. But in this
case, the sample duration is really fixed. It is the same as the chirp
duration. And if you sample longer than that, you are not collecting
information about the target (think about it).

The bottom line is, if your sample duration is equal to your chirp
duration, your range resolution will always be exactly C/(2 * BW). Work
out a few examples and you will see what I mean.

So if you want to "zoom in" on the IF frequency, the only way to do it is
to interpolate after the Fourier transform (or, equivalently, zero pad the
data before the Fourier transform).

From an information theory standpoint, the zero pad (or interpolation)
operation cannot add any information that wasn't there to begin with. This
is important to keep in mind.

I don't know anything about Gunn diodes, but if they have a lot of phase
noise (as you say), it will be difficult to do coherent integrations. And
if you can't keep the frequency ramp linear, the IF will itself be a
modulated sine wave, and it will be more difficult to nail down what its
frequency is.

Also, there is no need for a high bandwidth ADC. If you keep the ramp rate
low, the IF will be in the audible range, especially for close-in targets.
(work out some examples with realistic ramp rates).

And there is no need for I/Q modulation. I can't fully explain this, but
it is a fact (and you can check a radar text book if you don't believe me).

--Mac

Please don't preach to me. You can look at the radar level detectors in
Spehro's links and see for yourself that the range resolution, typically
3mm, is far in excess of the sweep bandwidth, and that these radars are
FMCW. FMCW in collaboration with sophisticated digital signal processing
techniques is widely used in almost all high resolution instrumentation
radars- a simple GOOGLE will verify that, and it is just one of a large
class of architectures that fall under the rubric of "wideband
synthesis". Take your Skolnik and throw it in the trash- it is a
worthless compendium of antiquated garbage taken out of context- some of
it going back to WWII. Skolnik was an NRL parasite and bureaucrat who
couldn't produce anything in the way of a working product, so he
substituted that gigantic collection of self aggrandizing historical
propaganda and other worthless garbage instead.
 
K

Klave

Jan 1, 1970
0
This describes the width of the received burst of radar energy not the
accuracy to which the measurement can be made. If there is only one
reflector, eg a flat surface, the peak of the wide pulse can be found
very accurately. This is how tank gauging instruments achieve 1.5 to
5mm accuracy with only 200-500MHz of bandwidth (called beamsplitting
in the spatial sense).

If there are 2 reflectors near each other they change the position of
the peaks by their mutual interference and accuracy is degraded. If
one of the reflectors is _much_ weaker than the other the effect could
be small. This could happen when the liquid surface is near the bottom
of the tank - which also reflects. Another example is multipath, a
reflection off the side of the tank arrives shortly after the direct
reflection. This may degrade accuracy of the direct reflection if the
indirect path is almost the same distance.

Fcc classifies intentional radiators according to intended purpose,
not by amount radiated. Getting approval will require that your class
of apparatus meets their requirement. The ISM bands are popular for
new designs or where the apparatus isn't described.


Read LLNL and McEwan's patents.

The also describe TDR (Time Domain Reflectometry also called guided
wave radar depending on the nature of the transmission - pulse or
burst) which is another product sold by many vendors. TDR can have
co-axial probes, parallel wires, single wire/cable. TDR has the
advantage that it interrogates only that area close to the waveguide
and doesn't have multiple paths.

Hope this helps
GK
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
This describes the width of the received burst of radar energy not the
accuracy to which the measurement can be made. If there is only one
reflector, eg a flat surface, the peak of the wide pulse can be found
very accurately. This is how tank gauging instruments achieve 1.5 to
5mm accuracy with only 200-500MHz of bandwidth (called beamsplitting
in the spatial sense).

There is no pulse. We are talking about a CW radar. The resolution is the
size of each range cell after you do an fft on the sampled IF. Nothing
more, nothing less.

I am willing to concede that the range can be estimated to greater
precision than one range cell.
[snip]

--Mac
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
Please don't preach to me. You can look at the radar level detectors in
Spehro's links and see for yourself that the range resolution, typically
3mm, is far in excess of the sweep bandwidth, and that these radars are
FMCW. FMCW in collaboration with sophisticated digital signal processing
techniques is widely used in almost all high resolution instrumentation
radars- a simple GOOGLE will verify that, and it is just one of a large
class of architectures that fall under the rubric of "wideband
synthesis". Take your Skolnik and throw it in the trash- it is a
worthless compendium of antiquated garbage taken out of context- some of
it going back to WWII.

[snipped more ranting about Skolnik]

I've never read Skolnik, so I'll have to take your word for it. And I'm
sorry if my post came across as a sermon. It was intended more as a
lecture.

The range resolution of an FMCW radar is C/(2*BW). This means that no
matter how fast you sample the IF, the range cells (after you do the
FT) will be of size C/(2*BW). The exception to this would be (as I said
before) if you sample for longer than the chirp duration. Of course it
doesn't make sense to do this since it CANNOT provide information about
the target. I hope you are not disputing this?

It also means that two scatterers closer together than C/(2*BW) cannot be
individually resolved by the radar, no matter what signal processing is
applied. Thus, this definition of resolution is not meaningless.

However, I do concede that the actual range of a target can be estimated
to greater precision using interpolation (e.g., zero pad prior to
computing FT), but there is danger in doing this. As you point
out, it apparently works just fine for tanks, probably because it is safe
to assume that the first scatterer is the liquid surface of the tank, and
there are no scatterers behind it except the bottom of the tank.

But in the radar world, it is (or can be) bogus to interpolate that way
because the target is (possibly) arbitrary and you (might) have no
knowledge of it ahead of time.

I guarantee you that if you ask any instrument radar person what the
resolution is of a linear FM homodyne (i.e., FM Continuous Wave) radar,
he (or she) will say it is C/(2 * BW).

--Mac
 
M

Mike Monett

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mac wrote:

[...]
I guarantee you that if you ask any instrument radar person what the
resolution is of a linear FM homodyne (i.e., FM Continuous Wave) radar,
he (or she) will say it is C/(2 * BW).

--Mac

Then how do you get the typical specs of 3 mm resolution over 30
meter distance with the products shown in Speff's links? FFT won't do it,
that's 10,000 bins - and sifting through some 800 FMCW patents (many were
duplicates) didn't show any breakthrough that would give this resolution.

I have, however, figured out an inexpensive way to get this level of
resolution for a first-surface radar without using FFT and without
concern for vco linearity. The only problem is I can't figure out if this
is the method used by these manufacturers, or if it's a new way of doing
it.

But the resolution equations given in different texts can be broken.
Obviously, as shown from Speff's links.

Mike Monett
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mac wrote:

[...]
I guarantee you that if you ask any instrument radar person what the
resolution is of a linear FM homodyne (i.e., FM Continuous Wave) radar,
he (or she) will say it is C/(2 * BW).

--Mac

Then how do you get the typical specs of 3 mm resolution over 30
meter distance with the products shown in Speff's links? FFT won't do it,
that's 10,000 bins - and sifting through some 800 FMCW patents (many were
duplicates) didn't show any breakthrough that would give this resolution.

Don't forget to search for homodyne, too.

Anyway, I would assume they just use zero padding, but I certainly don't
know.

In case you (or other readers) don't know what I'm talking about,
here's how the zero padding thing works.

Let's say you digitize the IF for the entire chirp duration (without
violating Nyquist). Now you append a boatload of zeros to the end of the
data. Now do your FFT. Now pick the first bin with a major peak and that
is your range estimate. There is no reason why you couldn't do this with
8192 or 16384 or even 32768 bins. A 32k point FFT doesn't take long at all
nowadays.

This zero padding will produce an apparently higher resolution range plot,
although it really just amounts to interpolation in the range domain, as I
said before.
I have, however, figured out an inexpensive way to get this level of
resolution for a first-surface radar without using FFT and without
concern for vco linearity. The only problem is I can't figure out if
this is the method used by these manufacturers, or if it's a new way of
doing it.

Apply for a patent! Then once you have it, you can tell us all about it.
But the resolution equations given in different texts can be broken.
Obviously, as shown from Speff's links.

Only because we have a priori knowledge of the target's nature. That is,
we know it is safe to interpolate in the range domain because we know
there are no other scatterers near the surface of the liquid in the tank.

If there were scatterers closer together than the resolution, then zero
padding would not help resolve them. They would still appear as a single
broad scatterer. I suppose this could happen in a tank if there were two
immiscible fluids, and they were separated by less than C/(2*BW), and they
had different dielectric properties.

Another way of saying this is that the radar cannot _resolve_ objects
smaller than the resolution size, but, as I am now realizing, it _can_
provide more precise range estimates than the resolution would suggest,
as long as certain assumptions (mentioned above) hold up.

The resolution is still an important and useful concept, however.
Mike Monett

--Mac
 
K

Klave

Jan 1, 1970
0
Mac said:
There is no pulse. We are talking about a CW radar. The resolution is the
size of each range cell after you do an fft on the sampled IF. Nothing
more, nothing less.

Good point, somewhat nitpickey but accurately picked. I work with both
and the effect is the same on both. Pulse radar also has bandwidth
limitations and the resultant pulse broadening (width - 1/T where T is
pulse length) also needs to be "split" for higher resolution.
Depending on the type of sampler, the edge of the pulse may be used or
the peak.

So, seeing as we're nitpicking, the "_range_ resolution" is the
correct term to use for CW radar, refering to discriminating between 2
reflectors. Again, make no mistake and concede what you want, much
higher resolution (detection of change in position of the single
target, not range resolution) can be achieved by looking at the peak
within the range cell. This is usually achieved by zero padding the
time response before FFT.
I am willing to concede that the range can be estimated to greater
precision than one range cell.
[snip]

--Mac

As to an accurate DIY radar, I suggest pulse radar is simpler to
implement if a sampled system is used to reduce the speed of light to
something much lower, the range information is already in a form where
very little digital processing is required. The antenna is equally
complicated for both although the S/N can be better for CW.

GK
 
M

Mac

Jan 1, 1970
0
Good point, somewhat nitpickey but accurately picked. I work with both
and the effect is the same on both. Pulse radar also has bandwidth
limitations and the resultant pulse broadening (width - 1/T where T is
pulse length) also needs to be "split" for higher resolution. Depending
on the type of sampler, the edge of the pulse may be used or the peak.

Right. Ultimately, there is no way to get range resolution without
bandwidth. Just as there is no way to get cross range resolution without
an aperture (synthetic or otherwise).

So, seeing as we're nitpicking, the "_range_ resolution" is the correct
term to use for CW radar, refering to discriminating between 2
reflectors.

Thanks. I guess that I was thinking, since it's a stationary radar and a
stationary target, it obviously can't have any cross range resolution. ;-)
Again, make no mistake and concede what you want, much higher resolution
(detection of change in position of the single target, not range
resolution) can be achieved by looking at the peak within the range
cell. This is usually achieved by zero padding the time response before
FFT.

I thought this might be the case. It would be the first thing I would try,
anyway, and I suggested it in another part of this thread.
I am willing to concede that the range can be estimated to greater
precision than one range cell.
[snip]

--Mac

As to an accurate DIY radar, I suggest pulse radar is simpler to
implement if a sampled system is used to reduce the speed of light to
something much lower, the range information is already in a form where
very little digital processing is required. The antenna is equally
complicated for both although the S/N can be better for CW.

GK

Sounds like good advice. ;-)

--Mac
 
Top