Philba wrote:One of the reasons the microstrip antennas suck is orientation and height. If you can put the module up high and in proper orientation (not sure what is best, though), then you will have better reception/tranmission
I think these F antenna have the maxium 'out of the back of the F'
Code: Select all /\
||
Max
------------------
| |
| |
##################
##################
##################
Philba wrote:... The FCC one uses a chipcon cc2500 ...
They are really nice parts, well documented (and what isn't documented has a nice code generation wizard) and lots of sample code. I have been using them in some of my designs:
http://www.sixthavenue.co.uk/files/flit ... sradio.jpg. If that is what is there, then grab a handful - I am rather jealous! I have been hoping to find an example over here, but so far it is all Signia or Atmel based modules - which require external oscillators and a codec.
Philba wrote:Sam, do you know if the FCC requires recertification if the transcierver modules are used in a different product?
Yes, unless the module is independently certified - in which case it will need to be completely shielded, have it's own voltage regulators, and have all the IOs be isolated (I think there is also a restriction about not being operated with 20cm of the body)
This exploration has been pretty eye opening for me as far as FCC approval goes - most things I have looked at before have appeared to be conducted 'properly'. This lot are rather, um, curious:
- Different electronic turning up under the same ID: I think you are supposed to approve any change - unless you can make a good case for it being electrically identical. certainly any change of chipset, crystal freqs. etc. would need it as far as I can tell.
- Comedy exhibits: Single line descriptions and meaningless block diagrams.
- Bad schematics: incomplete, wrong,or for obviously different electronics.
TTFN
SamL
Edit:
Philba wrote:Board label says it's a MARI05C which makes it a CC2500
Yup - that looks good - what FCC-ID did it have?