Hi Marcus,
Hmm, I think a duplexer is quite challenging because it would need an
unphysical Q.
This works for cellular with dedicated up-link and downlink.
For a full-duplex system with same up/downlink (as in RFID), we have for example
uplink = A*cos(2*pi*900MHz*t) and
downlink = B*m(t)*c
Hi Marcus,
> On 01/04/2021 12:25 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> In an RFID system, the RX is *designed* to be up-close-and-snugly with
> the other ends TX. There's NO reason to have an input
>stage that is sensitive in the usual RF sense. So, completely
> different engineering goals than in a typi
; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>
> On 01/03/2021 07:17 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I would like to use an X310 with UBX in a monostatic antenna configuration
> > (same frequency range). This is for example common in RFID readers.
> >
Hi,
I would like to use an X310 with UBX in a monostatic antenna configuration
(same frequency range). This is for example common in RFID readers.
My transmit power is 30dBm (ZHL-25W-272+ after the USRP), fed into a 6dBi
antenna.
Now if I use a circulator, I find isolation of around 15dB (e.g.
um 03:23 Uhr
Von: "cyberphox" <cyberp...@gmail.com>
An: "Lukas Haase" <lukasha...@gmx.at>
Cc: "Marcus D. Leech" <patchvonbr...@gmail.com>, USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
Betreff: Re: [USRP-users] UBX160 TX "noise figure"?
Hi
Hi Marcus,
Gesendet: Montag, 07. Dezember 2020 um 15:25 Uhr
Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
An: "Lukas Haase"
Cc: USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
Betreff: Re: [USRP-users] UBX160 TX "noise figure"?
On 12/06/2020 08:33 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
Hi Marcus,
Thanks again!
I did now the following e
Montag, 07. Dezember 2020 um 03:23 Uhr
Von: "cyberphox" <cyberp...@gmail.com>
An: "Lukas Haase" <lukasha...@gmx.at>
Cc: "Marcus D. Leech" <patchvonbr...@gmail.com>, USRP-users@lists.ettus.com
Betreff: Re: [USRP-users] UBX160 TX "nois
enuator set to?
Kind regards
Marino
On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 02:05, Lukas Haase via USRP-users <usrp-users@lists.ettus.com> wrote:
Hi Marcus,
Thanks again!
I did now the following experiment: I connected TX to RX back-to-back with 46.43dB attenuation in between. I
Hi Marcus,
Thanks again!
I did now the following experiment: I connected TX to RX back-to-back with 46.43dB attenuation in between. I set TX gain and RX gain to 20dB and transmit a single CW at -3dBFS.
This means my output power is Pout=11.44dBm (cross checked with spectrum analyzer) and o
t from my iPhone
On Nov 30, 2020, at 4:03 AM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
Hello,
Does anyone know what the *TX* noise figure (output SNR) of the UBX160 is?
Roughly?
For simplicity, can neglect phase noise and assume white noise floor.
In words, if I transmit a full-scale sinuso
Hello,
Does anyone know what the *TX* noise figure (output SNR) of the UBX160 is?
Roughly?
For simplicity, can neglect phase noise and assume white noise floor.
In words, if I transmit a full-scale sinusoidal signal, what will be the noise
floor around that signal?
Of course, this will depend o
Hi Marcus,
> On 11/10/2020 07:06 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
>>
>> The reason why I am asking about this is because I would like to cross-check
>> my measurements.
>>
>> My original question was about RX gain but it actually also relates to TX
>&g
Hi,
> > From: "Marcus D. Leech"
> > On 11/05/2020 06:42 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I m studying:
> > >
> > > https://files.ettus.com/performance_data/ubx/UBX-without-UHD-correc
often used in situations like this.
>
> Sometimes a simple hardware solution is best—it relies only on semiconductor
> physics and not correct software.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Nov 9, 2020, at 9:40 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users
> > wrote:
> >
> &
I need an output signal of ~32dBm (at 900 MHz).
I have a MiniCircuits ZHL-25W-272+ high power amplifier (25W).
The gain at 900 MHz is ~49.2.
Hi,
I would also like to filter out harmonics (USRP as well as PA) with a
VLF-1000+; the max input power is 10W (40dBm), so more than what I want to
obtai
Hi Marcus,
> From: "Marcus D. Leech"
> On 11/05/2020 06:42 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I m studying:
> >
> > https://files.ettus.com/performance_data/ubx/UBX-without-UHD-corrections.pdf
> >
> > How exactly is &q
Hi,
I m studying:
https://files.ettus.com/performance_data/ubx/UBX-without-UHD-corrections.pdf
How exactly is "Gain" in the "RX Figures" defined? Can it be related to the
digital samples (e.g. in dBFS or RMS)?
If, for example, I apply a exactly Pin=-20dBm, f=916MHz CW (calibrated via VNA)
at
(instead of scope) to see whether all TX tune commands were
processed correctly.
A thought.
Chintan
On Thu, Jun 11, 2020 at 4:47 PM Lukas Haase via USRP-users
mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]> wrote:Hi Marcus,
Can we quantify this in the following way?
If I send timed commands every 2
r command packets will have
> to wait For a much-larger data packet. The link is shared.
>
> I’d timed commands are scheduled “tight” this can happen.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Jun 11, 2020, at 3:34 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> >
> > Hi Marcus,
> &g
Hi Marcus,
> On 06/10/2020 09:00 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
>> [...]
>> For example, what is the fastest rate I can issue timed commands
>> (ignoring settling times etc) on a X310 over 10Gbe?
> This is actually an ambiguous question. Do you mean "what
Hi Marcus,
> On 06/10/2020 09:00 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
>> Hi Nick,
>>
>> Good point with Wireshark and coincidentially I tried exactly that
>> today. Both captures were fairly identical. But what's worse,
>> things started to become more unr
late, they are still processed
> instead of being dropped.
Right, so I think this is what I am seeing, see above.
Best,
Lukas
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 9:00 PM Lukas Haase via USRP-users
> mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
>
of digging, you'll
have a much better understanding of how RFNoC works under the hood. =)
Nick
On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 1:47 PM Lukas Haase via USRP-users
mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]> wrote:Just some
additional info: I enabled the maximum possible debug on the host
(U
Just some additional info: I enabled the maximum possible debug on the host
(UHD_LOG_CONSOLE_LEVEL=trace and debug_level = debug in .gnuradio/config.conf)
and sent both versions to a file.
Again, the diff is identical!
(This debug contains the debug messages from gr-uhd but uhd itself does not
s
Hello,
Is there any (somewhat straight forward) way to debug timed commands on the
FPGA?
In particular, I want to know:
1.) if any timed command is not executed as timed command but right away
(because it had a timestamp but the command was late so it was executed right
away)
2.) if any command
Hi Rob,
Thanks again for helping :)
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 06. Mai 2020 um 10:11 Uhr
> Von: "Rob Kossler"
> An: "Lukas Haase"
> Cc: "USRP-users@lists.ettus.com"
> Betreff: Re: [USRP-users] Unpredictable delays in loopback configuration
>
> > After lot of debugging I have some progress:
> > 1.)
Hi,
After lot of debugging I have some progress:
1.) Having multiple channels is not enough since it only sets _stream_now=FALSE
but not _start_time. Consequently both Source+Sink use get_time_now()+0.1 which
may be different
2.) set_unknown_pps only sets the the time to zero at next pps
3.) "Sy
Hello,
I am using USRP X310+UBX+gnuradio for an application where my transmitted
signal (TX) is reflected and received (RX).
For my tests I use the simple loopback config (TX -> 30dB Attn -> RX), transmit
a pulse and plot both on the same plot (triggered in the TX pulse).
The response comes aro
onversion from 200 MS/s to
5MS/s is still going reduce the noise power by the ratio of the original
bandwidth (160 MHz) to the new bandwidth (say, 4.5 MHz).
Rob
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 12:24 AM Lukas Haase via USRP-users
mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]> wrote:Hi Marcus,
> Von: "M
Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> [...]
> > My question is if my approach/understanding is right.
> >
> > In particular I do not understand Question 4 (why does noise not reduce if
> > I reduce bandwidth).
> If you're varying *analog* bandwidth, rather than sampling rate, be
> aware that UBX
Hi Marcus,
> On 04/19/2020 09:26 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > https://kb.ettus.com/UBX#Noise_Figure lists 2-3dB noise figure,
> > UBX_Data_Sheet.pdf 2-4dB for UBX-160 (at 915 MHz).
> >
> > I connect a 50 Ohm load to RX and cr
Hi,
https://kb.ettus.com/UBX#Noise_Figure lists 2-3dB noise figure,
UBX_Data_Sheet.pdf 2-4dB for UBX-160 (at 915 MHz).
I connect a 50 Ohm load to RX and create a simple gnuradio application with
USRP Source that calculates the RMS value of the sampled data (and plots the
noise in time domain).
Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> On 03/23/2020 11:53 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> >> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> >> On 03/23/2020 11:08 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> >>> Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> On 03/13/2020 10:52 AM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> > Hi again Rob,
> >
> > Yes
Hi Marcus,
> Gesendet: Montag, 23. März 2020 um 23:35 Uhr
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> An: "Lukas Haase"
> Cc: "Rob Kossler" , "USRP-users@lists.ettus.com"
>
> Betreff: Re: [USRP-users] USRP X310 ignored DSP retuning on TX when using a
> timed command
>
> On 03/23/2020 11:08 PM, Lukas Haase wro
Hi Marcus,
> Gesendet: Freitag, 13. März 2020 um 13:29 Uhr
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> An: "Lukas Haase" , "Rob Kossler"
> Cc: "USRP-users@lists.ettus.com"
> Betreff: Re: [USRP-users] USRP X310 ignored DSP retuning on TX when using a
> timed command
>
> On 03/13/2020 10:52 AM, Lukas Haase wrote
l connection in order to get a signal on Rx0. The signal attenuation in this leakage path is approx 40 dB so it is not too much different than the signal level I will receive on Rx1 if I use an external 30 dB attenuator.
Set Rx and Tx frequency to freq 1
Measure and note the relative phase for Rx0
e on Rx1 if I use an external 30 dB attenuator.
Set Rx and Tx frequency to freq 1
Measure and note the relative phase for Rx0/Tx0 and Rx1/Tx0 for freq 1
Set Rx and Tx frequency to freq 2
Measure and note the relative phase for Rx0/Tx0 and Rx1/Tx0 for freq 2
Repeat steps 2-5 a few times
ignal level I will receive on Rx1 if I use an external 30 dB attenuator.
Set Rx and Tx frequency to freq 1
Measure and note the relative phase for Rx0/Tx0 and Rx1/Tx0 for freq 1
Set Rx and Tx frequency to freq 2
Measure and note the relative phase for Rx0/Tx0 and Rx1/Tx0 for freq 2
Repeat ste
freq 2
Repeat steps 2-5 a few times to ensure that the measurements are repeatable
Questions: what should I use for freq 1 and freq 2? What waveform are you transmitting? What sample rates for Tx and Rx?
Rob
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 7:47 PM Lukas Haase via USRP-users <usrp-us
Hi Marcus,
> Gesendet: Freitag, 13. März 2020 um 13:29 Uhr
> On 03/13/2020 10:52 AM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> > Hi again Rob,
> >
> > Yes, I confirm:
> >
> > 1.) Finally I get the commands to execute at the same time (TX and RX
> > individually and both at the same time)
> > 2.) Yes, the phase is ran
Hi Rob,
I think the issue is really having two usrp_multi devices with timed commands and same timestmap or similar. From your tests below:
1.) I can confirm that the relative phase between two RX in your suggested test is always the same! In fact, it is always 4.56 rad, even across restart
ts.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]]][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailt
om[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@
lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]]][mailto
sure you sleep the thread until after your command time to make sure
the LOs are locked.
V/r,
Mitch
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 1:13 PM Lukas Haase via USRP-users
mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]> wrote:Hi,
After being able to tune RX and TX separately, I still do not get phase
coherenc
mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]]][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]][mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com][mailto:usrp-use
Hi,
After being able to tune RX and TX separately, I still do not get phase
coherency.
To debug, I added the following debug statements to set_tx_freq and set_rx_freq
in uhd/host/lib/usrp/multi_usrp.cpp:
tune_result_t set_tx_freq(const tune_request_t &tune_request, size_t chan){
#if 1
I just wanted to give a brief update: Power cycling the USRP seems to have
fixed the issue. Too bad it took me days to do this...
So there is indeed a bug on the FPGA where some state was not reset properly.
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 10. März 2020 um 11:20 Uhr
> Von: "Lukas Haase"
> An: "USRP-usersl
Hi,
I am struggling with setting DSP freq of RX with timed command for over a week
and I am just out of ideas.
It would be amazing if someone could try out my minimal testable gnuradio app
below and confirm that there's an issue in the first place (and maybe any idea
what the issue is)
Code be
sts.ettus.com[mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]]]>
wrote:
I wonder if the issue is related to a missing time stamp on the baseband
samples going from GR to UHD. If the stream does not have a time stamp, the
DUC is unable to apply the timed command because the DUC does not really know
the
y know
the time - it must pull the time from the streaming samples. This is in
contrast to the radio block which does have access to time and can apply timed
commands by referring to the motherboard clock.
I am not too familiar with GR so I'm not sure how to know if GR is putting a
t
not too familiar with GR so I'm not sure how to know if GR is putting a
time stamp on the streaming samples.
Rob
On Mon, Mar 2, 2020 at 10:04 AM Lukas Haase via USRP-users
mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]> wrote:Hi Marcus,
Thank you that would be amazing!
I followed the tutorial and bui
gE to connect to the host PC.
PCIe on the USRP X310 uses a proprietary ASIC and the driver is, as you
discovered, built on an obsolete kernel. You could attempt to appeal directly
to NI for support if switching to 10 gigE isn't an option for you.
-Robin
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 10:23
at the mailman archives. Hence I cannot respond (to keep headers
intact) but need to create a new message and manually "quote". I hope that
still preserves the context somehow.
Marcus Leech wrote:
> On 02/28/2020 01:01 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
>> Hi again,
>&g
Hi again,
I created a minimum example (gnuradio) that shows the issue described below.
To summarize: Retuning to a different dsp frequency on an USRP X310 (+UBX160)
does not work (command ignored) ONLY if a timed command (in future is used).
The code shows it in a simple manner. Commenting out th
A quick update which may make things easier to debug: I am observing TX/RX on a
spectrum analyzer and see if the frequency changes.
As soon as I enable timed command, the tune command is ignored!
For simplicity, I am completely removing the RX parts (uhd_usrp_source_0).
Now this works:
tune_req
How do these timed commands work exactly when using USRP Source together with
USRP Sink? (I need to phase-align RX and TX hence use timed commands at the
same time).
Since they are both internally use the same hardware device (and board) I feel
timed commands sent to both blocks result in some u
Hi,
I have added a usrp_block_impl::_cmd_handler_freq2 which adds "args" to the
tune_request object:
void usrp_block_impl::_cmd_handler_freq2(const pmt::pmt_t& freq_,
int chan,
const pmt::pmt_t& msg)
{
double fre
Hi,
I have used USRP X310 over PCIe and gnuradio on Windows for quite a bit. I
suffered from large connectivity issues so I wanted to switch to Linux for
quite some time. Also, I need to start modifying gnuradio/uhd source which is
even more painful in Windows.
I set up an Ubuntu 18.04 system
kas Haase wrote:
> >> On 01/23/2020 12:32 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> TO MY UNDERSTANDING, the USRP has an internal clock that is different
> >>> from host clock when running gnuradio (which makes sense becaus
> On 01/23/2020 12:32 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> TO MY UNDERSTANDING, the USRP has an internal clock that is different from
>> host clock when running gnuradio (which makes sense because there are
>> buffers etc in between).
>> Exam
Hi,
TO MY UNDERSTANDING, the USRP has an internal clock that is different from host
clock when running gnuradio (which makes sense because there are buffers etc in
between).
Example: I transmit a CW at f=1001, receive it at f=1000 and then use gnuradio
to downconvert the remaining 1 MHz I run i
Hi,
I just wanted to follow up on the question below.
I am currently (ab)using the "Function Probe" to execute the tuning code at the
"Poll Rate". But I'd like to avoid this because it does not seem reliable.
My main concerns are (a) setting integer-N mode via the messages port and (b)
obtainin
Hi,
According to the manual, USRP Source generates tags whenever settings change
(e.g. center frequency). I would like to use this for my frequency hopping
system: A python code regularly changes the center frequency of the USRP Source
(and Sink) block and then I use "rx_freq" tags to detect wh
Hi,
The UHD interface supports messages to change center frequency etc [1].
I would want to send the following commands via messages to the USRP Sink and
USRP Source, respectively:
now = self.uhd_usrp_sink_0.get_time_now()
timeStamp = now + uhd.time_spec(0.1)
tune_req_tx = uhd.tune_request(fcen
Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> [...]
> You're using the MANUAL policy for BOTH DSP and RF. Let the automatic
> "stuff" do its thing, with the only difference being integer-N tuning.
Pretty incredible, I think I found the(?) issue.
https://kb.ettus.com/UBX#Phase_Synchronization:
"If you a
Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> [...]
> >
> You're using the MANUAL policy for BOTH DSP and RF. Let the automatic
> "stuff" do its thing, with the only difference being integer-N tuning.
Wow, this is all so black magic.
After a long time I figured out that I also have to supply int_n_ste
Hi Marcus,
> Gesendet: Montag, 09. Dezember 2019 um 15:58 Uhr
>
> On 12/09/2019 03:35 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> > Hi Marcus,
> >
> >> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> >>
> >> On 12/09/2019 03:11 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> >>> No, I only have one RX channel at the moment.
> >>> --> One TX @ f and one RX @ 2f
Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
>
> On 12/09/2019 03:11 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> >
> > No, I only have one RX channel at the moment.
> > --> One TX @ f and one RX @ 2f.
> > The phase relation between this TX+RX should stay constant/coherent once
> > both TX+RX tune to a different f and back.
Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
>
> On 12/09/2019 02:38 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> >
> > Precicely.
> >
> >> What frequencies are involved here?
> > Example: Transmit 900 Mhz (USRP Sink).
> > Receive 1800 MHz (USRP Source).
> >
> > The received signal will have arbitrary phase phi1.
> To make s
Hi Marcus,
> Von: "Marcus D. Leech"
> On 12/08/2019 05:19 PM, Lukas Haase wrote:
> > Hi Marcus,
> >
> >> You'll need to look at the API here:
> >>
> >> https://files.ettus.com/manual/classuhd_1_1usrp_1_1multi__usrp.html#a191b78b00d051d3d51c2f719361c1fb5
> >>
> >> and here:
> >>
> >> https://files
Hi Marcus,
> You'll need to look at the API here:
>
> https://files.ettus.com/manual/classuhd_1_1usrp_1_1multi__usrp.html#a191b78b00d051d3d51c2f719361c1fb5
>
> and here:
>
> https://files.ettus.com/manual/classuhd_1_1usrp_1_1multi__usrp.html#a607aee766d21228a7aaabde2771eb46f
>
> Basically, GRC wil
Hi Nate,
Nate wrote:
> Hi Luke,
>
> There is an example of setting timed commands in a custom block for the
> TwinRX in gr-doa here:
>
> https://github.com/EttusResearch/gr-doa/blob/master/python/twinrx_usrp_source.py#L101-L121
>
> You can do this with the standard UHD source/sink blocks, by firs
encies would stay coherent. I need to go back and
look at some notes on it.
Regards,
Nate Temple
On Fri, Dec 6, 2019 at 11:11 PM Lukas Haase via USRP-users
mailto:usrp-users@lists.ettus.com]> wrote:Hi Marcus,
Marcus wrote:> On 12/06/2019 09:33 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
>> Hi
Hi Marcus,
Marcus wrote:> On 12/06/2019 09:33 PM, Lukas Haase via USRP-users wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am using the USRP X310+UBX160 with gnuradio to perform very
>> precicse phase measurements: The TX transmits a CW which is
>> reflected by an object and received by
Hi,
I am using the USRP X310+UBX160 with gnuradio to perform very precicse phase
measurements: The TX transmits a CW which is reflected by an object and
received by the RX.
The received phase provides an accurate estimate of the distance to the
reflected object, once the fixed phase relation (
76 matches
Mail list logo
