Other Parts Discussed in Thread: LP-EM-CC2340R5
Tool/software:
Hi Sir,
We did some channel sounding performance test with TI Evalution board and our prototype board, and got worse distance data with CC2745 vs CC2340. Please help check what reason is and give us some suggestions.
A few notes on our testing,
Initiator: LP-EM-CC2745R10-A and BP-EM-CS, Our CC2745 Prototype board with dual antennas
Reflector: LP-EM-CC2340R5 and BP-EM-CS, LP-EM-CC2745R10-A and BP-EM-CS, Our CC2340 Prototype board with dual antennas
Software:SDK 9.11.0018
Then environment was an outdoor free space with clear line of sight. the evaluation boards were stationary and mounted at a height of 0.8 meter approximately.
The figure to the left shows the distance estimate for all four antenna paths and music estimated distance with TI 2745 EVB as initiator and TI 2340 EVB as reflector.
The figure to the Middle shows the distance estimate for all four antenna paths and music estimated distance with TI 2745 EVB as initiator and TI EVB 2745 as reflector.
The figure to the right shows the distance estimate for all four antenna paths and music estimated distance with our CC2745 prototype board as initiator and our 2340 prototype board as reflector.
You can see the distance data with TI CC2745 EVB and TI CC2745 EVB is best. TI CC2745 EVB and TI CC2340 EVB is not good. The data of our board is also not good.
I don't know why we get worse data with TI CC2745 EVB and TI CC2340 EVB. Please help check and give your comments.
One more questions abour our prototype board,
The distance measurement results show significant fluctuations on same location.
And the distance results on ANT3 and ANT4 are lower than True distance. the distance results on ANT1 and ANT2 are higher than True distance.
What should we do can improve the two issue as above,please give me your suggestions,thanks
Robin