Basically, if possible use the same LO, or lock the two LO's together.

Going back to the original question: is locking the LOs for an RX card and a
TX card on a USRP1 feasible?

Thanks for your comments Vijay, you helped to add focus to my question.

--Colby

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 4:31 PM, Vijay Pillai <[email protected]>wrote:

> Hi Colby,
>
> Even if the two boards have slightly different frequencies, this should not
> impact decoding of the receive signal as the received signal jumps between
> the I and Q channels (depending of course on the packet lengths and assuming
> that you have a packet decoder on I and Q separately).
>
> More seriously using separate  uncorrelated LO signals for transmit and
> receive significantly degrades receiver sensivity. The transmit signal is
> typically 30dBm+ and the same antenna or nearby antenna is used to get the
> receive signal - the received signal has this huge transmit signal along
> with a -60dBm backscattered signal from the tag that is 50 to 200kHz away
> from carrier. If the same LO is used for transmit and receive, then at the
> dowconversion mixer, there is a high degree of correlation between signals
> at the LO port and the RF port (esp. the transmitter leakage), and much of
> the transmitter noise shows up as a DC offset. If separate LO's then the
> noise at the two ports are large uncorrelated contributing to the baseband
> noise. You can expect 5db to 20db difference in SNR between using same LO's
> vs separate LO's
>
> Best regards,
> -Vijay
>
> --- On *Tue, 4/19/11, Colby Boyer <[email protected]>* wrote:
>
>
> From: Colby Boyer <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Odd use of LO phase lock feature on USRP
> for RFID application
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: "Matt Ettus" <[email protected]>, "GNU Radio Discussion" <
> [email protected]>
> Date: Tuesday, April 19, 2011, 5:00 PM
>
>
> The two boards should have different clocks, so there should be some
> frequency offset. Even in typical SISO systems, you use a PLL block to deal
> with this since you can't access the other LO because its physically
> somewhere else.
>
> While receiving, the transmitter is still running at full power to run the
> RFID tag. The transmitters carrier is down converted by the receiver board.
> Unless I have a misunderstanding, and the two daughter boards share the same
> clock there should be some frequency offset.
>
> ?
>
> Thanks,
> Colby
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:44 PM, 
> <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]>
> > wrote:
>
> On Tue, 19 Apr 2011 11:41:46 -0700, Matt Ettus 
> <[email protected]<http://mc/[email protected]>>
> wrote:
> > On 04/19/2011 11:38 AM, Colby Boyer wrote:
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> In RFID applications, a reader receives (backscatter from RFID tag) and
> >> transmits (constant tone) at the same frequency. With commercial
> >> readers, a single LO will be shared by the RX and TX chain. However, in
> >> the USRP case, two separate daughter boards are used so different LOs
> >> are in use for the RX and TX chain. So you should end up with some
> >> frequency offset in RX chain due to mismatched clocks.
> >>
> >> Is it possible to lock the LOs of a TX daughter board and a RX daughter
> >> board, as you would for a traditional MIMO 2 TX or 2 RX setup? There
> >> appears to numerous discussions and examples of the latter. I'm thinking
> >> it would be possible. But I'm more of a systems guy and less of a RF
> >> hardware guy, so any comments would be appreciated.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Colby
> >
> >
> > As long as you set them to the same frequency, they're already locked.
> > No need to do anything different.
> >
> > Matt
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> > [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]>
> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>
>
> True, for a SISO system with TDD(not FDD) theres no problem for your
> kind of application.
> Regards
> Agile Solutions
>
>
>
> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
> [email protected] <http://mc/[email protected]>
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio
>
>
_______________________________________________
Discuss-gnuradio mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnuradio

Reply via email to