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/.
Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL jsn at bjtpartners.comHi Andrey, Do you think it will be possible to decrease the power consumption and to keep the best possible performances for industrial applications ? I know you cannot be sure about this but I would like to know how confident you feel about this ? Best regards. Jean-Samuel. :-) On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Jean-Samuel, Alexander. > > Tomorrow I'll let you know what possible to make on time. > And we should set time limit for this. > For example, next morning. > > Best regards, > Andrey Sviyazov. > (Sent from my mobile client) > 31.10.2012 22:24 пользователь "Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL" < > jsn at bjtpartners.com> написал: > > Hi Alexander, >> >> Thank you very much for your reply. >> >> Why skip/populate LMS power supply block ? >> As I understand we always need the LMS power supply block. I probably >> missed something. Could you explain this in more details to let me better >> understand ? >> >> Thanks a lot for your help. >> >> Best regards. >> >> Jean-Samuel. >> :-) >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Alexander Chemeris < >> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Yes, lesser input voltage range makes sense only if it saves >$10 >>> and/or considerably increases power efficiency. I think this not the >>> case, and then only these changes will be needed: >>> >>> * traditional power connector >>> * MCX RF connector, because they sustain much more connect-disconnect >>> cycles >>> * lower power consumption mod >>> >>> I would appreciate if we could keep the same PCB for both versions and >>> populate the proper version of power connector/RF connector and >>> skip/populate LMS power supply block. >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS >>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> wrote: >>> > Hi Alexander, >>> > >>> > This would be much easier to have the same board for both lab and >>> > deployment. Only the UmSEL would make the difference. >>> > For deployment, I really need wide input voltage range as I plan to >>> power >>> > the whole system (UmTRX + PA) with a single 28V supply. >>> > Even if this can save a few euros, I would really prefer we do not >>> make the >>> > input voltage range smaller. >>> > By the way, even for lab, it might be convenient and it can avoid >>> damages in >>> > case of wrong voltage supply. >>> > >>> > Best regards. >>> > >>> > Jean-Samuel. >>> > :-) >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Chemeris >>> > <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Andrey, how much time do you need to create 2.1? If it's mire than a >>> day, >>> >> we should postpone this. I believe that enclosure is a much more >>> important >>> >> issue at this moment. >>> >> >>> >> I think we need following changes for the lab version: >>> >> * traditional power connector >>> >> * MCX RF connector, because they sustain much more connect-disconnect >>> >> cycles >>> >> * lower power consumption mod >>> >> * smaller input voltage range (only if this makes things cheaper) >>> >> >>> >> Sent from my Android device. >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> Regards, >>> >> Alexander Chemeris >>> >> CEO, Fairwaves LLC >>> >> http://fairwaves.ru >>> >> >>> >> 31.10.2012 14:05 пользователь "Andrey Sviyazov" < >>> andreysviyaz at gmail.com> >>> >> написал: >>> >> >>> >>> Hi Jean-Samuel. >>> >>> >>> >>> First of all, you didn't said about delay duration :) >>> >>> I can't delay this batch just due to my wishes that each next batch >>> >>> should work more and more ideally. >>> >>> >>> >>>> These modifications looks interesting. I think it is a good idea. >>> >>> >>> >>> Hope so. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I just have a few question. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> Why do you call this board revision 2.1 "a special batch for labs" ? >>> >>>> Would these modifications make this revision 2.1 also more suitable >>> for >>> >>>> field deployment, at least as much as the revision 2.0 ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Because of I can fix only known issues. >>> >>> Also not all really required improvements are known yet. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Decreasing power consumption to 10..11 W would be great. Is there >>> any >>> >>>> drawbacks of this modification ? Would it decrease some >>> performances ? If >>> >>>> not, this modifiction to decrease power consumption is a >>> significant very >>> >>>> good modification. >>> >>> >>> >>> Decreasing of performances it is only spurs with DC/DC conversion >>> freq >>> >>> ~500kHz. >>> >>> Now I searching more good LC filter to suppress it better than >>> TI2012U601 >>> >>> can. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Do you have enough space on the board to replace some U_FL >>> connectors >>> >>>> with MCX connectors as you suggest ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Yes, but may be not all should be MCX. >>> >>> Of course I did not insist, but just asking whether there is a >>> reason to >>> >>> do it or not. >>> >>> >>> >>>> An external LNA would probably need around 5 Volts instead of 6V. A >>> >>>> small PA would probably need a little bit higher voltage. Do you >>> think it >>> >>>> would be possible to have a variable voltage low power connector ? >>> >>> >>> >>> On my opinion, variable voltage is not good idea. >>> >>> For example for LNA's better to place low noise LDO 6V to 5V near to >>> IC's >>> >>> to get Vcc clean too. >>> >>> >>> >>>> By the way, could you pelase also add the 2 LMS output matching >>> >>>> capacitors we need to improve output power figures in the 1800 band >>> ? >>> >>> >>> >>> Of course, because it is issue which should be fixed, but not >>> >>> improvement. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Andrey Sviyazov. >>> > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> Alexander Chemeris. >>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио >>> http://fairwaves.ru >>> >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20121031/5ab72a29/attachment.htm>