Hi 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@gmail.comwrote:
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@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@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@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@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@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