On 08/31/2010 10:41 PM, Lin HUANG wrote:
I like "powered from the USB port" too !!
But I know what William want to make now. That will be a half-size
USRP mother board + single daughter board, placed in a small
underwater vehical, and powerd by vehical battery, right? It sounds
interesting!
Lin
I like "powered from the USB port" too !!
But I know what William want to make now. That will be a half-size
USRP mother board + single daughter board, placed in a small
underwater vehical, and powerd by vehical battery, right? It sounds
interesting!
Lin
2010/8/30 Mark J. Blair :
>
> On Aug 30,
aig.kief
> =cosmiac@gnu.org] *On Behalf Of *William Cox
> *Sent:* Monday, August 30, 2010 11:45 AM
> *To:* Mark J. Blair
> *Cc:* discuss-gnuradio
> *Subject:* Re: [Discuss-gnuradio] Re: making a small USRP board
>
>
>
> Mark,
>
> Going from 36 sq-in to 18 sq-in is
Ah, I see. That sounds like a neat project.
On Aug 30, 2010, at 10:44, William Cox wrote:
> Mark,
> Going from 36 sq-in to 18 sq-in is a big improvement for us. We'll be using
> it on an underwater vehicle, and space is a premium. Your idea for a smaller
> WBX board is cool, but would be a
Mark,
Going from 36 sq-in to 18 sq-in is a big improvement for us. We'll be using
it on an underwater vehicle, and space is a premium. Your idea for a smaller
WBX board is cool, but would be a lot of work.
-William
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Mark J. Blair wrote:
>
> On Aug 30, 2010, at 8:
I would strongly recommend keeping the LDO on the board, or at least
some form of power filtering or decoupling.
~Jeff
On 8/30/2010 11:24 AM, William Cox wrote:
Right now I'm thinking the easiest thing would be to keep everything the
same, except remove the 2nd mixed-signal chip, and move the
On Aug 30, 2010, at 8:24 AM, William Cox wrote:
> Right now I'm thinking the easiest thing would be to keep everything the
> same, except remove the 2nd mixed-signal chip, and move the power circuit off
> the board.
> So, yes, same form factor for daughterboard connections.
That seems like a lo
Right now I'm thinking the easiest thing would be to keep everything the
same, except remove the 2nd mixed-signal chip, and move the power circuit
off the board.
So, yes, same form factor for daughterboard connections.
-William
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 11:14 AM, Mark J. Blair wrote:
>
> On Aug 3
On Aug 30, 2010, at 6:52 AM, William Cox wrote:
> As of yet, I'm trying to figure out if reducing the size of the USRP1 baord,
> by removing one of the transceivers, is feasible. I'm a GNURadio/USRP newbie
> and I'm just going off looking at the pysical board and thinking I didn't
> need half o
FDD - Frequency Division Duplex. You can communicate in both directions
simultaneously using different frequency bands.
/MiO
William Cox wrote:
Lin,
I don't know what FDD is. The board would only support it if the
original board does, and/or if someone implements it.
As of yet, I'm trying to
Lin,
I don't know what FDD is. The board would only support it if the original
board does, and/or if someone implements it.
As of yet, I'm trying to figure out if reducing the size of the USRP1 baord,
by removing one of the transceivers, is feasible. I'm a GNURadio/USRP newbie
and I'm just going of
Will it support FDD full duplex? I'd like to run OpenBTS on a smaller USRP.
-Lin
2010/8/28 William Cox :
> Yes, same functions, just smaller and only one rx/tx pair.
> -William
>
> On Friday, August 27, 2010, Abdalaleem Andy James Potter
> wrote:
>> Would it have the same functionality?
>>
>>
>>
Yes, same functions, just smaller and only one rx/tx pair.
-William
On Friday, August 27, 2010, Abdalaleem Andy James Potter
wrote:
> Would it have the same functionality?
>
>
> On 27 Aug 2010, at 22:05, William Cox wrote:
>
>
> I'm interested in making a much smaller USRP1 board. Has anyone trie
13 matches
Mail list logo
