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.

Frequency hopping in CC120x

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC1200

Has TI done any reference designs with the CC120x using frequency hopping that are able to pass FCC Part 15.247? I did find some info on DSSS techniques but it requires a minimum data rate of 50kbps and suffers from RX sensitivity degradation compared to 1.2kbps.

  • According to FCC 15.247 you can either do frequency hopping or the 6dB bandwidth have to be at least 500 kHz. For neither of them it's a requirement for DSSS. Could you be a bit more specific if you want to use frequency hopping or 6dB bandwidth and we can guide you further.

  • If we don’t do frequency hopping or DSSS, our maximum TX power can be around +7dBm which is 7dB lower than what the CC1200 can output.

    Are there any docs describing receiver sensitivity for different RX filter bandwidths, modulation schemes and data rates? The datasheet has some example info but I’d like to see more details.

    What I am trying to do is balance link budget and power consumption tradeoffs.

  • Theoretically, there is an optimum separation/datarate setting if you simultaneously minimize the Rx filter bandwidth. Every halving of Rx filter bandwidth increases sensitivity with 3 dB whereas sensitivity vs separation/datarate (modulation index) decreases with about 1.5-2.5 dB per halving down to a certain limit where the loss increases very fast (I wouldn't go below a modulation index less than 0.5). Our experience is to that a modulation index of 1 is a good compromise. Note that the frequency offset between Rx and Tx needs to be taken into account when selecting the Rx filter bandwidth. Rule of thumb is doubling the data rate reduces the sensitivity by 3dB.