• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 30 subscribers
  • Views 141 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

AWR1642: How to design One RX not use four in SRR example

user6419874
Intellectual 385 points
Part Number: AWR1642

Dear,

I want to measure one rx sensitivity ( RX1 RX2 RX3 RX4 ), how do I verify the code in SRR?

Thanks

  • 0
    TI__Genius 15046 points

    Hi,

    Could you please help me understand what you want to achieve a little better? Do you want to run a processing chain with one RX only, or do some form of characterization for the RX antenna?

    Regards,

    Aayush

  • 0 in reply to Aniket Mahajan
    Intellectual 385 points

    Hi,

    I want to measure each rx power to judgment whether  rx have any problem ( Rx antenna designed by myself).

    Becase I find a situation the different board, the strong TX power (measure by device) but it measure the tracker is closely.

    Thanks

  • 0 in reply to user6419874
    TI__Genius 15046 points

    Hi,

    I now understand what you are trying to do. I don't think the SRR lab can be easily modified to do this.

    The preferred way to make this kind of measurement is to put the device in continuous wave mode (transmitting at a fixed frequency continuously) and capturing raw data.

    If you have a waveguide, you could get exact numbers for your antenna. If not, you can run the same experiment on a TI EVM in the same environment (perhaps an uncluttered environment with a strong reflector) and compare the values for the two to get a comparative performance for your antennas.

    This can be done with mmWave studio and a DCA board (please have a look at section 11.: Continuous Streaming Tab Operations in mmWave Studio's user guide).

    Do you think this would be more straightforward for your use case?

    Regards,

    Aayush