• State
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 3 replies
  • Subscribers 53 subscribers
  • Views 467 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.

CC1125 new ETSI cat1

Alpha Tango Charlie
Prodigy 135 points
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: CC1125

Hello,

Have you tested the CC1125 to the new draft of ETSI EN 300 220-1 V3.1.0 (2016-05)

It looks like the new normative is more stringent and the test requirements are somewhat different. Will the CC1125 still comply for ETSI EN 300220 cat1 at 868 and 433?

Rgds,

ATC

  • 0
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points
    Is it some specific sections in the draft you are thinking of?
  • 0 in reply to TER
    Prodigy 135 points

    Hello TER,

    The new ETSI EN 300 220 Draft seems to change the way that the tests results limits for CAT 1 are defined.

    The receiver tests are no longer defined as dB to the carrier but as an absolute level.

    For example we have the following requirements.

    Adjacent Channel Selectivity > -50 dBm

    Receiver Saturation at Adjacent Channel > -20 dBm

    Spurious Response Rejection > -44 dBm (-69 dBm when relaxed)

    Blocking & Blocking Saturation > -20 dBm 

    Behaviour at high wanted signal level > -10 dBm

    If my calculations are right (for 10 kHz) the new ETSI EN 300 220 Cat 1 would be more stringent on Spurs and Blocking by 2dB.

    I have also in the mean time done the tests in my receiver board with the CC1125 at 10kHz BW and it complies with both old & new ETSI EN 300 220 Cat1 requirements with a good SAW filter. So it seems to be good.

  • 0 in reply to Alpha Tango Charlie
    TI__Guru**** 317180 points
    I haven't looked into the numbers myself . But someone here has done some calculations and found that the new draft is 2 dB easier to meet. Not having either his or your calculations I can't comment on who has done the correct calculation.