This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/UmTRX@lists.osmocom.org/.
Andrey Sviyazov andreysviyaz at gmail.comHi all. I have question about preselector improving: Do we need on-board eeprom for identification? It also can contain band and IF freq values, T'C look-up table for SAW, etc. Best regards, Andrey Sviyazov. 2012/8/9 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com> > > 08.08.2012 22:46 пользователь "Sylvain Munaut" <246tnt at gmail.com> написал: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > Its about far-near problem (05.05 p.5.1), i.e. blocking by near mobile > with > > > high signal at only 600kHz offset. > > > Therefore, calculated that LO noise at 600kHz offset should be around > > > -140dBc/Hz to keep nominal Rx sencitivity for wanted far mobile. > > > > Mmm, interesting, I had never thought about this. > > > > Can you confirm my computation is the right one : > > > > Minimum Ec/No of 8 dB, thernal noise of GSM ~ -120 dBm, so the weakest > > mobile would be a -112 dBm. > > > > The interference I see specified in 05.05 is a -26 dBm sine, so with > > -140 dBc/Hz you'd get a -166 dBm 'leak' of the interference in the > > signal of interest at any given position, which you need to integrate > > over the entire useful bandwidth of the GSM signal ( 271 kHz -> 10 * > > log10(271e3) = 54 dB ), which would give a -112 dBm noise. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Sylvain > Yes, your computation confirm that we can get noise flour -109 dBm in > summary. > But I can't understand this stupid requirement. > Really blocker it is mobile signal, therefore it will make direct jumming > due to GMSK spectrum mask. > What do you think about it? > > Best regards, > Andrey Sviyazov. > (Sent from my mobile client) > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120813/2056c2cb/attachment.htm>