On 12/2/2011 7:01 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 02:40 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> On 12/2/2011 2:30 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>>
>>> (As an aside, where the HELL do you obtain the sited paper from? Unless
>>> you work in a research laboratory, I can't figure out how the hell you
>>> would obtain a copy of this...)
>>>
>>
>> Probably by using the subtle and mysterious technique of typing the
>> paper's name into Google and clicking on the top link:
>
> I tried typing the journal's name in...

That was your mistake then.  Always try searching for the name of the 
paper first.

Post a reply to this message

>>>> (As an aside, where the HELL do you obtain the sited paper from? Unless
>>>> you work in a research laboratory, I can't figure out how the hell you
>>>> would obtain a copy of this...)
>>>
>>> Probably by using the subtle and mysterious technique of typing the
>>> paper's name into Google and clicking on the top link:
>>
>> I tried typing the journal's name in...
>
> That was your mistake then. Always try searching for the name of the
> paper first.

The journal's name is short, while the paper's title is long. Searches 
don't work properly for long phrases, only short ones.

Perhaps the author's name would have worked. (Although it's very 
difficult to spell...)

Post a reply to this message

On 12/2/2011 7:11 AM, Invisible wrote:
> The journal's name is short, while the paper's title is long. Searches
> don't work properly for long phrases, only short ones.

not true

> Perhaps the author's name would have worked. (Although it's very
> difficult to spell...)

copy and paste

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2011 03:21 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
> On 12/2/2011 7:11 AM, Invisible wrote:
>> The journal's name is short, while the paper's title is long. Searches
>> don't work properly for long phrases, only short ones.
>
> not true

In my experience, the more specific the search term, the lower the 
probability of Google returning any matches at all.

>> Perhaps the author's name would have worked. (Although it's very
>> difficult to spell...)
>
> copy and paste

For reasons unknown, the appendix is normal, selectable text, but the 
references section at the end of it is a [low resolution] bitmap image 
of some text. WTF?

Fortunately, this particular citation is repeated on the body text. (I 
didn't realise that until I wrote this post.)

Post a reply to this message

On 12/2/2011 7:29 AM, Invisible wrote:
> On 02/12/2011 03:21 PM, Kevin Wampler wrote:
>> On 12/2/2011 7:11 AM, Invisible wrote:
>>> The journal's name is short, while the paper's title is long. Searches
>>> don't work properly for long phrases, only short ones.
>>
>> not true
>
> In my experience, the more specific the search term, the lower the
> probability of Google returning any matches at all.

Blimey man, just take the advice.  If you want to find a paper try 
putting the paper's title into Google.  It worked on this one and it'll 
work on many others too.

Post a reply to this message

Am 02.12.2011 16:11, schrieb Invisible:

>> That was your mistake then. Always try searching for the name of the
>> paper first.
>
> The journal's name is short, while the paper's title is long. Searches
> don't work properly for long phrases, only short ones.

Apparently you're wrong there.

Remember to put long phrases in quotation marks, so that Google actually 
searches for the phrase rather than the individual words.

Post a reply to this message

On 12/2/2011 8:01 AM, clipka wrote:
> Am 02.12.2011 16:11, schrieb Invisible:
>
>>> That was your mistake then. Always try searching for the name of the
>>> paper first.
>>
>> The journal's name is short, while the paper's title is long. Searches
>> don't work properly for long phrases, only short ones.
>
> Apparently you're wrong there.
>
> Remember to put long phrases in quotation marks, so that Google actually
> searches for the phrase rather than the individual words.

Ironically that doesn't work in this case (although in most cases it's 
still a good idea).  The reason is that the title as Invisible posted it 
had the word "an" at the beginning which doesn't appear in the actual 
title of the paper.  Only a search without the quotations seems to yield 
the correct result. Fortunately the solution is trivial: if searching 
with quotations doesn't work, try it without.

Post a reply to this message

> http://optics.nuigalway.ie/people/chris/chrispapers/Paper046.pdf

Oh... Well that was easy. The whole thing is only 3 pages, and written 
in language that a DSP novice can understand. (Although some of the 
notation still baffles me.)

Post a reply to this message

On 12/2/2011 7:11, Invisible wrote:
> The journal's name is short, while the paper's title is long. Searches don't
> work properly for long phrases, only short ones.

What are you smoking.

Anyway, paste the entire abstract in, and it'll likely work too.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   People tell me I am the counter-example.

Post a reply to this message

On 02/12/2011 04:17 PM, Invisible wrote:
>> http://optics.nuigalway.ie/people/chris/chrispapers/Paper046.pdf
>
> Oh... Well that was easy. The whole thing is only 3 pages, and written
> in language that a DSP novice can understand. (Although some of the
> notation still baffles me.)

So today I sat down and implemented the algorithm. I was unsurprised but 
rather disappointed to discover that IT DOESN'T WORK.

I tried it on an artificially simplified 1D example. Invented a fake 
signal, convolved it with a simple filter kernel, and then let the 
algorithm try to recover the original signal. The end result bore 
absolutely no resemblance to the original.

It's possible that 44 samples just isn't enough for a reasonably unique 
solution to exist. More likely I've implemented the DFT wrong or 
something...

Post a reply to this message