CC1120: Balun/IPC @ 433MHz ..?!

P.S. Found something from Murata (LFD21433MMF5E258) & Johansson (0434BM15B0027E) too, but they refer both to 'matching to SI EFR32'.

STM instead refers explicit to TI CC112x! But they don't deliver in-depth data sheets.

Any hints welcome?

The ST IPC was developed without TI involvement and I don't know the performance if this is used. Since ST is a direct competitor we don't promote the ST IPC.  

TER,

any clue why your not-competitors offer 433MHz IPC's, but not for TI?
That's annoying ..

And, as a remark, you guys from TI should promote whatever helps to sell CC112x. Example: I just choosed another 434MHz-chip due to space constraints with CC11x & discrete balun.

Richard,
if the combined balun can be used soley for 433MHz in a CC112x-system, it might fit and will be evaluated. But I doubt: as I know the CC13xx has different connectors.

CC110x-IPC can't be used for CC112x, right?

So what else can I do if I use 433Mhz?

Frankly: more than glad that somebody developped something for CC112x

Hi,

An overview of the IPCs is available in Chapter 8 in the following app note: 

For 433 MHz IPCs, we have for CC110x and for CC13xx but not for CC112x. The IPCs are designed specifically (conjugate match with filtering) for a particular chip-set family.

CC1101, CC1111, CC1110, CC110L, CC113L, CC115L, CC430 : 430 - 435 MHz, Johanson Technology, Part nr: 0433BM15A0001

CC13xx 430-510 MHz, Walsin, Part nr: RFBLN2520090YC3T10

CC1352R, CC1352P 430 - 435 MHz, 2400 - 2480 MHz, Murata, Part nr: LFB21433MDZ6F112

Why not use CC13xx or CC110x instead of CC1120 that has a 433 MHz IPC available ?

Richard,

your last remark 'why not use' leads me to an open wound with TI:

today CC112x is the one and only chipset with narrow band and -123dBm sensivity @4kbaud.
CC110x is far away in terms of RF abilitys and I lost hope that CC13xx will ever be there. Why TI hasn't launched yet something like a RF-only "CC1320", without all that nice ARM etc. stuff around it? If I compare CC112x chip cost with what I have to spend for CC1312 in our typcial cost sensitive environment, I always come back to CC112x.
Not mentioning all the work our developers have to invest to become familar with RTOS & Co. Frankly, we tried. But after 8 weeks I pulled the emergency break: as soon as they stepped away from the path that TI's template applications provide, they got stuck. I don't know the exact reasons for that, but I can't spend that time & money for something which I can't oversee.

Sorry for that, but you pressed the 'right' button asking 'why don't you use...'

regards

GGA