Hi Aichi,
Please refer to the RF-RANGE-ESTIMATOR . The range is dependent on which PHY used and communication stability also depends on transmission intervals, packet lengths, environmental factors, etc. Ultimately it would be best to run independent…
Part Number: AWR2944EVM Other Parts Discussed in Thread: AWR2944 , TIDEP-01027 Hello Team,
We are planning to use this IC for our project.
Our application this module will be mounted at 7.5 Metre above from the ground to monitor the vehicle.
Can…
Part Number: MMWCAS-RF-EVM Other Parts Discussed in Thread: AWR2243 , , MMWCAS-DSP-EVM Hello,
I was using MMWCAS-RF-EVM (AWR2243) and MMWCAS-DSP-EVM for antenna calibration referring to C:\ti\mmwave_studio_03_00_00_14\docs\mmwave_studio_cascade_user_guide…
Part Number: CC2652R Tool/software: WEBENCH® Design Tools Hi sir,
In the RF Range Estimator , as the absorption material we are using rubber and plastic but the materials are not included in the given list materials. so what we have to select for i
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: AWR1843AOPEVM , AWR1843BOOST Tool/software: Hi,
i want to know can i trust mmwave sensing estimator results?
i searched for a measurement test data from for example AWR1843AOPEVM with clear mentioned complete config…
Part Number: MMWCAS-RF-EVM Other Parts Discussed in Thread: AWR2243 Tool/software: Hello,
In User's Guide, Radar spec related with detection range is not written. Please tell me detection range in each RCS and show me evaluation result if it possible…
Part Number: LP-EM-CC2745R10-Q1 Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LP-EM-CC2340R53 , Tool/software: Hi, TI:
When using the cc2745 for dual antenna CS ranging, the final estimated distances are not the same as the distances obtained from any of the four…
Part Number: CC1020
Tool/software:
I have 2 devices, both using CC1020 radio modules, operating in 900MHz band.
One functions as a TX (only sends RF msgs) and the other functions as a RX (only receives RF msgs).
Both devices are set to 911.222MHz…
Hi,
For a given situation the range for horizontal polarization is always less then vertical polarization and I'm wondering if is due to "destructive" interference from the two signal paths. I'm familiar with calculating site attenuation for open field…
