Collaborative Beamfocusing Radio (COBRA)

Jeremy P. Rode, Mark J. Hsu, David Smith, and Anis Husain

Ziva Corporation, 6440 Lusk Blvd. Suite D-107 San Diego, CA 92121, USA
ABSTRACT
A Ziva team has recently demonstrated a novel technique called Collaborative Beamfocusing Radios (COBRA) which
enables an ad-hoc collection of distributed commercial off-the-shelf software defined radios to coherently align and
beamform to a remote radio. COBRA promises to operate even in high multipath and non-line-of-sight environments as
well as mobile applications without resorting to computationally expensive closed loop techniques that are currently
unable to operate with significant movement.
COBRA exploits two key technologies to achieve coherent beamforming. The first is Time Reversal (TR) which
compensates for multipath and automatically discovers the optimal spatio-temporal matched filter to enable peak signal
gains (up to 20 dB) and diffraction-limited focusing at the intended receiver in NLOS and severe multipath
environments. The second is time-aligned buffering which enables TR to synchronize distributed transmitters into a
collaborative array. This time alignment algorithm avoids causality violations through the use of reciprocal buffering.
Preserving spatio-temporal reciprocity through the TR capture and retransmission process achieves coherent alignment
across multiple radios at ~GHz carriers using only standard quartz-oscillators.
COBRA has been demonstrated in the lab, aligning two off-the-shelf software defined radios over-the-air to an accuracy
of better than 2 degrees of carrier alignment at 450 MHz. The COBRA algorithms are lightweight, with computation in
5 ms on a smartphone class microprocessor. COBRA also has low start-up latency, achieving high accuracy from a
cold-start in 30 ms.
The COBRA technique opens up a large number of new capabilities in communications, and electronic warfare
including selective spatial jamming, geolocation and anti-geolocation.
Keywords: Distributed beamforming, distributed antenna array, collaborative beamforming, virtual array, time reversal,
MIMO

1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Motivation
With modern radios becoming smaller and more ubiquitous, achieving distributed coherence offers huge advantages in
massive link budget gains, proportional to the square of the number of nodes (N) in a distributed array. The N2 gain
stems from the power of an increased number of transmitters and a signal focusing effect brought about by the larger
effective aperture formed by the distributed transmitters. COBRAs ability to cohere multiple separate radios enables
new scenarios in communication, electronic warfare (EW), and signals intelligence (SIGINT).
In battlefield communication, increasing radio coverage by adding backhaul base stations may not be feasible, since this
necessitates a squad of soldiers having to carry both small-form-factor radios for inter-squad communication and a large
bulky radio for reach-back communication. Enabling the smaller radios to operate as a COBRA array alleviates the need
for additional large radios by increasing communication reach for the same amount of total RF power. In addition, the
focusing due to the larger effective aperture reduces the amount of RF power radiated toward unintended directions and
receivers, which both increases spectral reuse and reduces friendly interference. Concurrently, COBRA beamforming
decreases an unintended receivers ability to intercept, exploit, and geolocate the signal.
COBRA opens up new capabilities in EW, especially on smaller platforms found in the battlefield today. Platforms such
as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and unmanned ground vehicles (UGVs) are becoming more numerous and smaller
in size, where size weight and power (SWaP) of payloads are at a premium. COBRA can bring electronic attack
capability though its ability to cohere multiple distributed transmitters and collaboratively focus RF energy on noncooperative target RF emitters. COBRA can also greatly enhance electronic warfare support capabilities on the receive

side, by leveraging the massive apertures enabled by distributed arrays to both intercept signals and extract spatialtemporal information for geolocation.
1.2 Distributed Transmit Beamforming Requirements
In order to form a true distributed coherent array, a group of radios must: transmit identical data symbols at the proper
time with a coherent carrier phase, with all the offsets accounted.[1] Both the symbol timing and the carrier phase must
take into account not only the phase/frequency/time offsets due to the independent local oscillators (LO) on the different
radios comprising the array, but also the time-of-flight and phase delays due to the differing individual RF channels
between the intended receiver and the nodes forming the distributed array. All of this alignment must be achieved
within the jitter/dynamic range/linearity limitations of the implementation hardware combined with RF channel
impairments such as noise, interference, and multipath fading.
Carrier phase alignment is the most difficult criterion to achieve, as absolute timing accuracies necessary near 1 GHz
carriers are around 100 ps. This is made more challenging due to phase offset changes due to reference oscillator phase
drift and channel phase change due to movement or dynamic RF channels. Most frequency references at these high
carrier frequencies have coherence times of fractions of a second. Even with a perfect reference oscillator, movements
of 1 m/s at a 300 MHz carrier cause array decoherence in a quarter second. Both of these processes cause non-stationary
random walk type phase drift, precluding long-term averaging. The dynamic and highly accurate nature of distributed
phase alignment requires extremely fine measurement in a limited amount of time.
Carrier frequencies also need to be corrected, as most LO frequency references have absolute tolerances on the order of
10 parts per million, necessitating distributed nodes to correct their local clocks to match an absolute or relative timing
reference. Frequency references also drift over time which, in combination with movement based Doppler shifts, cause
frequency shifts. Fortunately, these processes are more stationary over the time periods of interest.
Symbol times need to be aligned, but is a much easier task as the majority of wireless communication systems typically
have occupied bandwidths of fractions of the carrier frequency. Once picosecond level carrier synchronization is
achieved, the fraction of a microsecond class synchronization required by megabit per second data rate systems is
already in place. Lastly, data distribution is easily achieved by standard communication techniques.
COBRA is a unique solution that leverages symmetry and reciprocity to rapidly solve the alignment and synchronization
issues. It avoids the major pitfalls of many of the prior systems that try to achieve alignment by brute computation.
1.3 Pitfalls in Current State-of-the-Art Distributed Beamforming
Many current distributed beamforming systems align carrier phases though closed-loop measurement and feedback of
both LO and channel phase by performing an individual channel measurement between the distributed nodes and the
intended receiver, as shown in Figure 1 on the right.[1] This can be done via individual soundings or continually
transmitted pilots. This introduces a causality paradox in situations where beamforming gain is necessary for the
distributed nodes to contact a receiver in the first place. This limits the useful scenarios of these systems to where the
beamforming can improve the link to the intended receiver, but cannot be used to establish one. Lastly extracting all of
the offsets and beamforming weights rapidly, and with amounts of correlation gain necessary to operate in noise requires
heavy power-hungry digital signal processing (DSP) computation.

Figure 1. Open-loop beamforming steps vs. closed loop beamforming steps

COBRAs open-loop phase synchronization technique avoids the requirement of long-link communication between the
nodes and the intended receiver prior to beamforming, as shown in Figure 1 on the left. COBRA also performs all of its
alignment across the short inter-node RF channels, which are typically significantly better channels than to the intended
receiver.

1.4 Paper Organization

This paper will discuss key technologies that enable COBRA to achieve distributed coherence. The first technology is
time reversal and the second key technology is timed-aligned reciprocal buffering. Finally, we present simulations and
laboratory measurements of COBRA system.

2. COBRA OVERVIEW
COBRA uses two enabling technologies that work in concert to align distributed nodes into a coherent array: time
reversal and time-aligned reciprocal buffering, shown in Figure 2. Time reversal is a technique leveraging the
electromagnetic reciprocity of RF channels, allowing a group of radios to act as a broadband phase conjugate mirror. A
phase conjugate mirror is a nonlinear system that exactly reverses the propagation direction of waves, reflecting a beam
back upon itself. Directly extending phase conjugation to wider bandwidths while avoiding simultaneous transmission
and reception causes the basic phase conjugation equations to violate causality. These causality violations are solved by
reciprocal buffering, a record and playback process that separates TR reception and retransmission in time; both
duplexing the system, and ensuring time reversal data has been recorded prior to its playback. Reciprocal buffering also
lends itself well to implementations on existing radio architectures, such as homodyne quadrature up/down-conversion
transceivers.

Figure 2. Cartoon depiction of reciprocal buffering and time reversal combined to form the COBRA system.

Through these two techniques, COBRA solves the carrier phase alignment by compensating the LO phase offsets and
channel phase offsets separately. RF channel phases can be highly dynamic with unpredictable phase offsets, but as RF
channels are electromagnetically reciprocal between a pair of antennas, time-reversal symmetry can be leveraged to
automatically cancel channel phase offsets. The time reversal requires the buffering process to preserve the reciprocity
between the TR capture and playback. As this process is coordinated by a frequency reference having non-stationary
phase and semi-stationary frequency offsets, COBRA uses local synchronization to compensate for the LO timing
variations across the array.

3. TIME REVERSAL (TR)

Time Reversal forms the basis of COBRAs ability to extract the necessary beamforming weights and has been
demonstrated extensively in acoustics[1],[3],[4] and recently in RF[5]. TR based communication systems also have many
advantages when operating in both multiple input multiple output (MIMO) and point-to-point systems. In RF channels
having high multipath, TR can harvest the energy in the multipath into signal gains, can focus signals to an intended
receiver, and automatically compensate for RF channel impairments caused by multipath. When operating on a MIMO
array, TR can automatically align element weights in dynamic environments even with dense multipath and near field
scattering. When operating on large aperture arrays, TR also reduces multipath induced inter-symbol interference.
Lastly, TR is the only system that can compensate for multipath in asymmetrical radio systems, consisting of a TR
enabled radio communicating with an extremely low power receiver node needing only an energy detection receiver.

3.1 Basic Operation

TR extracts the channel impulse response from a RF channel formed by a pair of antennas in an environment. The basic
process of TR is broken into two parts: a channel sounding, and TR retransmission. As TR uses a two-way reciprocal
transmission, both nodes transmit and receive in the TR process.

1. Transmit Sounding Pulse (t)

2. Record Multipath Signature (t)*h(t)

A/D to LIFO Buffer
Data Modulation

TR Gain
LOS/NLOS Multipath

4. Received TR Signal (t)*(-t)*h(t)*h(-t)

3. Transmit TR Signal (-t)*h(-t)

Figure 3. Time reversal operation

TR works by providing the transmitter (TX) with a priori knowledge of the channel response h(t) to the intended RX,
through the TR sounding process. The channel sounding is first performed by the intended RX, by emitting a sounding
pulse, (t), to be captured by the TX node. The TX node captures the sounding pulse (t)*h(t) and then emits (-t)*h(t), rather than (t), as shown in Figure 3. The TR signal arriving at the intended RX is now the autocorrelation of the
combined channel sounding response: (t)*(-t)*h(t)*h(-t).
This combined response is the optimal spatiotemporal matched filter response for the intended RX channel, harvesting
all of the resolvable multipath energy. The resulting signal has an amplitude at the symbol time equal to that of the
coherent sum of all the multipath reflections. This results in significant gains, especially in NLOS with high multipath,
using high bandwidth systems. As the multipath delays are equalized at only one spatial position, this coherent
summation only occurs at a /2 radius around the intended RX antenna, both equalizing the signal distortion caused by
the multipath and converting the multipath to usable multipath gain. This alignment, in effect, focuses the signal to the
intended receiver in time and space.
When compared to post detection multipath architectures, such as RAKE, a TR transmitter does not waste limited
transmit RF energy into frequencies that do not propagate though the channel. As the matched filter pulse compression
process happens in the physical RF channel, TR gains are comparatively more robust to noise and interference. Lastly, a
TR filter can be used on the base station side of an asymmetrical radio system, using the TR filter for both TX and RX.
This asymmetrical architecture can offer full multipath correction, and can allow ultra-low power non-coherent detection
on the battery powered client radio.
3.2 TR Point-to-Point Measurements
Indoor and outdoor measurements were performed with TR radios that verify TRs spatio-temporal focusing in NLOS
and high multipath. The results of these measurement proving the ability of TR to focus a signal from a single dipole
TX antenna spatially to a /2 diffraction limited spot at the intended RX, and temporally to remove the effects of the
multipath decay spread, with no a priori knowledge of TX/RX locations, in high multipath environments are shown in
Figure 4.

Figure 4. Left, point-to-point measurements with (blue) and without (red) time reversal. Middle, photograph of side view
measurement location. Right, cartoon of measurement layout top view.

The test setup consisted of two portable ADC/DAC sampling units operating at sampling rates of 2GS/s combined with
attached laptops for data acquisition. There were also RF front end amplifiers, attenuators and filters and two purposedesigned antennas optimized for broadband transmission in the 400-960MHz band. The transmitted pulse was a raised
cosine pulse with a duration of 8.8nsecs, a carrier frequency of 700MHz and occupied the band from 400-960 MHz.
Time reversal harvested multipath gains reached almost to the expected LOS values.

Figure 5. Peak signal level vs. displacement from sounding location with and without time reversal

The effect of displacing the RX antenna from its ideal position in steps of 2 inches is shown in Figure 5. The lambda of
0.42m is based on the carrier frequency of 700MHz of the pulse. The TR peak is focused to a spot with radius with
evidence of a sinc roll-off. This means that when we displace the RX antenna by 0.2m from its peak position we reach
the lowest signal level. The background level to which the signal falls off is the unequalized multipath signal level.
3.3 TR MIMO Array Alignment
One of the elegant extensions of time reversal is the ability to align transmissions at a target receiver to an arbitrary
number of transmitters to automatically achieve N2 array gain. In the case of a non-distributed MIMO radio,
simultaneously performing TR capture and playback leverages TRs alignment ability to not only align the channel
multipath, but also the emissions from the different transmitters. The left side of Figure 6 shows the equivalency
between multipath echo and array element alignment, with no dependency on the array element geometry.

Figure 6. Left, TR aligning array nodes in multipath and NLOS. Right, graphic summarizing advantages of TR aligned antenna
arrays.

As the alignment occurs automatically due to reciprocity, the layout of the array can be arbitrarily complex without
affecting the alignment accuracy. The automatic realignment of TR makes it possible to implement MIMO arrays that
conform to existing structures, and can handle dynamic array element positioning.
Furthermore, with a sufficiently large array aperture, inter-symbol interference (ISI) is reduced by a factor of N, as
widely spaced array elements will observe different channel impulse responses, causing the autocorrelation energy that
occurs prior and posterior to the symbol time (the TR autocorrelation peak) will be incoherent across the different array
elements. The ISI energy will grow proportional to N, while the symbol peak energy grows proportional to N2. Large
array apertures also enable TR, in an iterative fashion, to tightly focus RF energy on particular passive scatterers,
opening up RF sensing applications.[6]
3.4 TR MIMO Array Alignment Measurements
The Ziva team has made extensive measurements of TR aligned arrays, using side channel triggers. An arbitrary
waveform generator (AWG) is used to directly synthesize the transmit signals, and a digital sampling oscilloscope
(DPO) is used to capture the received signals directly at RF.
2 Channel COBRA Measurement
500

mV at RX

400
300
200
100
0

TR Gain

Measured

No TR

COBRA
Gain:

TR Gain

TR Gain

No TR

No
TR

No
TR

CH 1

CH 2

TR Gain

99% of
Ideal

Ideal Array COBRA

Figure 7. The time reversal array alignment experiment. Left, results from the separate channels and the beamforming compared
with the ideal expected beamforming gain. Right, a cartoon showing the top view experimental layout, along with the pictures of
the equipment and antennas.

In the measurements, two antennas are arbitrarily placed in an indoor laboratory environment with a high density of
multipath. As the AWG can only transmit, and the DPO can only receive, the test is performed unidirectionally, so the
soundings are performed on a pair-wise basis. The two channel soundings are performed, then each individual channel
has a time reversal retransmission, and lastly both channels retransmit the time reversed signal simultaneously. The
results are summarized on the left side of Figure 7. Time reversal reliably aligned array elements in complex high
multipath and NLOS environments within a fraction of dB of the ideal gain.
Time reversals ability to align arrays depends highly on tight relative timing between the array elements. This is
inherently achieved by most MIMO radio systems, as frequency references and clocks are shared across the array
elements. As soon as nodes are implemented with different clocks and frequency references, the small offsets inherent
in timing references destroy the timing reciprocity that TR needs to align array elements. TR array operation can be
distributed across different timing sources by brute force though the use of highly accurate atomic or GPS based timing
references.[7] This work instead takes the approach of working though symmetry to preserve the timing reciprocity
necessary for TR alignment.

4. TIME ALIGNED RECIPROCAL BUFFERING

In the previous experiments, the RF synthesis circuitry implementing the array elements aligned with time reversal all
operated from common time reference elements. As the sample clocks that drive the TR buffering are derived from the
same frequency reference, maintaining reciprocity from the reception though the delay to the retransmission is inherent.
The minute amount of drift during the buffering process has very little effect, as all of the connected nodes comprising
the TR array will drift in an identical fashion. Small phase and frequency drifts that are identical across an array have
very little effect on the overall array coherence.

Figure 8. Diagram showing the timing of reciprocal buffering

Figure 8 shows the TR capture and playback times across three hypothetical nodes, along with arrows representing
captured channel impulse
This situation changes drastically in a true distributed system, where all of the buffering processes are driven by separate
timing references. Not only will the static offsets need to be compensated for, but the small magnitude short-term drifts
are no longer identical across the distributed array. The interplay between time reversal and the time aligned reciprocal
buffering that implements the time reversal recording and playback simplifies the alignment by only necessitating that
the end-to-end process be reciprocally timed, not necessarily aligned in time. To maintain reciprocity, the nodes must
agree upon a TR symmetry time, such that the delays in time are a mirror image across this as shown in Figure 8.
This is done though a round trip time transfer protocol that measures propagation delay across the RF channel between a
node selected to be the reference (Master). All of the other nodes (Slaves) measure the channel delays, and correct their
time windows such that they mirror across a point in time selected by the master node.

5. SIMULATION
A simulation was performed to assess the relative performance of an ideally time-aligned COBRA array to an ideally
time-aligned distributed array aligned though a close-loop feedback process using singular value decomposition (SVD)
for channel estimation. For the express purpose of simulating TR performance in multipath, Ziva has developed a raytracing based scattering multipath simulator in MATLAB. Developing a custom multipath simulator was necessary to
preserve the spatial multipath information that is necessary to evaluate beamforming performance that is not preserved in
statistical based multipath simulators. All comparative simulations assumed identical array resources, correlation and
processing gains, and multipath environments for each trial.

Figure 9. Simulated COBRA performance in NLOS multipath (left) vs. simulated SVD-based closed loop distributed
beamforming performance. Both arrays were ideally temporally aligned.

COBRA consistently outperformed the SVD based system in NLOS and high multipath by up to 6dB peak power at the
intended receiver. At low levels of multipath, the two techniques had roughly equivalent performance. COBRA also
consumed 100x fewer operations per beamforming cycle.

6. LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS OF COBRA SYSTEM

The COBRA system was implemented on Thunder software defined radios (SDR) from DataSoft. Thunder is a standard
homodyne radio front-end with samples from the quadrature conversion piped into a FPGA. An OMAP processor
running Linux is also interfaced to the FPGA and radio functions. The low latency COBRA algorithms were
implemented in the FPGA with the longer latency processes implemented on the OMAP host processor. A
transmit/receive switch was implemented so that the Thunder platforms could transmit and receive on the same antenna.
This is necessary to preserve the transmit/receive reciprocity. The three Thunders are shown below in Figure 10. The
Thunder platforms had local oscillators running at 450 MHz with 0 dBm transmit power across a roughly equal 2 m
antenna spacing across an indoor laboratory with standard whip antennas.

Figure 10. The COBRA laboratory setup consisting of: Left, the two Thunder Radios with transmit/receive switches and whip
antennas on tripods serving as the beamforming nodes. Right, a close up of the Thunder Radio serving as the intended receiver
(antenna not shown).

Three simple state machines were implemented: An intended RX state machine that alternates between sending a
sounding pulse, and capturing any return pulses. A COBRA node state machine was implemented that alternates
between the COBRA time transfer and a time-reversal buffered echo. A simple time-slotting algorithm was used to
synchronize the state machines between the three nodes. The whole process takes approximately 5 ms to complete, with
some variation due to the Linux operating system running on the host processor. The process is limited to 50 iterations
per measurement session due to memory limitations on the host processor.
To evaluated the beamforming performance of COBRA we first chose to use a continuous wave (CW) signal, as CW
allows for high accuracy averaging to reduce the effects of noise and interference. To rapidly evaluate beamforming
performance, the two nodes performing the beamforming were staggered in time; such that each received shot consisted
of 40 s of: node #1 alone, COBRA beamforming, and node #2 alone. This stair-step type measurement allows the
direct measurement of the individual node channels, such that the ideal beamforming performance can be directly
calculated by summing the individual channel magnitudes. A single evaluation pulse from a COBRA array operating is
shown below in Figure 11:

Figure 11. A plot of a single COBRA staggered beamforming shot as received by the intended receiver. The pulse has three
phases: The first phase consisting of a signal from node 1 alone. The second and middle phase consists of both nodes summing
coherently with COBRA. The third phase consists of node 2 alone. The red line is the available beamforming gain, calculated
by summing the amplitude from the individual nodes in the first and last portion of the pulse from the entire ensemble of pulses.

The performance of COBRA over the entire measurment ensamble can be extracted from the experemental data. The
ideal bemforming performance is calculated by averaging the evaluation pulse shouldiers over the entire session, as the
expermental setup is held static for the ensamble. This is plotted below in Figure 12:

Figure 12. The performance extracted from an entire measurement ensemble of 50 alignment/beamforming rounds.

In Figure 12, one can see the initial performance of COBRA at four decibels below the ideal falls near the expected three
decibels achieved by incoherent combination. The COBRA time transfer algorithm them begins compensating for the
phase offsets between the slave nodes, and pulls the nodes into coherence by the fifth iteration. The coherence is
maintained over the rest of the 45 beamforming rounds. Cropping off the first five rounds, and subtracting the measured
performance from the calculated ideal, results in Figure 13, shown below:

Figure 13. The COBRA performance data, subtracted from ideal, with the start-up transient first five rounds cropped out.

The COBRA algorithm maintained coherence to within the measurement accuracy for the entire session. Using 40 s
sections of CW to evaluate received signal strength suffers from I/Q imbalance, where the extracted amplitude has a
slight phase dependency. This causes a slight undulation in the beamforming performance extraction, accounting for
shots that appear to undulate about and below the ideally coherent power level.
Another way of analyzing the COBRA performance is to look at the raw data from the time transfer algorithm. The
timing data from the above COBRA session is plotted below in Figure 14:

Figure 14. Phase data from the COBRA time transfer algorithm. The dotted red line denotes where the algorithm has converged
for timing accuracy analysis purposes.

This data does not suffer from the I/Q imbalance measurement noise in the amplitude data. Extracting the timing
performance directly from the COBRA time transfer algorithm gives a standard deviation of carrier timing of 1.24
degrees (7.7 ps at the 450 MHz carrier used) for rounds 11-50 (denoted by dotted red line). We have measured the lower
bound of timing accuracy measurable on the Thunder platform to 5 ps.

7. CONCLUSIONS
The Ziva team has demonstrated COBRA, the first (to our knowledge) high accuracy open-loop beamforming system
to date which enables an ad-hoc collection of off-the-shelf radios to coherently align and beamform to a remote radio.
COBRA achieves this though the use of RF channel reciprocity combined with temporal symmetry, eliminating any
need for high latency computationally expensive closed loop beamforming techniques.
Our next step is to show that COBRA beamforming on mobile platforms. The rapid update of the COBRA algorithm
should enable operation in the highly dynamic RF channels associated with movement. The ability of the COBRA
technique to cohere multiple separate radios or disparate physically separated arrays opens up a host of new applications
not only for wireless communication, but in electronic warfare, SIGINT, and sensing applications.

10

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was partially supported by DARPA through the US Army with Ziva Corporation under contracts W15P7T12-C-5021 and W31P4Q-09-C-0582.
The authors would like to thank Jeremy Ward and Kris Gregorian for their extensive help in realizing the COBRA
algorithms in hardware. The authors would like to thank Neil Fox, Paul Kolodzy, and Mark Rich for their support and
excellent advice. We appreciate the outstanding support provided by DataSoft on their Thunder software defined radio
platform.

DISCLAIMER
The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of
Defense or the U.S. Government. (Approved for Public Release, Distribution Unlimited)

REFERENCES
[1] Mudumbai, R.; Brown, D.R.; Madhow, U.; Poor, H.V., "Distributed transmit beamforming: challenges and recent
progress," Communications Magazine, IEEE , vol.47, no.2, pp.102,110, February 2009
[2] Fink, M., Time Reversal of Ultrasonic Fields. I. Basic principles, Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics and Frequency
Control, IEEE,vol.39, no.5, pp.555-566, September 1992
[3] Fink, M., Cassereau, D.; Derode, A.; Prada, C.; Roux, P.; Tanter, M.; Thomas, J.; Wu, F., Time-Reversed
Acoustics, Reports on Progress in Physics, vol.63 no.12, November 1999
[4] Fink, M.; Prada, C., Acoustic time-reversal mirrors, Inverse Problems, vol.17, no.1, February 2001
[5] Moura, J., Detection by Time Reversal: Single Antenna, IEEE Transactions on Signal Processing, vol.55, no.1,
pp.187-201, January 2007
[6] Thomas, Jean-Louis; Wu, F.; Fink, M., "Self focusing on extended objects with time reversal mirror, applications to
lithotripsy," Ultrasonics Symposium, 1994. Proceedings., 1994 IEEE , vol.3, no., pp.1809,1814 vol.3, Oct. 31 1994Nov. 3 1994
[7] Eung-Gi Paek; Choe, J.Y., "Distributed time reversal mirror array," Radar Conference, 2010 IEEE , vol., no.,
pp.627,630, 10-14 May 2010

11