From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Wed Mar 14 15:52:23 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:52:23 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all!

I am again about far-near problem.

If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
then -107+73=-39dBm.
But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements for
normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6 MHz
offset.
So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am really
hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
Correct me please.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



16 ?????? 2012 ?. 19:22 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:

> Hi Alexander,
>
> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
> improvement.
>
> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd, 4th
> and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than others.
>
> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the IF
> signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF frequency.
> This would save some components.
> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW filter.
> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
> convenient.
> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400 MHz
> center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>
> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
> really good.
> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
> only be able to get switched diversity.
>
> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the signal
> between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX path
> (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
> RX LNA1).
>
> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board or
> with a very selective filter.
>
>
> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution with a
> wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600 KHz
> bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we would
> also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would allow a
> good selectivity and full diversity.
>
> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
> was not able to find such a filter.
>
>
> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
> quite expensive.
>
>
> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the 3rd
> solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with only 1
> narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter or
> combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
> not be able to get diversity at all.
>
> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>
>
> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>
> We could use the following RF path:
> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW filter.
> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>
> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable (<
> 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2 GSM
> carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>
> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
> reasonable.
> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected to
> the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
> switched or true diversity.
>
> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
> back to the RF frequency.
> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
> solution.
>
>
> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems to
> be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was not
> able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>
> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I am
> not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts of
> the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a bit
> by the SAW filter.
>
> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to double
> check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you think
> cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>
> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these selectivity
> improvement solutions.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Jean-Samuel.
> :-)
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120314/1ad5a018/attachment.htm>

From jsn at bjtpartners.com  Thu Mar 15 00:42:42 2012
From: jsn at bjtpartners.com (Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 01:42:42 +0100
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrey,

Thank you for your e-mail.

Yes, you are all right.

It think your calculations are good. I just did not knew how hard was the
GSM macro BTS spec.

I browsed a bit the web and found the GSM 05.05 specs which confirm what
you say. I also found some similar information and calculations in an
academic paper which confirm your figures.
http://www.uta.edu/rfmems/Conferences/2001_SPIE_MicroMEMS/4592-20.pdf (page
5 and 6)

Anyway, I tried to look at other components than the ADRF6601.

I found a quite low phase noise VCO/PLL from Hittite which seems to be able
to let us probably pass the macro BTS spec or at least the micro BTS spec.
http://www.hittite.com/products/view.html/view/HMC830LP6GE

For the mixer, we may use a separate component like the ADL5801.

Please let me know what you think about these chips. Please do not hesitate
to let us know some other suggestions if you know or if you can find some
other components that would have better performances.

Actually, even if the specs are not easy to pass, I still feel quite
optimistic as it was possible to pass these specs 15 years old components.
Anyway, if the macro BTS specs are really too hard to pass, we may focus on
the micro BTS spec. This would already be great to convince the market you
may be interested in and the performances would be good enough for most
practical situations in my deployment in Mayotte.

Best regards.

Jean-Samuel.
:-)


2012/3/14 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>

> Hi all!
>
> I am again about far-near problem.
>
> If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
> for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
> noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
> To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
> noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
> then -107+73=-39dBm.
> But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements for
> normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6 MHz
> offset.
> So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am really
> hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
> Correct me please.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
> 16 ?????? 2012 ?. 19:22 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>
> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
>> improvement.
>>
>> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd,
>> 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than
>> others.
>>
>> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the
>> IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF
>> frequency. This would save some components.
>> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW filter.
>> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
>> convenient.
>> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400
>> MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>>
>> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
>> really good.
>> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
>> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
>> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
>> only be able to get switched diversity.
>>
>> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the signal
>> between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX path
>> (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
>> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
>> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
>> RX LNA1).
>>
>> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board
>> or with a very selective filter.
>>
>>
>> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution with
>> a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600 KHz
>> bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we would
>> also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would allow a
>> good selectivity and full diversity.
>>
>> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
>> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
>> was not able to find such a filter.
>>
>>
>> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
>> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
>> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
>> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
>> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
>> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
>> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
>> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
>> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
>> quite expensive.
>>
>>
>> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the 3rd
>> solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with only 1
>> narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter or
>> combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
>> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
>> not be able to get diversity at all.
>>
>> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
>> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>>
>>
>> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
>> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>>
>> We could use the following RF path:
>> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW filter.
>> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>>
>> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable
>> (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2
>> GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>>
>> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
>> reasonable.
>> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected to
>> the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
>> switched or true diversity.
>>
>> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
>> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
>> back to the RF frequency.
>> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
>> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
>> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
>> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
>> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
>> solution.
>>
>>
>> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems to
>> be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was not
>> able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
>> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>>
>> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I
>> am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
>> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
>> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts of
>> the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a bit
>> by the SAW filter.
>>
>> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to double
>> check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you think
>> cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>>
>> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these selectivity
>> improvement solutions.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> Jean-Samuel.
>> :-)
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120315/fb278f64/attachment.htm>

From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Thu Mar 15 22:54:51 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:54:51 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jean-Samuel!

About  ADL5802, you can't use it as Down and Up converter simultaneously.
Also I'm afraid that we can't yet receiving 2 GSM carriers simultaneously.
So lets done single channel first but 2 or more keep in mind for
experiments.

I try to find better components too.
ADI mixers have internal IF AMP and it is not good in this case.
Components of Hittite are known for me as a very good through my main job.
I'd like to recommend to use any of the next:
for GSM900
1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC483MS8GE + TB0130A.  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC686LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
for DCS1800
1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC485MS8GE + TB0130A .  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC687LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
By the way, LMS lower limit 0.3GHz as per datasheet.

About GSM 05.05 specs I still can't understand blocker requirements:
MS spectrum with RBW=200kHz have -65dBc level at 600-1200kHz offset,
therefore blocker MS with -26dBm will be jammer for wanted MS with level
less then -91dBm and noise level of receiver's heterodyne isn't matter in
this case.
I really can't understand why CW levels -26dBm and -16dBm blocking tests
required.
May be it just universal test of heterodyne quality?

I think we should be reasonable people, and therefore we should use
parameters which really necessary for us.
So, ADRF6601 parameters seems to be quite enough even if it pass only mBS
requirements.
On the other hand, BOM difference between ADRF and HMC's around $20-25 only
and it isn't much for normal BS.
In short, it seems that we should do three options front-end mezzanines:
1/ without channel preselector for picoBS or nanoBS upto 0.5W/ch.
2/ preselector ADRF based for microBS upto 2W/ch.
3/ preselector HMC based for normal BS with 10-20W/ch TMB.

Please find attached pictures that my simple calculations for RX chain.
Also, please let me know real PA parameters which you decide to use for TMB.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



15 ????? 2012 ?. 4:42 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL
<jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:

> Hi Andrey,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> Yes, you are all right.
>
> It think your calculations are good. I just did not knew how hard was the
> GSM macro BTS spec.
>
> I browsed a bit the web and found the GSM 05.05 specs which confirm what
> you say. I also found some similar information and calculations in an
> academic paper which confirm your figures.
> http://www.uta.edu/rfmems/Conferences/2001_SPIE_MicroMEMS/4592-20.pdf(page 5 and 6)
>
> Anyway, I tried to look at other components than the ADRF6601.
>
> I found a quite low phase noise VCO/PLL from Hittite which seems to be
> able to let us probably pass the macro BTS spec or at least the micro BTS
> spec.
> http://www.hittite.com/products/view.html/view/HMC830LP6GE
>
> For the mixer, we may use a separate component like the ADL5801.
>
> Please let me know what you think about these chips. Please do not
> hesitate to let us know some other suggestions if you know or if you can
> find some other components that would have better performances.
>
> Actually, even if the specs are not easy to pass, I still feel quite
> optimistic as it was possible to pass these specs 15 years old components.
> Anyway, if the macro BTS specs are really too hard to pass, we may focus on
> the micro BTS spec. This would already be great to convince the market you
> may be interested in and the performances would be good enough for most
> practical situations in my deployment in Mayotte.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Jean-Samuel.
> :-)
>
>
>
> 2012/3/14 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I am again about far-near problem.
>>
>> If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
>> for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
>> noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
>> To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
>> noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
>> then -107+73=-39dBm.
>> But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements
>> for normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6
>> MHz offset.
>> So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am really
>> hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
>> Correct me please.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>
>>
>>
>> 16 ?????? 2012 ?. 19:22 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>>
>> Hi Alexander,
>>>
>>> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
>>> improvement.
>>>
>>> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd,
>>> 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than
>>> others.
>>>
>>> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the
>>> IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF
>>> frequency. This would save some components.
>>> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW
>>> filter.
>>> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
>>> convenient.
>>> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400
>>> MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>>>
>>> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
>>> really good.
>>> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
>>> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
>>> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
>>> only be able to get switched diversity.
>>>
>>> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the
>>> signal between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX
>>> path (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
>>> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
>>> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
>>> RX LNA1).
>>>
>>> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board
>>> or with a very selective filter.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution with
>>> a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600 KHz
>>> bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we would
>>> also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would allow a
>>> good selectivity and full diversity.
>>>
>>> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
>>> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
>>> was not able to find such a filter.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
>>> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
>>> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
>>> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
>>> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
>>> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
>>> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
>>> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
>>> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
>>> quite expensive.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the
>>> 3rd solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with
>>> only 1 narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter
>>> or combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
>>> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
>>> not be able to get diversity at all.
>>>
>>> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
>>> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
>>> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>>>
>>> We could use the following RF path:
>>> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW filter.
>>> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>>>
>>> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable
>>> (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2
>>> GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>>>
>>> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
>>> reasonable.
>>> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected
>>> to the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
>>> switched or true diversity.
>>>
>>> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
>>> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
>>> back to the RF frequency.
>>> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
>>> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
>>> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
>>> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
>>> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
>>> solution.
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems to
>>> be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was not
>>> able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
>>> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>>>
>>> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I
>>> am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
>>> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
>>> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts of
>>> the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a bit
>>> by the SAW filter.
>>>
>>> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to double
>>> check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you think
>>> cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>>>
>>> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these
>>> selectivity improvement solutions.
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>> Jean-Samuel.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120316/ad809061/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TMB_LNA.png
Type: image/png
Size: 18183 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120316/ad809061/attachment.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TMB+PRESELL_6601.png
Type: image/png
Size: 15975 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120316/ad809061/attachment-0001.png>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: TMB+PRESELL_HMC.png
Type: image/png
Size: 21190 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120316/ad809061/attachment-0002.png>

From coxe at close-haul.com  Thu Mar 15 23:08:07 2012
From: coxe at close-haul.com (Robin Coxe)
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2012 23:08:07 +0000
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
  <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>

Hittite is located in Massachusetts about 40 km from Boston.  Let me know if I can help with sourcing components or requesting samples.  

-Robin
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:54:51 
To: Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL<jsn at bjtpartners.com>
Cc: Alexander Chemeris<alexander.chemeris at gmail.com>; <gsm-internal at lists.fairwaves.ru>; Robin Coxe<coxe at close-haul.com>; Project Mayotte<project-mayotte at sysmocom.de>
Subject: Re: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX

Hi Jean-Samuel!

About  ADL5802, you can't use it as Down and Up converter simultaneously.
Also I'm afraid that we can't yet receiving 2 GSM carriers simultaneously.
So lets done single channel first but 2 or more keep in mind for
experiments.

I try to find better components too.
ADI mixers have internal IF AMP and it is not good in this case.
Components of Hittite are known for me as a very good through my main job.
I'd like to recommend to use any of the next:
for GSM900
1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC483MS8GE + TB0130A.  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC686LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
for DCS1800
1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC485MS8GE + TB0130A .  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC687LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
By the way, LMS lower limit 0.3GHz as per datasheet.

About GSM 05.05 specs I still can't understand blocker requirements:
MS spectrum with RBW=200kHz have -65dBc level at 600-1200kHz offset,
therefore blocker MS with -26dBm will be jammer for wanted MS with level
less then -91dBm and noise level of receiver's heterodyne isn't matter in
this case.
I really can't understand why CW levels -26dBm and -16dBm blocking tests
required.
May be it just universal test of heterodyne quality?

I think we should be reasonable people, and therefore we should use
parameters which really necessary for us.
So, ADRF6601 parameters seems to be quite enough even if it pass only mBS
requirements.
On the other hand, BOM difference between ADRF and HMC's around $20-25 only
and it isn't much for normal BS.
In short, it seems that we should do three options front-end mezzanines:
1/ without channel preselector for picoBS or nanoBS upto 0.5W/ch.
2/ preselector ADRF based for microBS upto 2W/ch.
3/ preselector HMC based for normal BS with 10-20W/ch TMB.

Please find attached pictures that my simple calculations for RX chain.
Also, please let me know real PA parameters which you decide to use for TMB.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



15 ????? 2012 ?. 4:42 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL
<jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:

> Hi Andrey,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail.
>
> Yes, you are all right.
>
> It think your calculations are good. I just did not knew how hard was the
> GSM macro BTS spec.
>
> I browsed a bit the web and found the GSM 05.05 specs which confirm what
> you say. I also found some similar information and calculations in an
> academic paper which confirm your figures.
> http://www.uta.edu/rfmems/Conferences/2001_SPIE_MicroMEMS/4592-20.pdf(page 5 and 6)
>
> Anyway, I tried to look at other components than the ADRF6601.
>
> I found a quite low phase noise VCO/PLL from Hittite which seems to be
> able to let us probably pass the macro BTS spec or at least the micro BTS
> spec.
> http://www.hittite.com/products/view.html/view/HMC830LP6GE
>
> For the mixer, we may use a separate component like the ADL5801.
>
> Please let me know what you think about these chips. Please do not
> hesitate to let us know some other suggestions if you know or if you can
> find some other components that would have better performances.
>
> Actually, even if the specs are not easy to pass, I still feel quite
> optimistic as it was possible to pass these specs 15 years old components.
> Anyway, if the macro BTS specs are really too hard to pass, we may focus on
> the micro BTS spec. This would already be great to convince the market you
> may be interested in and the performances would be good enough for most
> practical situations in my deployment in Mayotte.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Jean-Samuel.
> :-)
>
>
>
> 2012/3/14 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I am again about far-near problem.
>>
>> If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
>> for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
>> noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
>> To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
>> noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
>> then -107+73=-39dBm.
>> But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements
>> for normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6
>> MHz offset.
>> So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am really
>> hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
>> Correct me please.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>
>>
>>
>> 16 ?????? 2012 ?. 19:22 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>>
>> Hi Alexander,
>>>
>>> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
>>> improvement.
>>>
>>> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd,
>>> 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than
>>> others.
>>>
>>> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the
>>> IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF
>>> frequency. This would save some components.
>>> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW
>>> filter.
>>> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
>>> convenient.
>>> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400
>>> MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>>>
>>> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
>>> really good.
>>> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
>>> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
>>> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
>>> only be able to get switched diversity.
>>>
>>> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the
>>> signal between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX
>>> path (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
>>> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
>>> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
>>> RX LNA1).
>>>
>>> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board
>>> or with a very selective filter.
>>>
>>>
>>> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution with
>>> a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600 KHz
>>> bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we would
>>> also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would allow a
>>> good selectivity and full diversity.
>>>
>>> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
>>> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
>>> was not able to find such a filter.
>>>
>>>
>>> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
>>> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
>>> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
>>> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
>>> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
>>> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
>>> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
>>> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
>>> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
>>> quite expensive.
>>>
>>>
>>> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the
>>> 3rd solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with
>>> only 1 narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter
>>> or combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
>>> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
>>> not be able to get diversity at all.
>>>
>>> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
>>> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>>>
>>>
>>> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
>>> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>>>
>>> We could use the following RF path:
>>> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW filter.
>>> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>>>
>>> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable
>>> (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2
>>> GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>>>
>>> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
>>> reasonable.
>>> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected
>>> to the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
>>> switched or true diversity.
>>>
>>> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
>>> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
>>> back to the RF frequency.
>>> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
>>> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
>>> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
>>> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
>>> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
>>> solution.
>>>
>>>
>>> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems to
>>> be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was not
>>> able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
>>> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>>>
>>> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I
>>> am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
>>> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
>>> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts of
>>> the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a bit
>>> by the SAW filter.
>>>
>>> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to double
>>> check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you think
>>> cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>>>
>>> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these
>>> selectivity improvement solutions.
>>>
>>> Best regards.
>>>
>>> Jean-Samuel.
>>> :-)
>>>
>>>
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120315/78e05e85/attachment.htm>

From jsn at bjtpartners.com  Fri Mar 16 00:17:58 2012
From: jsn at bjtpartners.com (Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:17:58 +0100
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com> <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrey,

Thank you very much for your reply.

Thanks a lot for all the details you send.
Yes, you are all right, Hittite mixers looks much more suitable than the
ADL5801. These Hittite mixers have also a very high IIP3 and a resonable
Noise Figure. Moreover, I agree with you, the ADL5801 integrated IF amp is
not really suitable in our design.

Again, I agree with you. Receiving 2 carriers simultaneously on each Rx
path will not be easy (LMS phase noise, ADC dynamic range, extra digital
filtering...). We should keep just a single carrier per Rx path. This will
allow to do switched diversity. This is already great.

Regarding the choice between HMC483MS8GE/HMC485MS8GE and
HMC686LP4E/HMC687LP4E, I cannot figure out which one would be the most
suitable for our design. For the filter, it is also quite difficult for me
to help you to decide between the TB0130A and the TB0448A.
By the way, do you think this would be fine to use a different mixer for
900 and 1800 MHz bands ? As chip packages remain the same, I think it would
be fine but I would like to double check with you.

Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass and
not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care that
much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but I
really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you wish
to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as we
would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a reasonably
narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost that much
more to try to pass the GSM spec.

By the way, I really believe this does not worth designing 2 different
preselectors. I think it would be more reasonable to design only the
Hittite based high performance preselector. First of all, as you mentioned
and as I calculate on my side also, the ADRF6601 will not even pass the
micro BTS spec. Moreover, the time you spend designing and debugging 2
different preselector would probably cost more than the 40 USD per board
you save on the boards you will use for low cost applications. Moreover, 2
different designs would mean lower quantities components order. This would
mean higher buying prices, higher shipping costs per chip... In practice,
the cost difference would be probably 25 to 30 USD per board, not 40 USD.

I really think we should only make one design with the Hittite high
performance preselector. If we really want a low cost femtocell, a
universal SDR board or a lab experiment system, we would not even populate
the preselector components. If we need GSM deployment applications (except
femtocells), nobody (even me ;-)) would actually care about the extra 40
USD BOM.

I looked at the picture of your Rx path calculations. As discussed together
in Barcelona, I am not sure we should add an LNA on the UmTRX. TMB LNA
would already have a very good Noise Figure (about 0.8 dB or even a bit
less) and a quite high gain (between 20 to 30 dB depending of the cable
loss). OIP3 of the TMB would be typacally around 35 dBm. Adding an extra on
board LNA would be quite bad for the total Rx path IIP3.
Moreover, as there is some PCB leakage from Tx to Rx in the UmTRX, we might
avoid onboard amplifiers. An on board amplifier might actuallly amplify the
leakage.
I actually suggested this LNA a few months ago but, in Barcelona, you
convinced me this LNA was not really a good idea. What do you think ?

Regarding the PA parameters, for both models we can get at a good price,
P1dB would be between 8 (Infineon) to 15 (Freescale) Watts at 27 VDC (a bit
lower at 24 VDC). Gain would be around 40 dB (excluding cable loss). Please
let me know if you need others LNA and/or PA specs of the TMB I can get
from the manufacturers I am discussing with.

Thank you very much for your great work on the design of the UmTRX. I
really believe this will be a great board.

Best regards.

Jean-Samuel.
:-)


2012/3/15 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>

> Hi Jean-Samuel!
>
> About  ADL5802, you can't use it as Down and Up converter simultaneously.
> Also I'm afraid that we can't yet receiving 2 GSM carriers simultaneously.
> So lets done single channel first but 2 or more keep in mind for
> experiments.
>
> I try to find better components too.
> ADI mixers have internal IF AMP and it is not good in this case.
> Components of Hittite are known for me as a very good through my main job.
> I'd like to recommend to use any of the next:
> for GSM900
> 1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC483MS8GE + TB0130A.  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
> 2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC686LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
> for DCS1800
> 1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC485MS8GE + TB0130A .  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
> 2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC687LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
> By the way, LMS lower limit 0.3GHz as per datasheet.
>
> About GSM 05.05 specs I still can't understand blocker requirements:
> MS spectrum with RBW=200kHz have -65dBc level at 600-1200kHz offset,
> therefore blocker MS with -26dBm will be jammer for wanted MS with level
> less then -91dBm and noise level of receiver's heterodyne isn't matter in
> this case.
> I really can't understand why CW levels -26dBm and -16dBm blocking tests
> required.
> May be it just universal test of heterodyne quality?
>
> I think we should be reasonable people, and therefore we should use
> parameters which really necessary for us.
> So, ADRF6601 parameters seems to be quite enough even if it pass only mBS
> requirements.
> On the other hand, BOM difference between ADRF and HMC's around $20-25
> only and it isn't much for normal BS.
> In short, it seems that we should do three options front-end mezzanines:
> 1/ without channel preselector for picoBS or nanoBS upto 0.5W/ch.
> 2/ preselector ADRF based for microBS upto 2W/ch.
> 3/ preselector HMC based for normal BS with 10-20W/ch TMB.
>
> Please find attached pictures that my simple calculations for RX chain.
> Also, please let me know real PA parameters which you decide to use
> for TMB.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
> 15 ????? 2012 ?. 4:42 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>
> Hi Andrey,
>>
>> Thank you for your e-mail.
>>
>> Yes, you are all right.
>>
>> It think your calculations are good. I just did not knew how hard was the
>> GSM macro BTS spec.
>>
>> I browsed a bit the web and found the GSM 05.05 specs which confirm what
>> you say. I also found some similar information and calculations in an
>> academic paper which confirm your figures.
>> http://www.uta.edu/rfmems/Conferences/2001_SPIE_MicroMEMS/4592-20.pdf(page 5 and 6)
>>
>> Anyway, I tried to look at other components than the ADRF6601.
>>
>> I found a quite low phase noise VCO/PLL from Hittite which seems to be
>> able to let us probably pass the macro BTS spec or at least the micro BTS
>> spec.
>> http://www.hittite.com/products/view.html/view/HMC830LP6GE
>>
>> For the mixer, we may use a separate component like the ADL5801.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think about these chips. Please do not
>> hesitate to let us know some other suggestions if you know or if you can
>> find some other components that would have better performances.
>>
>> Actually, even if the specs are not easy to pass, I still feel quite
>> optimistic as it was possible to pass these specs 15 years old components.
>> Anyway, if the macro BTS specs are really too hard to pass, we may focus on
>> the micro BTS spec. This would already be great to convince the market you
>> may be interested in and the performances would be good enough for most
>> practical situations in my deployment in Mayotte.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> Jean-Samuel.
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/14 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I am again about far-near problem.
>>>
>>> If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
>>> for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
>>> noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
>>> To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
>>> noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
>>> then -107+73=-39dBm.
>>> But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements
>>> for normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6
>>> MHz offset.
>>> So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am
>>> really hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
>>> Correct me please.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 16 ?????? 2012 ?. 19:22 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
>>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>>>
>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>
>>>> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
>>>> improvement.
>>>>
>>>> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd,
>>>> 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the
>>>> IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF
>>>> frequency. This would save some components.
>>>> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW
>>>> filter.
>>>> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
>>>> convenient.
>>>> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400
>>>> MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>>>>
>>>> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
>>>> really good.
>>>> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
>>>> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
>>>> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
>>>> only be able to get switched diversity.
>>>>
>>>> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the
>>>> signal between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX
>>>> path (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
>>>> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
>>>> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
>>>> RX LNA1).
>>>>
>>>> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board
>>>> or with a very selective filter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution
>>>> with a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600
>>>> KHz bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we
>>>> would also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would
>>>> allow a good selectivity and full diversity.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
>>>> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
>>>> was not able to find such a filter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
>>>> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
>>>> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
>>>> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
>>>> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
>>>> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
>>>> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
>>>> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
>>>> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
>>>> quite expensive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the
>>>> 3rd solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with
>>>> only 1 narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter
>>>> or combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
>>>> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
>>>> not be able to get diversity at all.
>>>>
>>>> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
>>>> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
>>>> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>>>>
>>>> We could use the following RF path:
>>>> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW
>>>> filter.
>>>> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>>>>
>>>> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable
>>>> (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2
>>>> GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>>>>
>>>> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
>>>> reasonable.
>>>> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected
>>>> to the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
>>>> switched or true diversity.
>>>>
>>>> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
>>>> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
>>>> back to the RF frequency.
>>>> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
>>>> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
>>>> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
>>>> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
>>>> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems
>>>> to be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was
>>>> not able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
>>>> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I
>>>> am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
>>>> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
>>>> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts
>>>> of the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a
>>>> bit by the SAW filter.
>>>>
>>>> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to
>>>> double check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you
>>>> think cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these
>>>> selectivity improvement solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Samuel.
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120316/ddbce852/attachment.htm>

From jsn at bjtpartners.com  Fri Mar 16 00:19:05 2012
From: jsn at bjtpartners.com (Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL)
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2012 01:19:05 +0100
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com> <760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
Message-ID: <CAAzQdT9rgzF1WLa18TLn0qcqomCO9FBSCAUnstqcky+it_tpNg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin,

Thank you very much for your help. This could be very convenient. Thanks a
lot.

Best regards.

Jean-Samuel.
:-)


On Fri, Mar 16, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> wrote:

> **
> Hittite is located in Massachusetts about 40 km from Boston. Let me know
> if I can help with sourcing components or requesting samples.
>
> -Robin
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:54:51 +0400
> *To: *Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL<jsn at bjtpartners.com>
> *Cc: *Alexander Chemeris<alexander.chemeris at gmail.com>; <
> gsm-internal at lists.fairwaves.ru>; Robin Coxe<coxe at close-haul.com>;
> Project Mayotte<project-mayotte at sysmocom.de>
> *Subject: *Re: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
>
> Hi Jean-Samuel!
>
> About  ADL5802, you can't use it as Down and Up converter simultaneously.
> Also I'm afraid that we can't yet receiving 2 GSM carriers simultaneously.
> So lets done single channel first but 2 or more keep in mind for
> experiments.
>
> I try to find better components too.
> ADI mixers have internal IF AMP and it is not good in this case.
> Components of Hittite are known for me as a very good through my main job.
> I'd like to recommend to use any of the next:
> for GSM900
> 1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC483MS8GE + TB0130A.  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
> 2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC686LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
> for DCS1800
> 1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC485MS8GE + TB0130A .  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
> 2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC687LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
> By the way, LMS lower limit 0.3GHz as per datasheet.
>
> About GSM 05.05 specs I still can't understand blocker requirements:
> MS spectrum with RBW=200kHz have -65dBc level at 600-1200kHz offset,
> therefore blocker MS with -26dBm will be jammer for wanted MS with level
> less then -91dBm and noise level of receiver's heterodyne isn't matter in
> this case.
> I really can't understand why CW levels -26dBm and -16dBm blocking tests
> required.
> May be it just universal test of heterodyne quality?
>
> I think we should be reasonable people, and therefore we should use
> parameters which really necessary for us.
> So, ADRF6601 parameters seems to be quite enough even if it pass only mBS
> requirements.
> On the other hand, BOM difference between ADRF and HMC's around $20-25
> only and it isn't much for normal BS.
> In short, it seems that we should do three options front-end mezzanines:
> 1/ without channel preselector for picoBS or nanoBS upto 0.5W/ch.
> 2/ preselector ADRF based for microBS upto 2W/ch.
> 3/ preselector HMC based for normal BS with 10-20W/ch TMB.
>
> Please find attached pictures that my simple calculations for RX chain.
> Also, please let me know real PA parameters which you decide to use
> for TMB.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
> 15 ????? 2012 ?. 4:42 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>
>> Hi Andrey,
>>
>> Thank you for your e-mail.
>>
>> Yes, you are all right.
>>
>> It think your calculations are good. I just did not knew how hard was the
>> GSM macro BTS spec.
>>
>> I browsed a bit the web and found the GSM 05.05 specs which confirm what
>> you say. I also found some similar information and calculations in an
>> academic paper which confirm your figures.
>> http://www.uta.edu/rfmems/Conferences/2001_SPIE_MicroMEMS/4592-20.pdf(page 5 and 6)
>>
>> Anyway, I tried to look at other components than the ADRF6601.
>>
>> I found a quite low phase noise VCO/PLL from Hittite which seems to be
>> able to let us probably pass the macro BTS spec or at least the micro BTS
>> spec.
>> http://www.hittite.com/products/view.html/view/HMC830LP6GE
>>
>> For the mixer, we may use a separate component like the ADL5801.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think about these chips. Please do not
>> hesitate to let us know some other suggestions if you know or if you can
>> find some other components that would have better performances.
>>
>> Actually, even if the specs are not easy to pass, I still feel quite
>> optimistic as it was possible to pass these specs 15 years old components.
>> Anyway, if the macro BTS specs are really too hard to pass, we may focus on
>> the micro BTS spec. This would already be great to convince the market you
>> may be interested in and the performances would be good enough for most
>> practical situations in my deployment in Mayotte.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> Jean-Samuel.
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/14 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I am again about far-near problem.
>>>
>>> If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
>>> for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
>>> noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
>>> To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
>>> noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
>>> then -107+73=-39dBm.
>>> But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements
>>> for normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6
>>> MHz offset.
>>> So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am
>>> really hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
>>> Correct me please.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 16 ?????? 2012 ?. 19:22 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
>>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>>>
>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>
>>>> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
>>>> improvement.
>>>>
>>>> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd,
>>>> 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the
>>>> IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF
>>>> frequency. This would save some components.
>>>> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW
>>>> filter.
>>>> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
>>>> convenient.
>>>> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400
>>>> MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>>>>
>>>> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
>>>> really good.
>>>> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
>>>> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
>>>> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
>>>> only be able to get switched diversity.
>>>>
>>>> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the
>>>> signal between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX
>>>> path (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
>>>> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
>>>> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
>>>> RX LNA1).
>>>>
>>>> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board
>>>> or with a very selective filter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution
>>>> with a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600
>>>> KHz bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we
>>>> would also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would
>>>> allow a good selectivity and full diversity.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
>>>> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
>>>> was not able to find such a filter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
>>>> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
>>>> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
>>>> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
>>>> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
>>>> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
>>>> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
>>>> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
>>>> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
>>>> quite expensive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the
>>>> 3rd solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with
>>>> only 1 narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter
>>>> or combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
>>>> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
>>>> not be able to get diversity at all.
>>>>
>>>> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
>>>> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
>>>> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>>>>
>>>> We could use the following RF path:
>>>> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW
>>>> filter.
>>>> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>>>>
>>>> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable
>>>> (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2
>>>> GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>>>>
>>>> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
>>>> reasonable.
>>>> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected
>>>> to the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
>>>> switched or true diversity.
>>>>
>>>> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
>>>> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
>>>> back to the RF frequency.
>>>> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
>>>> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
>>>> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
>>>> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
>>>> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems
>>>> to be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was
>>>> not able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
>>>> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I
>>>> am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
>>>> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
>>>> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts
>>>> of the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a
>>>> bit by the SAW filter.
>>>>
>>>> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to
>>>> double check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you
>>>> think cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these
>>>> selectivity improvement solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Samuel.
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120316/554e4091/attachment.htm>

From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Sat Mar 17 22:31:48 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:31:48 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jean-Samuel!

Some answers and reasons below.

Regarding the choice between HMC483MS8GE/HMC485MS8GE and
> HMC686LP4E/HMC687LP4E, I cannot figure out which one would be the most
> suitable for our design. For the filter, it is also quite difficult for me
> to help you to decide between the TB0130A and the TB0448A.
>
By the way, do you think this would be fine to use a different mixer for
> 900 and 1800 MHz bands ? As chip packages remain the same, I think it would
> be fine but I would like to double check with you.
>
Differences between HMC 483/483 and HMC686/687:
1/ price of HMC483/485 twice lower.
2/ current consumption of HMC483/485 twice lower.
3/ package ms8g better for me.
4/ I have good expirience with HMC483/485 and some qty there are on my
warehouse in Moscow.
5/ HMC483/485 require TB0130A which have 20dB higher rejection than TB448A.
So, HMC483/485 better for me.

Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass and
> not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care that
> much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but I
> really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you wish
> to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as we
> would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a reasonably
> narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost that much
> more to try to pass the GSM spec.
>
You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important for
systems with high channel dencity.
Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product, but it
is very difficult then to fix it back.
I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good
hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :)


> By the way, I really believe this does not worth designing 2 different
> preselectors. I think it would be more reasonable to design only the
> Hittite based high performance preselector. First of all, as you mentioned
> and as I calculate on my side also, the ADRF6601 will not even pass the
> micro BTS spec. Moreover, the time you spend designing and debugging 2
> different preselector would probably cost more than the 40 USD per board
> you save on the boards you will use for low cost applications. Moreover, 2
> different designs would mean lower quantities components order. This would
> mean higher buying prices, higher shipping costs per chip... In practice,
> the cost difference would be probably 25 to 30 USD per board, not 40 USD.
>

> I really think we should only make one design with the Hittite high
> performance preselector. If we really want a low cost femtocell, a
> universal SDR board or a lab experiment system, we would not even populate
> the preselector components. If we need GSM deployment applications (except
> femtocells), nobody (even me ;-)) would actually care about the extra 40
> USD BOM.
>
Exactly, I agree again.


> I looked at the picture of your Rx path calculations. As discussed
> together in Barcelona, I am not sure we should add an LNA on the UmTRX. TMB
> LNA would already have a very good Noise Figure (about 0.8 dB or even a bit
> less) and a quite high gain (between 20 to 30 dB depending of the cable
> loss). OIP3 of the TMB would be typacally around 35 dBm. Adding an extra on
> board LNA would be quite bad for the total Rx path IIP3.
>
How you define that 35 dBm OIP3 required?
I saw only -1dBm IIP3 in the datasheet for middle Gain of LNA2 and it isn't
informative for me.


> Moreover, as there is some PCB leakage from Tx to Rx in the UmTRX, we
> might avoid onboard amplifiers. An on board amplifier might actuallly
> amplify the leakage.
> I actually suggested this LNA a few months ago but, in Barcelona, you
> convinced me this LNA was not really a good idea. What do you think ?
>
Duplexer+PA(0.25..2W)+LNA+Preselector are all will be on the mezzanine
board for uBTS, nBTS and mBTS solutions TMD.
So, you right - new UmTRX will be without LNA's and bandpass filters,
because it is universal dual tranceiver with diversity switch.
As we discussed in Barcelona, we forced to design different mezza-boards
for each band, but it much easy than UmTRX changes.
Also high power "mezza-boards" will be not as true mezzanine because of
require heatsink and separate power source.

Regarding the PA parameters, for both models we can get at a good price,
> P1dB would be between 8 (Infineon) to 15 (Freescale) Watts at 27 VDC (a bit
> lower at 24 VDC). Gain would be around 40 dB (excluding cable loss). Please
> let me know if you need others LNA and/or PA specs of the TMB I can get
> from the manufacturers I am discussing with.
>
Actualy I really thought that you already have offers about PA or TMB from
Chinese manufactures.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120318/edf0d3c8/attachment.htm>

From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Sat Mar 17 22:32:46 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 02:32:46 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
Message-ID: <CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin!

Thank you, that you are ready to help us.
It will be great, if you can supply us samples of HMC830LP6GE.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



16 ????? 2012 ?. 3:08 ???????????? Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> ???????:

> **
> Hittite is located in Massachusetts about 40 km from Boston. Let me know
> if I can help with sourcing components or requesting samples.
>
> -Robin
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Fri, 16 Mar 2012 02:54:51 +0400
> *To: *Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL<jsn at bjtpartners.com>
> *Cc: *Alexander Chemeris<alexander.chemeris at gmail.com>; <
> gsm-internal at lists.fairwaves.ru>; Robin Coxe<coxe at close-haul.com>;
> Project Mayotte<project-mayotte at sysmocom.de>
> *Subject: *Re: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
>
> Hi Jean-Samuel!
>
> About  ADL5802, you can't use it as Down and Up converter simultaneously.
> Also I'm afraid that we can't yet receiving 2 GSM carriers simultaneously.
> So lets done single channel first but 2 or more keep in mind for
> experiments.
>
> I try to find better components too.
> ADI mixers have internal IF AMP and it is not good in this case.
> Components of Hittite are known for me as a very good through my main job.
> I'd like to recommend to use any of the next:
> for GSM900
> 1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC483MS8GE + TB0130A.  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
> 2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC686LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
> for DCS1800
> 1/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC485MS8GE + TB0130A .  (20.6+4.69+3=$28.29)
> 2/ HMC830LP6GE + HMC687LP4E + TB0448A. (20.6+9.67+3=$32.97)
> By the way, LMS lower limit 0.3GHz as per datasheet.
>
> About GSM 05.05 specs I still can't understand blocker requirements:
> MS spectrum with RBW=200kHz have -65dBc level at 600-1200kHz offset,
> therefore blocker MS with -26dBm will be jammer for wanted MS with level
> less then -91dBm and noise level of receiver's heterodyne isn't matter in
> this case.
> I really can't understand why CW levels -26dBm and -16dBm blocking tests
> required.
> May be it just universal test of heterodyne quality?
>
> I think we should be reasonable people, and therefore we should use
> parameters which really necessary for us.
> So, ADRF6601 parameters seems to be quite enough even if it pass only mBS
> requirements.
> On the other hand, BOM difference between ADRF and HMC's around $20-25
> only and it isn't much for normal BS.
> In short, it seems that we should do three options front-end mezzanines:
> 1/ without channel preselector for picoBS or nanoBS upto 0.5W/ch.
> 2/ preselector ADRF based for microBS upto 2W/ch.
> 3/ preselector HMC based for normal BS with 10-20W/ch TMB.
>
> Please find attached pictures that my simple calculations for RX chain.
> Also, please let me know real PA parameters which you decide to use
> for TMB.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
> 15 ????? 2012 ?. 4:42 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>
>> Hi Andrey,
>>
>> Thank you for your e-mail.
>>
>> Yes, you are all right.
>>
>> It think your calculations are good. I just did not knew how hard was the
>> GSM macro BTS spec.
>>
>> I browsed a bit the web and found the GSM 05.05 specs which confirm what
>> you say. I also found some similar information and calculations in an
>> academic paper which confirm your figures.
>> http://www.uta.edu/rfmems/Conferences/2001_SPIE_MicroMEMS/4592-20.pdf(page 5 and 6)
>>
>> Anyway, I tried to look at other components than the ADRF6601.
>>
>> I found a quite low phase noise VCO/PLL from Hittite which seems to be
>> able to let us probably pass the macro BTS spec or at least the micro BTS
>> spec.
>> http://www.hittite.com/products/view.html/view/HMC830LP6GE
>>
>> For the mixer, we may use a separate component like the ADL5801.
>>
>> Please let me know what you think about these chips. Please do not
>> hesitate to let us know some other suggestions if you know or if you can
>> find some other components that would have better performances.
>>
>> Actually, even if the specs are not easy to pass, I still feel quite
>> optimistic as it was possible to pass these specs 15 years old components.
>> Anyway, if the macro BTS specs are really too hard to pass, we may focus on
>> the micro BTS spec. This would already be great to convince the market you
>> may be interested in and the performances would be good enough for most
>> practical situations in my deployment in Mayotte.
>>
>> Best regards.
>>
>> Jean-Samuel.
>> :-)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/14 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Hi all!
>>>
>>> I am again about far-near problem.
>>>
>>> If we have heterodyne noise -135dBc/Hz at 600kHz offset (ADRF6601), then
>>> for blocking signal at the same offset and at 200kHz RBW we get additional
>>> noise level 135-53=72dBc relative to blocking signal level.
>>> To keep "normal GSM900 BS" sensitivity -104dBm we must keep additional
>>> noise as low as -107dBm, therefore blocking signal maximum level must less
>>> then -107+73=-39dBm.
>>> But in GSM-05.05 (sec 5.1) I saw blocking characteristics requirements
>>> for normal BTS must be -26 dBm at 0.6-0.8 MHz offset and -16 dBm at 0.8-1.6
>>> MHz offset.
>>> So, I do not know how and who can meet those requirements and I am
>>> really hope that there are fundamental mistakes in my calculations.
>>> Correct me please.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 16 ?????? 2012 ?. 19:22 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
>>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:
>>>
>>> Hi Alexander,
>>>>
>>>> These last days, I tried to find a solution for the selectivity
>>>> improvement.
>>>>
>>>> I have 5 solutions to propose. 1st and 2nd are inboard solutions. 3rd,
>>>> 4th and 5th uses an external board. Some seems to be much better than
>>>> others.
>>>>
>>>> 1/ We could use an IF frequency above 375 MHz to be able to connect the
>>>> IF signal dirtectly to the LMS, without any upconvertion back to RF
>>>> frequency. This would save some components.
>>>> We could use the ADRF6601 (PLL/VCO + mixer) and the TB0448A IF SAW
>>>> filter.
>>>> The ADRF6601 is single chip PLL/VCO and mixer. This would be quite
>>>> convenient.
>>>> The TB0448A is cheap (< 3 USD), narrow band (good selectivity) and 400
>>>> MHz center frequency (> 375 MHz LMS lower limit).
>>>>
>>>> Cost of this solution would be about 60 USD and selectivity would be
>>>> really good.
>>>> The main disadvantage of this solution is the filter would restrict the
>>>> signal to a single GSM carrier. This would avoid us to get both GSM
>>>> carriers on each LMS. We would not be able to get true diversity. We would
>>>> only be able to get switched diversity.
>>>>
>>>> After the LNA, RF SAW filter and the RF switches, we can split the
>>>> signal between the current RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 and a new alternate RX
>>>> path (ADRF6601 => TB0448A => LMS RX LNA 1).
>>>> Depending of our need for selectivity, we would be able to select 1 of
>>>> these 2 RX path (direct RX path to LMS RX LNA 3 or IF filter RX path to LMS
>>>> RX LNA1).
>>>>
>>>> This would allow to use the board either as a normal wideband SDR board
>>>> or with a very selective filter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2/ A very nice option would be to use a variant of the 1st solution
>>>> with a wider bandwidth SAW IF filter. For example, if we use a 400 to 600
>>>> KHz bandwidth IF filter, we would also get a very good selectivity and we
>>>> would also be able to sample both GSM carriers on each LMS. This would
>>>> allow a good selectivity and full diversity.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is we would need a 400 to 600 KHz SAW IF filter, with good
>>>> selectivity, reasonable price and an IF center frequency above 375 MHz. I
>>>> was not able to find such a filter.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3/ As suggested a few days ago, we may use the external selectivity
>>>> improvement board design I sent you. Instead of the Triquint 856378 IF SAW
>>>> filter, we could use the TAISAW TB0448A narrow band filter. This TAISAW
>>>> filter is really much cheaper than the Triquint. This would save a lot of
>>>> budget. However, we would still need 4 mixer and 2 PLL/VCO for each LMS RX
>>>> path. This external board would cost approximately 100 USD (excluding PCB
>>>> and assembly). We would need 2 of these boards for each UmTRX board. This
>>>> would make 200 USD per UmTRX. Including PCB and assembly, toatl cost would
>>>> be around 300 USD. This is not compeltely unrealistic but it seems still
>>>> quite expensive.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 4/ Another solution would be to build a single carrier version of the
>>>> 3rd solution design. We would need only 1 RF path (PLL/VCO + mixer) with
>>>> only 1 narrow band filter per LMS RX path. This would not need any splitter
>>>> or combiner. Design would be quite simple and cost would be about 2 times
>>>> lower. However, as we will have only 1 carrier on each antenna, we would
>>>> not be able to get diversity at all.
>>>>
>>>> This solution would finally not have many advantages compared to 1st
>>>> solution. It would cost more and would not allow any kind of diversity.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 5/ Last solution would be to build an external diversity improvement
>>>> board, as 4th solution, but with a wider band IF SAW filter.
>>>>
>>>> We could use the following RF path:
>>>> LNA => RF SAW filter => mixer => IF SAW filter => mixer => RF SAW
>>>> filter.
>>>> Dual mixer could be the ADL5802 connected to the ADF4350 PLL/VCO.
>>>>
>>>> We could use the TB0218A IF SAW filter. This filter is quite affordable
>>>> (< 10 USD). Selectivity is good and bandwidth is wide enough to select 2
>>>> GSM carriers (separated by 400 KHz).
>>>>
>>>> Cost of such external diversity improvement board would be quite
>>>> reasonable.
>>>> This would be a very nice solution to select 2 GSM carriers. Connected
>>>> to the UmTRX, this selectivity improvement board would allow to get both
>>>> switched or true diversity.
>>>>
>>>> As TB0218A center frequency is 140 MHz, we would not be able to connect
>>>> directly the IF signal to the LMS. We would need to up convert the signal
>>>> back to the RF frequency.
>>>> As IF down converted signal is upconverted back to the original RF
>>>> frequency, it would be possible to use this selectivity improvement board
>>>> with any kind of existing OpenBTS (UmTRX, USRP, SSRP...) or OpenBSC
>>>> (Sysmocom BTS, IP.access nanoBTS...) hardware to improve the Rx
>>>> selectivity. This would offer a wider potential market than an inboard
>>>> solution.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Considering all these solution, I believe 1st and 5th solutions seems
>>>> to be the best choices. 2nd solution would also be really nice but I was
>>>> not able to find the appropriate IF SAW filter.
>>>> Please let me know your opinion regarding each of these two solutions.
>>>>
>>>> By the way, the TB0448A and TB0218A SAW filters looks really good but I
>>>> am not 100% sure the GSM carrier spectrum distortion due to the pass band
>>>> ripple of the SAW filter is acceptable.
>>>> Center part of the GSM carrier (f +/- 100 KHz) is fine but side parts
>>>> of the GSM carrier (bellow f - 100 KHz and above f + 100 KHz) may be cut a
>>>> bit by the SAW filter.
>>>>
>>>> Could you also please check the TB0448A and TB0218A datasheets to
>>>> double check if the usable bandwidth is wide enough ? Especially, do you
>>>> think cutting a bit the side parts of the GSM carrier may cause problem ?
>>>>
>>>> Anyway, please let me know your point of view regarding these
>>>> selectivity improvement solutions.
>>>>
>>>> Best regards.
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Samuel.
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120318/6f7994a4/attachment.htm>

From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Sun Mar 18 07:45:34 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 11:45:34 +0400
Subject: UmTRX marketing. Was: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
Message-ID: <CABmJbFUp3tMEFTNPw8q=Yz1mmpwUEX+41P_BCwD+qhg7Ue4njg@mail.gmail.com>

Andrey and all,

18.03.2012 2:31 ???????????? "Andrey Sviyazov" <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
???????:
>> Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass
and not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care
that much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but
I really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you
wish to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as
we would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a
reasonably narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost
that much more to try to pass the GSM spec.
>
> You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important for
systems with high channel dencity.

I completely support everything which could make our product better without
increasing its cost. But we also must ensure to release UmTRX in time. What
we all should keep on mind is that "the best is an enemy to a good". We
should focus on those 10% of simple tweaks which bring us 90% of
improvement. Otherwise we'll be swamped with the other 90% of tweaks and
will miss the market opportunity. I can't stress it more - we MUST release
UmTRX ASAP. Even if it doesn't meet macro-BTS requirements. We'll be able
to fix this in the next version if ever needed - we can't know the real
demand until we release the first version.

I would be glad of what I've just said is obvious and already lives in your
heart. Otherwise it's extremely important you understand this deeply, not
formally. Please let me know if you don't, I'll explain in more details.

> Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product, but
it is very difficult then to fix it back.

This is true. And the best way to keep the reputation is to realistically
understand UmTRX capabilities and avoid overmarketing. In other words, with
just reasonable product quality, our reputation depends solely on the right
marketing. E.g. we might explicitly warn customers that it's not suitable
for macro-BTS installations and they could do so on their own risk only.

> I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good
hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :)

This is very true. Just keep in mind that "good hardware" means "minimally
viable hardware at low price" and doesn't mean "super high quality mumbo
jumbo with many zeros in the price". Our customers value simplicity and low
cost over complexity and golden plates.

That said, I can't help with decisions on the RF side and here I rely on
you, guys. That's why it is so important for you to understand all these
"abstract" marketing ideas.

Sent from my Android device.

--
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris
CEO, Fairwaves LLC
http://fairwaves.ru
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120318/e2ce11b7/attachment.htm>

From jsn at bjtpartners.com  Sun Mar 18 14:25:33 2012
From: jsn at bjtpartners.com (Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 15:25:33 +0100
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrey,

Thank you very much for these answers. Please see my comments bellow.

On Sat, Mar 17, 2012 at 11:31 PM, Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Jean-Samuel!
>
> Some answers and reasons below.
>
> Regarding the choice between HMC483MS8GE/HMC485MS8GE and
>> HMC686LP4E/HMC687LP4E, I cannot figure out which one would be the most
>> suitable for our design. For the filter, it is also quite difficult for me
>> to help you to decide between the TB0130A and the TB0448A.
>>
> By the way, do you think this would be fine to use a different mixer for
>> 900 and 1800 MHz bands ? As chip packages remain the same, I think it would
>> be fine but I would like to double check with you.
>>
>  Differences between HMC 483/483 and HMC686/687:
> 1/ price of HMC483/485 twice lower.
> 2/ current consumption of HMC483/485 twice lower.
> 3/ package ms8g better for me.
> 4/ I have good expirience with HMC483/485 and some qty there are on my
> warehouse in Moscow.
> 5/ HMC483/485 require TB0130A which have 20dB higher rejection than
> TB448A.
> So, HMC483/485 better for me.
>

This looks fine for me. However, I cannot see 20 dB higher rejection for
TB0130A, may be 5 or 10 dB, not more. Anyway, this is still better.
Just to double check, could you please confirm low ripple bandwidth of the
TB0130A is wide enough for a GSM carrier ?
If yes, your choice looks perfect for me.



>
> Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass and
>> not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care that
>> much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but I
>> really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you wish
>> to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as we
>> would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a reasonably
>> narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost that much
>> more to try to pass the GSM spec.
>>
> You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important for
> systems with high channel dencity.
> Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product, but it
> is very difficult then to fix it back.
> I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good
> hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :)
>

I agree. :-)



>
>
>> By the way, I really believe this does not worth designing 2 different
>> preselectors. I think it would be more reasonable to design only the
>> Hittite based high performance preselector. First of all, as you mentioned
>> and as I calculate on my side also, the ADRF6601 will not even pass the
>> micro BTS spec. Moreover, the time you spend designing and debugging 2
>> different preselector would probably cost more than the 40 USD per board
>> you save on the boards you will use for low cost applications. Moreover, 2
>> different designs would mean lower quantities components order. This would
>> mean higher buying prices, higher shipping costs per chip... In practice,
>> the cost difference would be probably 25 to 30 USD per board, not 40 USD.
>>
>
>> I really think we should only make one design with the Hittite high
>> performance preselector. If we really want a low cost femtocell, a
>> universal SDR board or a lab experiment system, we would not even populate
>> the preselector components. If we need GSM deployment applications (except
>> femtocells), nobody (even me ;-)) would actually care about the extra 40
>> USD BOM.
>>
> Exactly, I agree again.
>

:-)



>
>
>> I looked at the picture of your Rx path calculations. As discussed
>> together in Barcelona, I am not sure we should add an LNA on the UmTRX. TMB
>> LNA would already have a very good Noise Figure (about 0.8 dB or even a bit
>> less) and a quite high gain (between 20 to 30 dB depending of the cable
>> loss). OIP3 of the TMB would be typacally around 35 dBm. Adding an extra on
>> board LNA would be quite bad for the total Rx path IIP3.
>>
> How you define that 35 dBm OIP3 required?
> I saw only -1dBm IIP3 in the datasheet for middle Gain of LNA2 and it
> isn't informative for me.
>

35 dBm OIP3 is not really required. I would say, the highest is the best as
long as price is reasonable. High OIP3 would avoid IMD interferences
problems.
I already have some offers, products and prototypes from Chinese
manufacturers. The OIP3 of the LNA they can provide is around 35 dBm.



>
>
>> Moreover, as there is some PCB leakage from Tx to Rx in the UmTRX, we
>> might avoid onboard amplifiers. An on board amplifier might actuallly
>> amplify the leakage.
>> I actually suggested this LNA a few months ago but, in Barcelona, you
>> convinced me this LNA was not really a good idea. What do you think ?
>>
> Duplexer+PA(0.25..2W)+LNA+Preselector are all will be on the mezzanine
> board for uBTS, nBTS and mBTS solutions TMD.
> So, you right - new UmTRX will be without LNA's and bandpass filters,
> because it is universal dual tranceiver with diversity switch.
> As we discussed in Barcelona, we forced to design different mezza-boards
> for each band, but it much easy than UmTRX changes.
> Also high power "mezza-boards" will be not as true mezzanine because of
> require heatsink and separate power source.
>

I agree for band specific filters (to avoid too many UmTRX versions). I
agree for LNA (to avoid amplifying the Tx leakage inside the UmTRX PCB and
to avoid a too high gain that can lower our IIP3). I agree for the PA (for
all the reasons you mention).

However, I really believe the preselector should remain on the UmTRX main
PCB.
If we want to connect the preselector as an external mezzanine board, it
would cost us 5 extra SMA connectors (RX1in, RX1out, RX2in, RX2out, clock
source), 2 RF switches before the superhet filtering (to still be able to
have switched diversity), several GPIO (serial mixer control, RF switches
control) and power supply.
This is possible but it would really cost much more than keeping the
preselector on the main PCB, especially as I believe, in practice, we will
need almsot always this preselector, even not to pass the GSM spec but just
to be able to get a reasonably narrow sampling bandwidth.
I would really suggest to keep the preselector in the main PCB and
populating or not the components (VCO/PLL, mixer and SAW IF).



>
> Regarding the PA parameters, for both models we can get at a good price,
>> P1dB would be between 8 (Infineon) to 15 (Freescale) Watts at 27 VDC (a bit
>> lower at 24 VDC). Gain would be around 40 dB (excluding cable loss). Please
>> let me know if you need others LNA and/or PA specs of the TMB I can get
>> from the manufacturers I am discussing with.
>>
> Actualy I really thought that you already have offers about PA or TMB from
> Chinese manufactures.
>

Yes, I have some interesting offers. I am still discussing with them but
they propose nice products for affordable prices.



>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
Best regards.

Jean-Samuel.
:-)


>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120318/dde1b6ba/attachment.htm>

From jsn at bjtpartners.com  Sun Mar 18 15:39:04 2012
From: jsn at bjtpartners.com (Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 16:39:04 +0100
Subject: UmTRX marketing. Was: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal
 for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CABmJbFUp3tMEFTNPw8q=Yz1mmpwUEX+41P_BCwD+qhg7Ue4njg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABmJbFUp3tMEFTNPw8q=Yz1mmpwUEX+41P_BCwD+qhg7Ue4njg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzQdT_itOcFVJuqyVSZH2uaJHHvdvgkFUHQ4a4fy29OTugUrQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Alexander,

I fully agree with your vision. Especially that "the best is an enemy to a
good". Moreover, it is also very important for me to deploy the UmTRX in
Mayotte ASAP as my local partners would pressure me quite a lot in the near
future.

However, I really belive this preselector is not just for scoring the best
performances as possible as an RF geek, cool and fun challenge. We really
need a preselector, not only to pass the GSM specs. I do not care that much
about the GSM specs, especially the hard to pass macro BTS specs. However,
as I mentioned you in Berlin in last december, I really think sampling the
whole 1.5 MHz band would be a real problem. The preselector is good to pass
the spec but it is also the only reasonable solution to lower the sampling
band down to about 200 KHz. Actually, I would really need this. Even for my
experiment network in Mayotte, this would not be realistic to deploy the
network and provide reliable services without this preselector.

I really think this preselector is mandatory, in practice, even if we do
not care about the GSM specs. Without this, I would not even be able to
deploy the UmTRX in Mayotte.

I agree with you when you mention some markets would still not need this
preselector.
First market is lab equipments. However, I am not sure volumes would be
that high, especially as even a basic low cost SSRP is good enough for many
lab use cases.
Second market is the femtocell market. However, for this market, the UmTRX
would anyway be too expensive for most business cases. Except ip.access who
can sell much more than everybody else because of their first mover
advantage, most of the femtocell vendors target list prices around 300
Euros (eg: HSL) and even lower (most 3G femto vendors). Considering this
competition, I believe it would be really difficult to succeed in the
femtocell market with the current UmTRX design. We would need something
even more low cost orienteed and probably also more embedded.

The market I relly believe in is the mid-range mid-capacity BTS market.
There are many high performance macro BTS vendors. There are many simple,
cheap and reliable femtocell vendors. There are not much mid-range BTS
vendors. If we want something than can cover a few kilometers range, that
is energy efficient and which use IP standards, you only have something
like 3 vendors: Vanu, VNL and IP.access. These guys are really expensive.
Offering a better value product would not be that difficult, at least
compared to the other markets.

Moreover, this mid-range mid-capacity BTS market is potentially huge. This
is the most suitable system we would need to cover most of the next 2.5
billion guys who do not have a reliable and affordable phone service
(sometimes just no service at all).

Again, I agree with you, Time To Market is very important. However, I do
not think a few weeks delay would make you miss the opportunity.

Also, the customers on this market (mainly rural and local carriers) would
have very similar needs as mine. Most of them would probably need to get a
narrow sampling band (< 1.5 MHz) to avoid problems with interferences (1st
TRX to the other, other existing carrier...) causing, among other issues,
ADC saturation. As me, these customers would need the preselector.

The preselector would anyway need a VCO/PLL, a mixer and an IF SAW filter,
even if we do not expect to pass the GSM spec. Why not trying to select
good performance components to try (not guarantee but just try) to pass
this spec. This would not need much more research and development efforts
and total BOM will not be that much more expensive. Moreover, we can really
expect some of your customers would not agree to deploy a system that does
not pass the GSM spec. A mid-range BTS would need a Tx power around 5 to 10
Watts. Above 2 Watts, the hardware is considered as a macro BTS.
Considering this, I really think we should try (not take one year delay for
this but just try) to pass the GSM macro BTS spec.

Honestly, I may be wrong but I do not believe Andrey will take that much
time to design the preselector. For the BOM extra cost, we talk about 60
USD per UmTRX board. I agree with you, this is not nothing but this really
worth the money. I actually believe value would be really good with this.
Even with my very tight budget, this would not be able problem for me to
pay this. The extra cost would be much lower than all the worries and time
spent on frequency planning, interferences and blockers problem solving on
the field.

Anyway, I also really think, even with the high performance preselector,
the UmTRX system is still really cost effective compared to the
competitors. I really feel confident about this.

Best regards.

Jean-Samuel.
:-)


On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Andrey and all,
>
> 18.03.2012 2:31 ???????????? "Andrey Sviyazov" <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
> ???????:
> >> Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass
> and not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care
> that much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but
> I really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you
> wish to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as
> we would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a
> reasonably narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost
> that much more to try to pass the GSM spec.
> >
> > You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important for
> systems with high channel dencity.
>
> I completely support everything which could make our product better
> without increasing its cost. But we also must ensure to release UmTRX in
> time. What we all should keep on mind is that "the best is an enemy to a
> good". We should focus on those 10% of simple tweaks which bring us 90% of
> improvement. Otherwise we'll be swamped with the other 90% of tweaks and
> will miss the market opportunity. I can't stress it more - we MUST release
> UmTRX ASAP. Even if it doesn't meet macro-BTS requirements. We'll be able
> to fix this in the next version if ever needed - we can't know the real
> demand until we release the first version.
>
> I would be glad of what I've just said is obvious and already lives in
> your heart. Otherwise it's extremely important you understand this deeply,
> not formally. Please let me know if you don't, I'll explain in more details.
>
> > Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product, but
> it is very difficult then to fix it back.
>
> This is true. And the best way to keep the reputation is to realistically
> understand UmTRX capabilities and avoid overmarketing. In other words, with
> just reasonable product quality, our reputation depends solely on the right
> marketing. E.g. we might explicitly warn customers that it's not suitable
> for macro-BTS installations and they could do so on their own risk only.
>
> > I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good
> hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :)
>
> This is very true. Just keep in mind that "good hardware" means "minimally
> viable hardware at low price" and doesn't mean "super high quality mumbo
> jumbo with many zeros in the price". Our customers value simplicity and low
> cost over complexity and golden plates.
>
> That said, I can't help with decisions on the RF side and here I rely on
> you, guys. That's why it is so important for you to understand all these
> "abstract" marketing ideas.
>
> Sent from my Android device.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Chemeris
> CEO, Fairwaves LLC
> http://fairwaves.ru
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120318/80358b89/attachment.htm>

From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Sun Mar 18 17:11:34 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:11:34 +0400
Subject: UmTRX marketing. Was: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal
 for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAAzQdT_itOcFVJuqyVSZH2uaJHHvdvgkFUHQ4a4fy29OTugUrQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABmJbFUp3tMEFTNPw8q=Yz1mmpwUEX+41P_BCwD+qhg7Ue4njg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_itOcFVJuqyVSZH2uaJHHvdvgkFUHQ4a4fy29OTugUrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABmJbFX7F8fwmjAuXXkHYzQ61oQtUSES627QwL4ui3mcVDo7eA@mail.gmail.com>

Jean-Samuel, thank you for the detailed answer.

I agree that 2 weeks of delay is ok, but 2 months is definitely not.
We should optimize our processes as much as we can.

Regarding the need for the preselector, I have no other option as to
trust you and Andrey that we need it even for the mid-range BTS.

Could we start updating UmTRX and manufacturing the next prototype
batch while still discussing the mezzanine board? This would allow us
to get to the result faster.

2012/3/18 Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com>:
> Hi Alexander,
>
> I fully agree with your vision. Especially that "the best is an enemy to a
> good". Moreover, it is also very important for me to deploy the UmTRX in
> Mayotte ASAP as my local partners would pressure me quite a lot in the near
> future.
>
> However, I really belive this preselector is not just for scoring the best
> performances as possible as an RF geek, cool and fun challenge. We really
> need a preselector, not only to pass the GSM specs. I do not care that much
> about the GSM specs, especially the hard to pass macro BTS specs. However,
> as I mentioned you in Berlin in last december, I really think sampling the
> whole 1.5 MHz band would be a real problem. The preselector is good to pass
> the spec but it is also the only reasonable solution to lower the sampling
> band down to about 200 KHz. Actually, I would really need this. Even for my
> experiment network in Mayotte, this would not be realistic to deploy the
> network and provide reliable services without this preselector.
>
> I really think this preselector is mandatory, in practice, even if we do not
> care about the GSM specs. Without this, I would not even be able to deploy
> the UmTRX in Mayotte.
>
> I agree with you when you mention some markets would still not need this
> preselector.
> First market is lab equipments. However, I am not sure volumes would be that
> high, especially as even a basic low cost SSRP is good enough for many lab
> use cases.
> Second market is the femtocell market. However, for this market, the UmTRX
> would anyway be too expensive for most business cases. Except ip.access who
> can sell much more than everybody else because of their first mover
> advantage, most of the femtocell vendors target list prices around 300 Euros
> (eg: HSL) and even lower (most 3G femto vendors). Considering this
> competition, I believe it would be really difficult to succeed in the
> femtocell market with the current UmTRX design. We would need something even
> more low cost orienteed and probably also more embedded.
>
> The market I relly believe in is the mid-range mid-capacity BTS market.
> There are many high performance macro BTS vendors. There are many simple,
> cheap and reliable femtocell vendors. There are not much mid-range BTS
> vendors. If we want something than can cover a few kilometers range, that is
> energy efficient and which use IP standards, you only have something like 3
> vendors: Vanu, VNL and IP.access. These guys are really expensive. Offering
> a better value product would not be that difficult, at least compared to the
> other markets.
>
> Moreover, this mid-range mid-capacity BTS market is potentially huge. This
> is the most suitable system we would need to cover most of the next 2.5
> billion guys who do not have a reliable and affordable phone service
> (sometimes just no service at all).
>
> Again, I agree with you, Time To Market is very important. However, I do not
> think a few weeks delay would make you miss the opportunity.
>
> Also, the customers on this market (mainly rural and local carriers) would
> have very similar needs as mine. Most of them would probably need to get a
> narrow sampling band (< 1.5 MHz) to avoid problems with interferences (1st
> TRX to the other, other existing carrier...) causing, among other issues,
> ADC saturation. As me, these customers would need the preselector.
>
> The preselector would anyway need a VCO/PLL, a mixer and an IF SAW filter,
> even if we do not expect to pass the GSM spec. Why not trying to select good
> performance components to try (not guarantee but just try) to pass this
> spec. This would not need much more research and development efforts and
> total BOM will not be that much more expensive. Moreover, we can really
> expect some of your customers would not agree to deploy a system that does
> not pass the GSM spec. A mid-range BTS would need a Tx power around 5 to 10
> Watts. Above 2 Watts, the hardware is considered as a macro BTS. Considering
> this, I really think we should try (not take one year delay for this but
> just try) to pass the GSM macro BTS spec.
>
> Honestly, I may be wrong but I do not believe Andrey will take that much
> time to design the preselector. For the BOM extra cost, we talk about 60 USD
> per UmTRX board. I agree with you, this is not nothing but this really worth
> the money. I actually believe value would be really good with this. Even
> with my very tight budget, this would not be able problem for me to pay
> this. The extra cost would be much lower than all the worries and time spent
> on frequency planning, interferences and blockers problem solving on the
> field.
>
> Anyway, I also really think, even with the high performance preselector, the
> UmTRX system is still really cost effective compared to the competitors. I
> really feel confident about this.
>
> Best regards.
>
> Jean-Samuel.
> :-)
>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Alexander Chemeris
> <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Andrey and all,
>>
>> 18.03.2012 2:31 ???????????? "Andrey Sviyazov" <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>> ???????:
>> >> Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to pass
>> >> and not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not care
>> >> that much about passing this spec for my network deployment in Mayotte but I
>> >> really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if you wish
>> >> to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as we
>> >> would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a reasonably
>> >> narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost that much
>> >> more to try to pass the GSM spec.
>> >
>> > You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important for
>> > systems with?high channel dencity.
>>
>> I completely support everything which could make our product better
>> without increasing its cost. But we also must ensure to release UmTRX in
>> time. What we all should keep on mind is that "the best is an enemy to a
>> good". We should focus on those 10% of simple tweaks which bring us 90% of
>> improvement. Otherwise we'll be swamped with the other 90% of tweaks and
>> will miss the market opportunity. I can't stress it more - we MUST release
>> UmTRX ASAP. Even if it doesn't meet macro-BTS requirements. We'll be able to
>> fix this in the next version if ever needed - we can't know the real demand
>> until we release the first version.
>>
>> I would be glad of what I've just said is obvious and already lives in
>> your heart. Otherwise it's extremely important you understand this deeply,
>> not formally. Please let me know if you don't, I'll explain in more details.
>>
>> > Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product, but
>> > it is very difficult then to fix it back.
>>
>> This is true. And the best way to keep the reputation is to realistically
>> understand UmTRX capabilities and avoid overmarketing. In other words, with
>> just reasonable product quality, our reputation depends solely on the right
>> marketing. E.g. we might explicitly warn customers that it's not suitable
>> for macro-BTS installations and they could do so on their own risk only.
>>
>> > I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good
>> > hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :)
>>
>> This is very true. Just keep in mind that "good hardware" means "minimally
>> viable hardware at low price" and doesn't mean "super high quality mumbo
>> jumbo with many zeros in the price". Our customers value simplicity and low
>> cost over complexity and golden plates.
>>
>> That said, I can't help with decisions on the RF side and here I rely on
>> you, guys. That's why it is so important for you to understand all these
>> "abstract" marketing ideas.
>>
>> Sent from my Android device.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alexander Chemeris
>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC
>> http://fairwaves.ru
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
http://fairwaves.ru


From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Sun Mar 18 17:13:51 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 21:13:51 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jean-Samuel and Andrey,

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 18:25, Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> wrote:
> However, I really believe the preselector should remain on the UmTRX main
> PCB.
> If we want to connect the preselector as an external mezzanine board, it
> would cost us 5 extra SMA connectors (RX1in, RX1out, RX2in, RX2out, clock
> source), 2 RF switches before the superhet filtering (to still be able to
> have switched diversity), several GPIO (serial mixer control, RF switches
> control) and power supply.
> This is possible but it would really cost much more than keeping the
> preselector on the main PCB, especially as I believe, in practice, we will
> need almsot always this preselector, even not to pass the GSM spec but just
> to be able to get a reasonably narrow sampling bandwidth.
> I would really suggest to keep the preselector in the main PCB and
> populating or not the components (VCO/PLL, mixer and SAW IF).

Could we save on connectors if we use some RF side connector with many
pins? Nothing specific in mind, just thinking out loud.


-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
http://fairwaves.ru


From jsn at bjtpartners.com  Sun Mar 18 17:23:33 2012
From: jsn at bjtpartners.com (Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:23:33 +0100
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com> <CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzQdT_h2E5ZanwSazV==g_3=QS9ACrCH06FGo55XDj8B0ku3w@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrey,

What do you think about Alexander's suggestion ?
If we can find an affordable and convenient solution to connect to the
mezzanine board on the UmTRX, this would be great. It would allow us to
start the production of the first release of the UmTRX while we work on the
mezzanine board design.
If we do not have any other solution than using standard SMA connectors, it
would cost us quite a lot (connectors, balun, matching...) and it might be
a better solution to have the preselecter on the UmTRX PCB.
What do you think ?
:-)

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jean-Samuel and Andrey,
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 18:25, Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> wrote:
> > However, I really believe the preselector should remain on the UmTRX main
> > PCB.
> > If we want to connect the preselector as an external mezzanine board, it
> > would cost us 5 extra SMA connectors (RX1in, RX1out, RX2in, RX2out, clock
> > source), 2 RF switches before the superhet filtering (to still be able to
> > have switched diversity), several GPIO (serial mixer control, RF switches
> > control) and power supply.
> > This is possible but it would really cost much more than keeping the
> > preselector on the main PCB, especially as I believe, in practice, we
> will
> > need almsot always this preselector, even not to pass the GSM spec but
> just
> > to be able to get a reasonably narrow sampling bandwidth.
> > I would really suggest to keep the preselector in the main PCB and
> > populating or not the components (VCO/PLL, mixer and SAW IF).
>
> Could we save on connectors if we use some RF side connector with many
> pins? Nothing specific in mind, just thinking out loud.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Chemeris.
> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
> http://fairwaves.ru
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120318/485ca5a8/attachment.htm>

From jsn at bjtpartners.com  Sun Mar 18 17:25:37 2012
From: jsn at bjtpartners.com (Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL)
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:25:37 +0100
Subject: UmTRX marketing. Was: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal
 for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CABmJbFX7F8fwmjAuXXkHYzQ61oQtUSES627QwL4ui3mcVDo7eA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABmJbFUp3tMEFTNPw8q=Yz1mmpwUEX+41P_BCwD+qhg7Ue4njg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_itOcFVJuqyVSZH2uaJHHvdvgkFUHQ4a4fy29OTugUrQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABmJbFX7F8fwmjAuXXkHYzQ61oQtUSES627QwL4ui3mcVDo7eA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAzQdT96v2f-nRRcX4mgG71odp+VZ7_sKeA4=7MqQA7tfkAxxA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Alexander,

Thank you for your reply.

Actually, you just point the right question.
Andrey, would you have an approximate idea about how long it would need you
to design the preselector ?

Best regards.

Jean-Samuel.
:-)

On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:11 PM, Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote:

> Jean-Samuel, thank you for the detailed answer.
>
> I agree that 2 weeks of delay is ok, but 2 months is definitely not.
> We should optimize our processes as much as we can.
>
> Regarding the need for the preselector, I have no other option as to
> trust you and Andrey that we need it even for the mid-range BTS.
>
> Could we start updating UmTRX and manufacturing the next prototype
> batch while still discussing the mezzanine board? This would allow us
> to get to the result faster.
>
> 2012/3/18 Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com>:
> > Hi Alexander,
> >
> > I fully agree with your vision. Especially that "the best is an enemy to
> a
> > good". Moreover, it is also very important for me to deploy the UmTRX in
> > Mayotte ASAP as my local partners would pressure me quite a lot in the
> near
> > future.
> >
> > However, I really belive this preselector is not just for scoring the
> best
> > performances as possible as an RF geek, cool and fun challenge. We really
> > need a preselector, not only to pass the GSM specs. I do not care that
> much
> > about the GSM specs, especially the hard to pass macro BTS specs.
> However,
> > as I mentioned you in Berlin in last december, I really think sampling
> the
> > whole 1.5 MHz band would be a real problem. The preselector is good to
> pass
> > the spec but it is also the only reasonable solution to lower the
> sampling
> > band down to about 200 KHz. Actually, I would really need this. Even for
> my
> > experiment network in Mayotte, this would not be realistic to deploy the
> > network and provide reliable services without this preselector.
> >
> > I really think this preselector is mandatory, in practice, even if we do
> not
> > care about the GSM specs. Without this, I would not even be able to
> deploy
> > the UmTRX in Mayotte.
> >
> > I agree with you when you mention some markets would still not need this
> > preselector.
> > First market is lab equipments. However, I am not sure volumes would be
> that
> > high, especially as even a basic low cost SSRP is good enough for many
> lab
> > use cases.
> > Second market is the femtocell market. However, for this market, the
> UmTRX
> > would anyway be too expensive for most business cases. Except ip.access
> who
> > can sell much more than everybody else because of their first mover
> > advantage, most of the femtocell vendors target list prices around 300
> Euros
> > (eg: HSL) and even lower (most 3G femto vendors). Considering this
> > competition, I believe it would be really difficult to succeed in the
> > femtocell market with the current UmTRX design. We would need something
> even
> > more low cost orienteed and probably also more embedded.
> >
> > The market I relly believe in is the mid-range mid-capacity BTS market.
> > There are many high performance macro BTS vendors. There are many simple,
> > cheap and reliable femtocell vendors. There are not much mid-range BTS
> > vendors. If we want something than can cover a few kilometers range,
> that is
> > energy efficient and which use IP standards, you only have something
> like 3
> > vendors: Vanu, VNL and IP.access. These guys are really expensive.
> Offering
> > a better value product would not be that difficult, at least compared to
> the
> > other markets.
> >
> > Moreover, this mid-range mid-capacity BTS market is potentially huge.
> This
> > is the most suitable system we would need to cover most of the next 2.5
> > billion guys who do not have a reliable and affordable phone service
> > (sometimes just no service at all).
> >
> > Again, I agree with you, Time To Market is very important. However, I do
> not
> > think a few weeks delay would make you miss the opportunity.
> >
> > Also, the customers on this market (mainly rural and local carriers)
> would
> > have very similar needs as mine. Most of them would probably need to get
> a
> > narrow sampling band (< 1.5 MHz) to avoid problems with interferences
> (1st
> > TRX to the other, other existing carrier...) causing, among other issues,
> > ADC saturation. As me, these customers would need the preselector.
> >
> > The preselector would anyway need a VCO/PLL, a mixer and an IF SAW
> filter,
> > even if we do not expect to pass the GSM spec. Why not trying to select
> good
> > performance components to try (not guarantee but just try) to pass this
> > spec. This would not need much more research and development efforts and
> > total BOM will not be that much more expensive. Moreover, we can really
> > expect some of your customers would not agree to deploy a system that
> does
> > not pass the GSM spec. A mid-range BTS would need a Tx power around 5 to
> 10
> > Watts. Above 2 Watts, the hardware is considered as a macro BTS.
> Considering
> > this, I really think we should try (not take one year delay for this but
> > just try) to pass the GSM macro BTS spec.
> >
> > Honestly, I may be wrong but I do not believe Andrey will take that much
> > time to design the preselector. For the BOM extra cost, we talk about 60
> USD
> > per UmTRX board. I agree with you, this is not nothing but this really
> worth
> > the money. I actually believe value would be really good with this. Even
> > with my very tight budget, this would not be able problem for me to pay
> > this. The extra cost would be much lower than all the worries and time
> spent
> > on frequency planning, interferences and blockers problem solving on the
> > field.
> >
> > Anyway, I also really think, even with the high performance preselector,
> the
> > UmTRX system is still really cost effective compared to the competitors.
> I
> > really feel confident about this.
> >
> > Best regards.
> >
> > Jean-Samuel.
> > :-)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 8:45 AM, Alexander Chemeris
> > <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Andrey and all,
> >>
> >> 18.03.2012 2:31 ???????????? "Andrey Sviyazov" <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
> >> ???????:
> >> >> Regarding the GSM spec, I believe these blocker tests are hard to
> pass
> >> >> and not that useful in most practical situations. However, I do not
> care
> >> >> that much about passing this spec for my network deployment in
> Mayotte but I
> >> >> really believe passing the spec will be very important for you if
> you wish
> >> >> to sell your hardware solution to some major operators. Moreover, as
> we
> >> >> would anyway need a superheterodyne selective filtering to get a
> reasonably
> >> >> narrow Rx sampling band (< 1.5 MHz LMS band), it does not cost that
> much
> >> >> more to try to pass the GSM spec.
> >> >
> >> > You right, it is important for us and may be it is really important
> for
> >> > systems with high channel dencity.
> >>
> >> I completely support everything which could make our product better
> >> without increasing its cost. But we also must ensure to release UmTRX in
> >> time. What we all should keep on mind is that "the best is an enemy to a
> >> good". We should focus on those 10% of simple tweaks which bring us 90%
> of
> >> improvement. Otherwise we'll be swamped with the other 90% of tweaks and
> >> will miss the market opportunity. I can't stress it more - we MUST
> release
> >> UmTRX ASAP. Even if it doesn't meet macro-BTS requirements. We'll be
> able to
> >> fix this in the next version if ever needed - we can't know the real
> demand
> >> until we release the first version.
> >>
> >> I would be glad of what I've just said is obvious and already lives in
> >> your heart. Otherwise it's extremely important you understand this
> deeply,
> >> not formally. Please let me know if you don't, I'll explain in more
> details.
> >>
> >> > Furthermore, it is very easy to lose the reputation of the product,
> but
> >> > it is very difficult then to fix it back.
> >>
> >> This is true. And the best way to keep the reputation is to
> realistically
> >> understand UmTRX capabilities and avoid overmarketing. In other words,
> with
> >> just reasonable product quality, our reputation depends solely on the
> right
> >> marketing. E.g. we might explicitly warn customers that it's not
> suitable
> >> for macro-BTS installations and they could do so on their own risk only.
> >>
> >> > I think, low cost doesn't sign low quality, so we must to have good
> >> > hardware on market for good sales and promote OpenHW :)
> >>
> >> This is very true. Just keep in mind that "good hardware" means
> "minimally
> >> viable hardware at low price" and doesn't mean "super high quality mumbo
> >> jumbo with many zeros in the price". Our customers value simplicity and
> low
> >> cost over complexity and golden plates.
> >>
> >> That said, I can't help with decisions on the RF side and here I rely on
> >> you, guys. That's why it is so important for you to understand all these
> >> "abstract" marketing ideas.
> >>
> >> Sent from my Android device.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards,
> >> Alexander Chemeris
> >> CEO, Fairwaves LLC
> >> http://fairwaves.ru
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Chemeris.
> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
> http://fairwaves.ru
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120318/85b3c0d2/attachment.htm>

From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Sun Mar 18 22:12:47 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 02:12:47 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAAzQdT_h2E5ZanwSazV==g_3=QS9ACrCH06FGo55XDj8B0ku3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT_h2E5ZanwSazV==g_3=QS9ACrCH06FGo55XDj8B0ku3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9AREwLuzann3KN03bZ39emztdzr5uW0D4_GKhiJKcFyjX_-g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jean-Samuel, Robin, Alexander and who interested too!

First of all, we discussing here not an mezzanine, so let we call it just
RF-board.

I still intend to make a separate RF-board on the following reasons:
1) Minimises of risk of a delay of the new UmTRX issue if I make some
mistake, especially if this will not fixable after manufacture. Redesign of
RF-board much easily and quickly in this a bit possible case.
2)  As it is rightly said Jean-Samuel, different boards of UmTRX for each
band would be very expensive and long to redesign. I think that the design
of a separate RF-board will take no more than two weeks, but for UmTRX not
less than month, because I'll forced to make the screening from the digital
part, and then checking the immunity against the digital noise and it is a
very difficult task.
3)  I plan to use for RF-board an simple and cheapest dual-layer FR-4-0.5mm
and this will reduce the cost  too, because of main UmTRX has six-layers
PCB and I will try to make the new UmTRX optimaly smallest.
4) On the RF-board, I plan to use inexpensive ceramic duplexers to save the
cost of the external (see attached datasheet). As I undersand, you do not
need any Down Link PA or some small (up to 100mW), so Tx-Rx isolation will
quite enough.
5) Regarding connectors, I only can suggest to use the two angle SMA-female
connectors for outputs which will stick out through the panel of the
housing (as you can use the angle SMA connectors, but for GPS and CLK_I/O
on the UmTRX board). At the same time for the internal 4 connectors we can
use some cheap like U.FL and cable assemblies U.FL-MCX or  U.FL-U.FL.
Signal CLK_26MHz,  6.5VDC, SPI and Switch controls will go via IDC control
connector.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



18 ????? 2012 ?. 21:23 ???????????? Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> ???????:

> Hi Andrey,
>
> What do you think about Alexander's suggestion ?
> If we can find an affordable and convenient solution to connect to the
> mezzanine board on the UmTRX, this would be great. It would allow us to
> start the production of the first release of the UmTRX while we work on the
> mezzanine board design.
> If we do not have any other solution than using standard SMA connectors,
> it would cost us quite a lot (connectors, balun, matching...) and it might
> be a better solution to have the preselecter on the UmTRX PCB.
>
> What do you think ?
> :-)
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Alexander Chemeris <
> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jean-Samuel and Andrey,
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 18:25, Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS
>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> wrote:
>> > However, I really believe the preselector should remain on the UmTRX
>> main
>> > PCB.
>> > If we want to connect the preselector as an external mezzanine board, it
>> > would cost us 5 extra SMA connectors (RX1in, RX1out, RX2in, RX2out,
>> clock
>> > source), 2 RF switches before the superhet filtering (to still be able
>> to
>> > have switched diversity), several GPIO (serial mixer control, RF
>> switches
>> > control) and power supply.
>> > This is possible but it would really cost much more than keeping the
>> > preselector on the main PCB, especially as I believe, in practice, we
>> will
>> > need almsot always this preselector, even not to pass the GSM spec but
>> just
>> > to be able to get a reasonably narrow sampling bandwidth.
>> > I would really suggest to keep the preselector in the main PCB and
>> > populating or not the components (VCO/PLL, mixer and SAW IF).
>>
>> Could we save on connectors if we use some RF side connector with many
>> pins? Nothing specific in mind, just thinking out loud.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alexander Chemeris.
>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
>> http://fairwaves.ru
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/0aa8f6aa/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CMD810C947-902P25A.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 384803 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/0aa8f6aa/attachment.pdf>

From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 06:14:57 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 10:14:57 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9AREwLuzann3KN03bZ39emztdzr5uW0D4_GKhiJKcFyjX_-g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_h2E5ZanwSazV==g_3=QS9ACrCH06FGo55XDj8B0ku3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAE9AREwLuzann3KN03bZ39emztdzr5uW0D4_GKhiJKcFyjX_-g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABmJbFUi5z94J_ef1B+C5zdz9nbnKkpRZwsAhd0Xzsyay4n0Ow@mail.gmail.com>

Andrey,

2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
> 5) Regarding connectors, I only can suggest to use the two angle SMA-female
> connectors for outputs which will stick out through the panel of the housing
> (as you can use the angle SMA connectors, but for GPS and CLK_I/O on the
> UmTRX board). At the same time for the internal 4 connectors we can use some
> cheap like U.FL and cable assemblies U.FL-MCX or ?U.FL-U.FL. Signal
> CLK_26MHz, ?6.5VDC, SPI and Switch controls will go via IDC control
> connector.

IDC connectors on a UmTRX and on a RF board will be connected with a
flat ribbon cable?

Why don't you want to use a side connector?

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
http://fairwaves.ru


From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 08:30:05 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:30:05 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CABmJbFUi5z94J_ef1B+C5zdz9nbnKkpRZwsAhd0Xzsyay4n0Ow@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT_h2E5ZanwSazV==g_3=QS9ACrCH06FGo55XDj8B0ku3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREwLuzann3KN03bZ39emztdzr5uW0D4_GKhiJKcFyjX_-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFUi5z94J_ef1B+C5zdz9nbnKkpRZwsAhd0Xzsyay4n0Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9AREztu83PeiYW_ZE0gJjX=CPa8T3fp9F5Au-a7sv+X44F=g@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Alexander.

Actualy I don't know side-type connectors for cable.
I suggested you PCB side connector (like PCI) for debugging only.
Moreover, there are a lot SMD connectors for IDC flat cable, BHS-10 for
example.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



19 ????? 2012 ?. 10:14 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:

> Andrey,
>
> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
> > 5) Regarding connectors, I only can suggest to use the two angle
> SMA-female
> > connectors for outputs which will stick out through the panel of the
> housing
> > (as you can use the angle SMA connectors, but for GPS and CLK_I/O on the
> > UmTRX board). At the same time for the internal 4 connectors we can use
> some
> > cheap like U.FL and cable assemblies U.FL-MCX or  U.FL-U.FL. Signal
> > CLK_26MHz,  6.5VDC, SPI and Switch controls will go via IDC control
> > connector.
>
> IDC connectors on a UmTRX and on a RF board will be connected with a
> flat ribbon cable?
>
> Why don't you want to use a side connector?
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Chemeris.
> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
> http://fairwaves.ru
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/b77d10a8/attachment.htm>

From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 08:48:03 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:48:03 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9AREztu83PeiYW_ZE0gJjX=CPa8T3fp9F5Au-a7sv+X44F=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT_h2E5ZanwSazV==g_3=QS9ACrCH06FGo55XDj8B0ku3w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREwLuzann3KN03bZ39emztdzr5uW0D4_GKhiJKcFyjX_-g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABmJbFUi5z94J_ef1B+C5zdz9nbnKkpRZwsAhd0Xzsyay4n0Ow@mail.gmail.com> <CAE9AREztu83PeiYW_ZE0gJjX=CPa8T3fp9F5Au-a7sv+X44F=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABmJbFXmJA6d3bF2zMOeP740YsX3Rxoba1wiX14AWzPCRdarGA@mail.gmail.com>

Andrey,

What I proposed is to use a side connector to connect UmTRX PCB and RF
board OCB side-to-side, without a cable. This way we need two
connectors and no cables at all. Downside of this solution is less
flexibility in the RF board placement, but do we really need this
flexibility?

2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
> Hi Alexander.
>
> Actualy I don't know side-type connectors for cable.
> I suggested you PCB side connector (like PCI) for debugging only.
> Moreover, there are a lot SMD connectors for IDC flat cable, BHS-10 for
> example.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
> 19 ????? 2012??. 10:14 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris
> <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:
>
>> Andrey,
>>
>> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
>> > 5) Regarding connectors, I only can suggest to use the two angle
>> > SMA-female
>> > connectors for outputs which will stick out through the panel of the
>> > housing
>> > (as you can use the angle SMA connectors, but for GPS and CLK_I/O on the
>> > UmTRX board). At the same time for the internal 4 connectors we can use
>> > some
>> > cheap like U.FL and cable assemblies U.FL-MCX or ?U.FL-U.FL. Signal
>> > CLK_26MHz, ?6.5VDC, SPI and Switch controls will go via IDC control
>> > connector.
>>
>> IDC connectors on a UmTRX and on a RF board will be connected with a
>> flat ribbon cable?
>>
>> Why don't you want to use a side connector?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alexander Chemeris.
>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
>> http://fairwaves.ru
>
>



-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
http://fairwaves.ru


From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 08:58:43 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:58:43 +0400
Subject: UmTRX hardware development plan
Message-ID: <CABmJbFUuQyYu-4O9H3v9vCt9GBLUbykJqpXKj+mLaDb2MTOkAg@mail.gmail.com>

Andrey Sviyazov, I think this question is mostly for you.

Could you please outline the development plan for the UmTRX hardware
(with all associated things, like RF board design)? What are critical
dependencies? E.g. when we should decide on the casing?

My feeling is that we've lost the track and focus on things which are
important, but not at this stage.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
http://fairwaves.ru


From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 10:15:46 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:15:46 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9AREztu83PeiYW_ZE0gJjX=CPa8T3fp9F5Au-a7sv+X44F=g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT_MZB+DjnzvwvRasJ2uC_C5_Lsni5rfOzKyAaSHp0nTaQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExT_bz=trQzazoj-jo0tzCBTszvhJhSc+VqbLuJ8AriwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT--XhUJ1re6Gt-92_vDdkjs_z4qpJSSe5aDMxYXE-dh_g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFU5bmU+GPGZKHTHHgkknLYsgy0=mXy=5BQ3dPjrwPOdMQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT_h2E5ZanwSazV==g_3=QS9ACrCH06FGo55XDj8B0ku3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREwLuzann3KN03bZ39emztdzr5uW0D4_GKhiJKcFyjX_-g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFUi5z94J_ef1B+C5zdz9nbnKkpRZwsAhd0Xzsyay4n0Ow@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREztu83PeiYW_ZE0gJjX=CPa8T3fp9F5Au-a7sv+X44F=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9AREyjmcWaq-QqDm9GmihKifCCGBBde3UK6D+nEfTwF=Hvmw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all!

First of all, I forgot one question regarding the IF SAW filters.
TB0130A has at least 10dB higher rejection at 0.6-0.9MHz offset band (65dB)
than TB448A (55dB), and 20dB higher rejection at 0.9-1.5MHz offset band
(75dB instead of 55dB).
Moreover, TB0130A has more flatter and wider passband, approx 300kHz at
0.5dB instead of 250kHz for TB448A, it is better because of this type SAW
has thermal drift approx +-32 kHz for +-50'C relative to +25'C.
In other hand, TB448A has better group delay ripples, but I don't how it
critical for GMSK, and I'm sure that symmetry law more important.
Also we can adjust central IF for 3-5 temperature points, but in this case
we need to add thermal measurements, and let we try to avoid it.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



19 ????? 2012 ?. 12:30 ???????????? Andrey Sviyazov
<andreysviyaz at gmail.com>???????:

> Hi Alexander.
>
> Actualy I don't know side-type connectors for cable.
> I suggested you PCB side connector (like PCI) for debugging only.
> Moreover, there are a lot SMD connectors for IDC flat cable, BHS-10 for
> example.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
> 19 ????? 2012 ?. 10:14 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:
>
> Andrey,
>>
>> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
>> > 5) Regarding connectors, I only can suggest to use the two angle
>> SMA-female
>> > connectors for outputs which will stick out through the panel of the
>> housing
>> > (as you can use the angle SMA connectors, but for GPS and CLK_I/O on the
>> > UmTRX board). At the same time for the internal 4 connectors we can use
>> some
>> > cheap like U.FL and cable assemblies U.FL-MCX or  U.FL-U.FL. Signal
>> > CLK_26MHz,  6.5VDC, SPI and Switch controls will go via IDC control
>> > connector.
>>
>> IDC connectors on a UmTRX and on a RF board will be connected with a
>> flat ribbon cable?
>>
>> Why don't you want to use a side connector?
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alexander Chemeris.
>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
>> http://fairwaves.ru
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/93509b5e/attachment.htm>

From coxe at close-haul.com  Mon Mar 19 16:13:05 2012
From: coxe at close-haul.com (Robin Coxe)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 12:13:05 -0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andrey.  I asked my Hittite rep for a few samples.  The full retail
price in low quantities for this part is $20 USD, so if they won't give me
samples, I'll just buy a few of them.  I have a few extra ADF4350s as well
that I can send over as well if you're interested..

-Robin

2012/3/17 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>

> Hi Robin!
>
> Thank you, that you are ready to help us.
> It will be great, if you can supply us samples of HMC830LP6GE.
>
> Best regards,
> Andrey Sviyazov.
>
>
>
-- 
Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
+1-617-470-8825
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/bddd7238/attachment.htm>

From coxe at close-haul.com  Mon Mar 19 18:22:06 2012
From: coxe at close-haul.com (Robin Coxe)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:22:06 -0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>

After some back and forth with the Hittite distributor, he's agreed to
sample 2-3 pcs. of  HMC830LP6GE.   I'll ship them to Alexander once they
show up .

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> wrote:

> Hi Andrey.  I asked my Hittite rep for a few samples.  The full retail
> price in low quantities for this part is $20 USD, so if they won't give me
> samples, I'll just buy a few of them.  I have a few extra ADF4350s as well
> that I can send over as well if you're interested..
>
> -Robin
>
>
> 2012/3/17 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>
>> Hi Robin!
>>
>> Thank you, that you are ready to help us.
>> It will be great, if you can supply us samples of HMC830LP6GE.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
> +1-617-470-8825
>



-- 
Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
+1-617-470-8825
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/03406775/attachment.htm>

From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 18:23:27 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 22:23:27 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
 <CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com> <CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>

Ok from my side.

Andrey - how urgently do we need them? EMS will take more then a week
to get to us.

On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 22:22, Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> wrote:
> After some back and forth with the Hittite distributor, he's agreed to
> sample 2-3 pcs. of? HMC830LP6GE. ? I'll ship them to Alexander once they
> show up .
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrey. ?I asked my Hittite rep for a few samples. ?The full retail
>> price in low quantities for this part is $20 USD, so if they won't give me
>> samples, I'll just buy a few of them. ?I have a few extra ADF4350s as well
>> that I can send over as well if you're interested..
>>
>> -Robin
>>
>>
>> 2012/3/17 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hi Robin!
>>>
>>> Thank you, that you are ready to help us.
>>> It will be great, if you can supply us samples of?HMC830LP6GE.
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Robin Coxe ?| ?Close-Haul Communications, Inc. ?| ?Boston, MA
>> +1-617-470-8825
>
>
>
>
> --
> Robin Coxe ?| ?Close-Haul Communications, Inc. ?| ?Boston, MA
> +1-617-470-8825



-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
http://fairwaves.ru


From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 19:02:52 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:02:52 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Robin!

You've a very good news! Thanks a lot!
Also it will be great if you sent me few pcs of ADF4350.
But I really not sure about parameters, aspecially in compare to HMC.

Alexander, if you know faster way, let use it.
Other hand, I need at least one week for RF-board design and 3-4 days for
PCB production and delivery to my office.
So, there are two weeks for EMS.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.

19 ????? 2012 ?. 22:23 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:

> Ok from my side.
>
> Andrey - how urgently do we need them? EMS will take more then a week
> to get to us.
>
> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 22:22, Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> wrote:
> > After some back and forth with the Hittite distributor, he's agreed to
> > sample 2-3 pcs. of  HMC830LP6GE.   I'll ship them to Alexander once they
> > show up .
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Andrey.  I asked my Hittite rep for a few samples.  The full retail
> >> price in low quantities for this part is $20 USD, so if they won't give
> me
> >> samples, I'll just buy a few of them.  I have a few extra ADF4350s as
> well
> >> that I can send over as well if you're interested..
> >>
> >> -Robin
> >>
> >>
> >> 2012/3/17 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Hi Robin!
> >>>
> >>> Thank you, that you are ready to help us.
> >>> It will be great, if you can supply us samples of HMC830LP6GE.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>> Andrey Sviyazov.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
> >> +1-617-470-8825
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
> > +1-617-470-8825
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Chemeris.
> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
> http://fairwaves.ru
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/dfecb321/attachment.htm>

From alexander.chemeris at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 19:05:39 2012
From: alexander.chemeris at gmail.com (Alexander Chemeris)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:05:39 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
 <CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com> <CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABmJbFVXnPON2ivx3fjgHGkyQ8ihkEbsYz7e30wXvzCGakb2dw@mail.gmail.com>

Andrey,

2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
> Alexander, if you know faster way, let use it.
> Other hand, I need at least one week for RF-board design and 3-4 days for
> PCB production and delivery to my office.
> So, there are two weeks for EMS.

DHL will be faster. But then it's better to ship to your address, as I
will not be in Moscow the whole next week. Send you address to Robin,
plz.

-- 
Regards,
Alexander Chemeris.
CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
http://fairwaves.ru


From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 19:24:05 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:24:05 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CABmJbFVXnPON2ivx3fjgHGkyQ8ihkEbsYz7e30wXvzCGakb2dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFVXnPON2ivx3fjgHGkyQ8ihkEbsYz7e30wXvzCGakb2dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9ARExO7EJcw3toTALXqax0jcQ+LA+ZAJ-1fTZjma9M12ZWww@mail.gmail.com>

Ok, no problem.
My home address:

Vilora Trifonova str., house 6, app. 45, Krasnogorsk ?ity, Moscow region,
143400, RUSSIA.
Andrey Sviyazov.
mobile: +7-916-828-7758.



19 ????? 2012 ?. 23:05 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:

> Andrey,
>
> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
> > Alexander, if you know faster way, let use it.
> > Other hand, I need at least one week for RF-board design and 3-4 days for
> > PCB production and delivery to my office.
> > So, there are two weeks for EMS.
>
> DHL will be faster. But then it's better to ship to your address, as I
> will not be in Moscow the whole next week. Send you address to Robin,
> plz.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Chemeris.
> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
> http://fairwaves.ru
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/3da5e111/attachment.htm>

From coxe at close-haul.com  Mon Mar 19 20:14:39 2012
From: coxe at close-haul.com (Robin Coxe)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:14:39 -0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9ARExO7EJcw3toTALXqax0jcQ+LA+ZAJ-1fTZjma9M12ZWww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFVXnPON2ivx3fjgHGkyQ8ihkEbsYz7e30wXvzCGakb2dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExO7EJcw3toTALXqax0jcQ+LA+ZAJ-1fTZjma9M12ZWww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKJyDk+F30_amnRqznNDp1jN2d6+HMWbKNnJdYeOSKCwyH8Baw@mail.gmail.com>

OK, I'll send the chips directly to Andrey.  The Hittite guy didn't say
exactly when he'd have the samples.  They usually insist on delivering them
in person and it may take a week or so before he shows up.

2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>

> Ok, no problem.
> My home address:
>
> Vilora Trifonova str., house 6, app. 45, Krasnogorsk ?ity, Moscow region,
> 143400, RUSSIA.
> Andrey Sviyazov.
> mobile: +7-916-828-7758.
>
>
>
> 19 ????? 2012 ?. 23:05 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:
>
> Andrey,
>>
>> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
>> > Alexander, if you know faster way, let use it.
>> > Other hand, I need at least one week for RF-board design and 3-4 days
>> for
>> > PCB production and delivery to my office.
>> > So, there are two weeks for EMS.
>>
>> DHL will be faster. But then it's better to ship to your address, as I
>> will not be in Moscow the whole next week. Send you address to Robin,
>> plz.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Alexander Chemeris.
>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
>> http://fairwaves.ru
>>
>
>


-- 
Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
+1-617-470-8825
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/80ee522c/attachment.htm>

From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 20:45:35 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:45:35 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAKJyDk+F30_amnRqznNDp1jN2d6+HMWbKNnJdYeOSKCwyH8Baw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFVXnPON2ivx3fjgHGkyQ8ihkEbsYz7e30wXvzCGakb2dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExO7EJcw3toTALXqax0jcQ+LA+ZAJ-1fTZjma9M12ZWww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+F30_amnRqznNDp1jN2d6+HMWbKNnJdYeOSKCwyH8Baw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9AREw_SAbq7q+HUTwVGidxPWAD1Wrsey+=byRcgBb7MiaziA@mail.gmail.com>

Ok. Anyway, it will be much faster then request of samples from Moscow.
Sorry regarding ADF4350 parameters, I mixed up it with ADF4360.
What do you think about ADF4350 and HMC830 differences and usability?

Andrey.



20 ????? 2012 ?. 0:14 ???????????? Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> ???????:

> OK, I'll send the chips directly to Andrey.  The Hittite guy didn't say
> exactly when he'd have the samples.  They usually insist on delivering them
> in person and it may take a week or so before he shows up.
>
> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>
>> Ok, no problem.
>> My home address:
>>
>> Vilora Trifonova str., house 6, app. 45, Krasnogorsk ?ity, Moscow region,
>> 143400, RUSSIA.
>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>> mobile: +7-916-828-7758.
>>
>>
>>
>> 19 ????? 2012 ?. 23:05 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
>> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:
>>
>> Andrey,
>>>
>>> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
>>> > Alexander, if you know faster way, let use it.
>>> > Other hand, I need at least one week for RF-board design and 3-4 days
>>> for
>>> > PCB production and delivery to my office.
>>> > So, there are two weeks for EMS.
>>>
>>> DHL will be faster. But then it's better to ship to your address, as I
>>> will not be in Moscow the whole next week. Send you address to Robin,
>>> plz.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Alexander Chemeris.
>>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
>>> http://fairwaves.ru
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
> +1-617-470-8825
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120320/63f9f4ff/attachment.htm>

From coxe at close-haul.com  Mon Mar 19 20:49:12 2012
From: coxe at close-haul.com (Robin Coxe)
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:49:12 +0000
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <CAE9AREw_SAbq7q+HUTwVGidxPWAD1Wrsey+=byRcgBb7MiaziA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
 	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
 	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CABmJbFVXnPON2ivx3fjgHGkyQ8ihkEbsYz7e30wXvzCGakb2dw@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAE9ARExO7EJcw3toTALXqax0jcQ+LA+ZAJ-1fTZjma9M12ZWww@mail.gmail.com>
 	<CAKJyDk+F30_amnRqznNDp1jN2d6+HMWbKNnJdYeOSKCwyH8Baw@mail.gmail.com>
  <CAE9AREw_SAbq7q+HUTwVGidxPWAD1Wrsey+=byRcgBb7MiaziA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1276887328-1332190156-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-436748784-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>

I haven't done a detailed comparison of the specs (I believe that they are similar).  The one advantage of the ADF4350 is that there is already UHD support for it since this part is on the WBX and SBX Ettus daughtercards.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:45:35 
To: Robin Coxe<coxe at close-haul.com>
Cc: Alexander Chemeris<alexander.chemeris at gmail.com>; Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL<jsn at bjtpartners.com>; <gsm-internal at lists.fairwaves.ru>; Project Mayotte<project-mayotte at sysmocom.de>
Subject: Re: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX

Ok. Anyway, it will be much faster then request of samples from Moscow.
Sorry regarding ADF4350 parameters, I mixed up it with ADF4360.
What do you think about ADF4350 and HMC830 differences and usability?

Andrey.



20 ????? 2012 ?. 0:14 ???????????? Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> ???????:

> OK, I'll send the chips directly to Andrey.  The Hittite guy didn't say
> exactly when he'd have the samples.  They usually insist on delivering them
> in person and it may take a week or so before he shows up.
>
> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>
>> Ok, no problem.
>> My home address:
>>
>> Vilora Trifonova str., house 6, app. 45, Krasnogorsk ?ity, Moscow region,
>> 143400, RUSSIA.
>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>> mobile: +7-916-828-7758.
>>
>>
>>
>> 19 ????? 2012 ?. 23:05 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
>> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:
>>
>> Andrey,
>>>
>>> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
>>> > Alexander, if you know faster way, let use it.
>>> > Other hand, I need at least one week for RF-board design and 3-4 days
>>> for
>>> > PCB production and delivery to my office.
>>> > So, there are two weeks for EMS.
>>>
>>> DHL will be faster. But then it's better to ship to your address, as I
>>> will not be in Moscow the whole next week. Send you address to Robin,
>>> plz.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> Alexander Chemeris.
>>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
>>> http://fairwaves.ru
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
> +1-617-470-8825
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120319/01a4b4fb/attachment.htm>

From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Mon Mar 19 21:20:52 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 01:20:52 +0400
Subject: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
In-Reply-To: <1276887328-1332190156-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-436748784-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
References: <CAAzQdT_1Dvbs_7Rup0drh0dLptm5u5oPUyGyj2MV1jfEOtuciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw0SOq7svigat5nz4oC8XxNbFxZgt3ikChV1NYhD+go+A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAzQdT96LWSTiKX3vAnT8Bz1vhN7Xm27hDv==6keVgxRTha9gg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExrxviSotoM2Xy7rFVUvncRP2dzNPn_DB4XAYJYvcN84Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<760979810-1331852891-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-806304478-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
	<CAE9ARExrSQ6Fv7fbuW7OHAtAf8=rzZGQBUjfWr+SA+Ee4UU31A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+_dtP=xaCr_EwsV1Pg+Acv_hVYXxh4xQaJYXxHOTGpQg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+GkLN1UjBC7QfSY_TptZwK8YDQp-UaNEXY9yfQeMmKOg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFUZW38ieKDYpxFbkDE+4KzTz=gv7ZOT5C0zmaiCiKfpgw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExYLtNNyaK-h3UZc+c7UxO9bzc9TJve+6XnsdXvpHRtig@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABmJbFVXnPON2ivx3fjgHGkyQ8ihkEbsYz7e30wXvzCGakb2dw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9ARExO7EJcw3toTALXqax0jcQ+LA+ZAJ-1fTZjma9M12ZWww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKJyDk+F30_amnRqznNDp1jN2d6+HMWbKNnJdYeOSKCwyH8Baw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAE9AREw_SAbq7q+HUTwVGidxPWAD1Wrsey+=byRcgBb7MiaziA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1276887328-1332190156-cardhu_decombobulator_blackberry.rim.net-436748784-@b17.c2.bise6.blackberry>
Message-ID: <CAE9AREye__Wt_X9v4Pgkm0o=1T5His95z4rjky4NJGAia+0saA@mail.gmail.com>

Thank you Robin for hint.
This is serious reason to use ADF.
I think that a bit possible 2..3dB difference in noises at 0.6MHz ofset
isn't big advantage.
Other hand, I see that HMC has twice lower VCO sensitivity and better
noises of dividers and than a seems a bit better.
So, I'll try to design both variants on time and then will see.

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



20 ????? 2012 ?. 0:49 ???????????? Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com> ???????:

> **
> I haven't done a detailed comparison of the specs (I believe that they are
> similar). The one advantage of the ADF4350 is that there is already UHD
> support for it since this part is on the WBX and SBX Ettus daughtercards.
> ------------------------------
> *From: * Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:45:35 +0400
> *To: *Robin Coxe<coxe at close-haul.com>
> *Cc: *Alexander Chemeris<alexander.chemeris at gmail.com>; Jean-Samuel
> Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL<jsn at bjtpartners.com>; <
> gsm-internal at lists.fairwaves.ru>; Project Mayotte<
> project-mayotte at sysmocom.de>
> *Subject: *Re: Selectivity improvement solutions proposal for UmTRX
>
> Ok. Anyway, it will be much faster then request of samples from Moscow.
> Sorry regarding ADF4350 parameters, I mixed up it with ADF4360.
> What do you think about ADF4350 and HMC830 differences and usability?
>
> Andrey.
>
>
>
> 20 ????? 2012 ?. 0:14 ???????????? Robin Coxe <coxe at close-haul.com>???????:
>
>> OK, I'll send the chips directly to Andrey.  The Hittite guy didn't say
>> exactly when he'd have the samples.  They usually insist on delivering them
>> in person and it may take a week or so before he shows up.
>>
>> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>
>>
>>> Ok, no problem.
>>> My home address:
>>>
>>> Vilora Trifonova str., house 6, app. 45, Krasnogorsk ?ity, Moscow
>>> region, 143400, RUSSIA.
>>> Andrey Sviyazov.
>>> mobile: +7-916-828-7758.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 19 ????? 2012 ?. 23:05 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
>>> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:
>>>
>>> Andrey,
>>>>
>>>> 2012/3/19 Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>:
>>>> > Alexander, if you know faster way, let use it.
>>>> > Other hand, I need at least one week for RF-board design and 3-4 days
>>>> for
>>>> > PCB production and delivery to my office.
>>>> > So, there are two weeks for EMS.
>>>>
>>>> DHL will be faster. But then it's better to ship to your address, as I
>>>> will not be in Moscow the whole next week. Send you address to Robin,
>>>> plz.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Alexander Chemeris.
>>>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
>>>> http://fairwaves.ru
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Robin Coxe  |  Close-Haul Communications, Inc.  |  Boston, MA
>> +1-617-470-8825
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120320/d077288a/attachment.htm>

From andreysviyaz at gmail.com  Thu Mar 22 14:54:29 2012
From: andreysviyaz at gmail.com (Andrey Sviyazov)
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 18:54:29 +0400
Subject: UmTRX hardware development plan
In-Reply-To: <CABmJbFUuQyYu-4O9H3v9vCt9GBLUbykJqpXKj+mLaDb2MTOkAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABmJbFUuQyYu-4O9H3v9vCt9GBLUbykJqpXKj+mLaDb2MTOkAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAE9AREy-m3EXAK2p0Q4AAdQmod1n9VtY-Smb03snNWqaYM03bQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all.

Before plans I need to discuss conceptual questions about UmTRX new PCB
release:
1) PCB size will be 99.5x149.5mm to use popular 100 mm eurocard housings.
Is it Ok?
2) I can't find RJ-45 gigabit module with industrial temperature range
(-40C..+75C). Either use 0-70C agree or help required.
3) How important to keep OCXO and  TCXO together? May be TCXO will be
enough?
4) How important to keep 30 pin debug connector? May be 10 pins will be
enough?
5) Can I place some IC's at bottom of PCB? DC/DC for example, are there
objections?

Best regards,
Andrey Sviyazov.



19 ????? 2012 ?. 12:58 ???????????? Alexander Chemeris <
alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> ???????:

> Andrey Sviyazov, I think this question is mostly for you.
>
> Could you please outline the development plan for the UmTRX hardware
> (with all associated things, like RF board design)? What are critical
> dependencies? E.g. when we should decide on the casing?
>
> My feeling is that we've lost the track and focus on things which are
> important, but not at this stage.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Alexander Chemeris.
> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ??? ???????
> http://fairwaves.ru
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gsm-internal mailing list
> Gsm-internal at lists.fairwaves.ru
> http://lists.fairwaves.ru/listinfo/gsm-internal
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120322/31980fd3/attachment.htm>

From plddesigner at gmail.com  Fri Mar 23 20:26:23 2012
From: plddesigner at gmail.com (Andrew Karpenkov)
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2012 00:26:23 +0400
Subject: UmTRX hardware development plan
In-Reply-To: <CAE9AREy-m3EXAK2p0Q4AAdQmod1n9VtY-Smb03snNWqaYM03bQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABmJbFUuQyYu-4O9H3v9vCt9GBLUbykJqpXKj+mLaDb2MTOkAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAE9AREy-m3EXAK2p0Q4AAdQmod1n9VtY-Smb03snNWqaYM03bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACy-4bm67pqqBPgPUcNNfcBxekxiWbjL-7C6Hq+5Ld39Cc=4ug@mail.gmail.com>

Hi, Andrey!

2) I can't find RJ-45 gigabit module with industrial temperature range
> (-40C..+75C). Either use 0-70C agree or help required.


I found one. Part number code: 7499111440A. It's available
here<http://export.farnell.com/wuerth-elektronik/7499111440a/connector-smd-rj-45/dp/1636393?Ntt=7499111440A>
.
Datasheet included to this e-mail.

Regards,
Andrew Karpenkov
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120324/b4d06b6c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 7499111440A.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 228110 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20120324/b4d06b6c/attachment.pdf>