This is merely a historical archive of years 2008-2021, before the migration to mailman3.
A maintained and still updated list archive can be found at https://lists.osmocom.org/hyperkitty/list/UmTRX@lists.osmocom.org/.
Andrey Sviyazov andreysviyaz at gmail.comDogs - FPGA. Excuse me for my stupid Samsung :) Best regards, Andrey Sviyazov. (Sent from my mobile client) 01.11.2012 1:19 пользователь "Andrey Sviyazov" <andreysviyaz at gmail.com> написал: > Hi Jean-Samuel. > > About power consumption and performancea I can say that spurs at 500 kHz > offset around 6dB above TX LO noise plot. > It wad measured when 3.3V come from dogs through TI2012U601. > Tomorrow I'll measure all again and share pics in this topic. > As I mentioned, I'll try to find better filter to suppress 500kHz. > Please let me know any partnumbers or suppliers you known. > Also unoccupied place under 3.3V LDO's near LMS seems a good place for > thermal sensors. > About rf connectors, now I am sure that MCX much better then U_FL and we > should return them. > To connect UmSEL to UmTRX v2.1 required U_FL-MCX cable assemblies till new > UmSEL version. > Also possible to use direct cable soldering to UmSEL board. > Of course, last variant look not perfect. > About requirements at 400kHz we can't meet, I actually can't understand > what do you mean. > > Best regards, > Andrey Sviyazov. > (Sent from my mobile client) > 31.10.2012 22:47 пользователь "Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL" < > jsn at bjtpartners.com> написал: > >> Hi Andrey, >> >> Do you think it will be possible to decrease the power consumption and to >> keep the best possible performances for industrial applications ? >> I know you cannot be sure about this but I would like to know how >> confident you feel about this ? >> >> Best regards. >> >> Jean-Samuel. >> :-) >> >> >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Andrey Sviyazov <andreysviyaz at gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> Hi Jean-Samuel, Alexander. >>> >>> Tomorrow I'll let you know what possible to make on time. >>> And we should set time limit for this. >>> For example, next morning. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Andrey Sviyazov. >>> (Sent from my mobile client) >>> 31.10.2012 22:24 пользователь "Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS SARL" >>> <jsn at bjtpartners.com> написал: >>> >>> Hi Alexander, >>>> >>>> Thank you very much for your reply. >>>> >>>> Why skip/populate LMS power supply block ? >>>> As I understand we always need the LMS power supply block. I probably >>>> missed something. Could you explain this in more details to let me better >>>> understand ? >>>> >>>> Thanks a lot for your help. >>>> >>>> Best regards. >>>> >>>> Jean-Samuel. >>>> :-) >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 7:14 PM, Alexander Chemeris < >>>> alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Yes, lesser input voltage range makes sense only if it saves >$10 >>>>> and/or considerably increases power efficiency. I think this not the >>>>> case, and then only these changes will be needed: >>>>> >>>>> * traditional power connector >>>>> * MCX RF connector, because they sustain much more connect-disconnect >>>>> cycles >>>>> * lower power consumption mod >>>>> >>>>> I would appreciate if we could keep the same PCB for both versions and >>>>> populate the proper version of power connector/RF connector and >>>>> skip/populate LMS power supply block. >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 9:56 PM, Jean-Samuel Najnudel - BJT PARTNERS >>>>> SARL <jsn at bjtpartners.com> wrote: >>>>> > Hi Alexander, >>>>> > >>>>> > This would be much easier to have the same board for both lab and >>>>> > deployment. Only the UmSEL would make the difference. >>>>> > For deployment, I really need wide input voltage range as I plan to >>>>> power >>>>> > the whole system (UmTRX + PA) with a single 28V supply. >>>>> > Even if this can save a few euros, I would really prefer we do not >>>>> make the >>>>> > input voltage range smaller. >>>>> > By the way, even for lab, it might be convenient and it can avoid >>>>> damages in >>>>> > case of wrong voltage supply. >>>>> > >>>>> > Best regards. >>>>> > >>>>> > Jean-Samuel. >>>>> > :-) >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Alexander Chemeris >>>>> > <alexander.chemeris at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Andrey, how much time do you need to create 2.1? If it's mire than >>>>> a day, >>>>> >> we should postpone this. I believe that enclosure is a much more >>>>> important >>>>> >> issue at this moment. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> I think we need following changes for the lab version: >>>>> >> * traditional power connector >>>>> >> * MCX RF connector, because they sustain much more >>>>> connect-disconnect >>>>> >> cycles >>>>> >> * lower power consumption mod >>>>> >> * smaller input voltage range (only if this makes things cheaper) >>>>> >> >>>>> >> Sent from my Android device. >>>>> >> >>>>> >> -- >>>>> >> Regards, >>>>> >> Alexander Chemeris >>>>> >> CEO, Fairwaves LLC >>>>> >> http://fairwaves.ru >>>>> >> >>>>> >> 31.10.2012 14:05 пользователь "Andrey Sviyazov" < >>>>> andreysviyaz at gmail.com> >>>>> >> написал: >>>>> >> >>>>> >>> Hi Jean-Samuel. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> First of all, you didn't said about delay duration :) >>>>> >>> I can't delay this batch just due to my wishes that each next batch >>>>> >>> should work more and more ideally. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> These modifications looks interesting. I think it is a good idea. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Hope so. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> I just have a few question. >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> Why do you call this board revision 2.1 "a special batch for >>>>> labs" ? >>>>> >>>> Would these modifications make this revision 2.1 also more >>>>> suitable for >>>>> >>>> field deployment, at least as much as the revision 2.0 ? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Because of I can fix only known issues. >>>>> >>> Also not all really required improvements are known yet. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Decreasing power consumption to 10..11 W would be great. Is there >>>>> any >>>>> >>>> drawbacks of this modification ? Would it decrease some >>>>> performances ? If >>>>> >>>> not, this modifiction to decrease power consumption is a >>>>> significant very >>>>> >>>> good modification. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Decreasing of performances it is only spurs with DC/DC conversion >>>>> freq >>>>> >>> ~500kHz. >>>>> >>> Now I searching more good LC filter to suppress it better than >>>>> TI2012U601 >>>>> >>> can. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> Do you have enough space on the board to replace some U_FL >>>>> connectors >>>>> >>>> with MCX connectors as you suggest ? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Yes, but may be not all should be MCX. >>>>> >>> Of course I did not insist, but just asking whether there is a >>>>> reason to >>>>> >>> do it or not. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> An external LNA would probably need around 5 Volts instead of 6V. >>>>> A >>>>> >>>> small PA would probably need a little bit higher voltage. Do you >>>>> think it >>>>> >>>> would be possible to have a variable voltage low power connector ? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> On my opinion, variable voltage is not good idea. >>>>> >>> For example for LNA's better to place low noise LDO 6V to 5V near >>>>> to IC's >>>>> >>> to get Vcc clean too. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>> By the way, could you pelase also add the 2 LMS output matching >>>>> >>>> capacitors we need to improve output power figures in the 1800 >>>>> band ? >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Of course, because it is issue which should be fixed, but not >>>>> >>> improvement. >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> Best regards, >>>>> >>> Andrey Sviyazov. >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards, >>>>> Alexander Chemeris. >>>>> CEO, Fairwaves LLC / ООО УмРадио >>>>> http://fairwaves.ru >>>>> >>>> >>>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.osmocom.org/pipermail/umtrx/attachments/20121101/bf81fd42/attachment.htm>