• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 2 answers
  • Subscribers 16 subscribers
  • Views 134 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Similar topics

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.

CC2642R: Functions for different Antenna for CC2642R

Viknesh Vadivel
Intellectual 300 points
Part Number: CC2642R

Tool/software:

Hi team,

Good day!,

I am currently planning to change the antenna for the CC2642R IC in my design. The LaunchPad reference design utilizes an Inverted-F antenna due to spacing constraints, while I am considering switching to an E-type antenna.

To provide clarity, I have attached images of both antennas for your reference.

 Inverted-F antenna 


E-type antenna

Could you please share your thoughts on this? Specifically, I would like to know if this change will impact performance.


How about a chip antenna?

Thank you for your assistance.

Best regards,

Ram

  • 0
    TI__Expert 6050 points

    Hi Ram,

    The images you shared are not working. Can you please try re-adding them to the thread. I am familiar with the inverted F antenna used on the LaunchPad but I'm not sure what an E-type antenna is, maybe it's a nomenclature I'm not familiar with.

    In any case, there will be an impact in performance depending on what you are considering performance. Different antennas will have differing gain/directionality. They may also be more sensitive to to PCB design or will require different tuning to achieve the desired performance. Generally speaking there are too many variables and the question isn't specific enough for me to be able to provide an accurate answer.

    For an example of how different antennas would affect performance you might take a look at this measurement summary https://www.ti.com/lit/an/swra496a/swra496a.pdf

    -Jake

  • 0 in reply to Jake Pulliam
    Intellectual 300 points

    Hi Jake,

    Good day..!,

    Thanks for your prompt response.

    As per your documents shared, 

    The invert F-type antenna has an efficiency of 71%.

    The E-type antenna has an efficiency of 66%.

    So I am planning to use the E-type antenna because I have very little space on my board.

    I think that 66% of efficiency will be okay; the value is close to inverted f-type antenna.

    Also, please help me on calculating the matching circuit of the E-type antenna, or I can use the same matching circuits of the inverted F-type antenna.

    Could you please share your thoughts on this?.

    Thanks,
    Ram

  • 0 in reply to Viknesh Vadivel
    Intellectual 300 points

    Hi Jake,

    Good day..!,

    I am exactly planning to use this antenna. 

    Please have a look of this
     

    Thanks,

    Ram.

  • 0 in reply to Viknesh Vadivel
    TI__Expert 6050 points

    Hi Ram,

    Thanks for updating the images, I see what you're referring to now. I can't really comment on the specific design (the latest in orange) as it's not something designed, measured or tested at TI. I would refer you to the designer for that antenna. If it has similar performance to the one I linked then in a real world application it's very unlikely that you'd see a difference between using this meander antenna and the inverted F type antenna.

    For antenna matching, there's not really a way to absolutely determine what the precise match should be in advance. You can do some simulation work in advance if you have the software and that can get you close but in reality it usually takes some experiments in the lab. All sorts of factors will shift the antenna parameters slightly including the PCB surroundings (i.e. if it's in a plastic case, the type of plastic, whether it's being held in a hand, etc.) We have a detailed application note that describes the process of tuning the antenna (finding the correct matching network): https://www.ti.com/lit/an/swra726/swra726.pdf

    BR,

    Jake