Post Go back to editing

ADF7023 Jammer Suppression

Thread Summary

The user observed that the ADF7023 handles highside jammers better than lowside jammers, with significant differences in jammer-to-signal levels. The final answer suggests contacting local sales support for further assistance, but the user found that a 70 kHz deviation and 639 kHz channel spacing provide balanced jammer suppression. The RX filter bandwidth and image calibration registers were also explored, with limited impact on jammer suppression.
AI Generated Content

I set up 3 ADF7023 chips, one as transmitter at 915 MHz, one as receiver at 915 MHz, and one as tunable jammer.

I set them up for 70 KHz deviation gfsk, 200 kbps.  I then run the packet error test (4000 packets), figure out the threshold power level, and set up the transmitter to send to the receiver at 10 dB above the threshold level (i.e. with no packet errors).

I then set up the 3rd board as a tunable jammer.  I tell it to continuously transmit the preamble (acting a little like a continuous jammer).  I then vary the center frequency of the jammer, either above 915 mhz (highside jammer) or below 915 MHz (lowside jammer).  I select a jammer frequency, run the PER test transmit to receiver, and increase the jammer power until I see a 5% PER rate.

I get the following data:

HIGHSIDE JAMMER:

Spacing [KHz]   Jammer/Signal allowed

430                   26.7 dB

514                   36.9 dB

535                   38.8 dB

639                   44.1 dB

800                   47.5 dB

LOWSIDE JAMMER:

430                   17.5 dB

514                   14.8 dB

535                   14.5 dB

639                   16.3 dB

800                   19.0 dB

example: Highside "430 KHz" means the jammer is sending its preamble continuously and is centered at 915.430 MHz, while the transmitter is sending PER test at 915.000 MHz.  The jammer is causing a 5% packet error rate when its power is 26.7 dB above the desired signal being transmitted.

MY QUESTION:  Why does the ADF7023 handle highside jammers much better than lowside jammers?  What is going on, either RF, IF, or DSP processing in the chip, to cause this differrence in performance?  Alisasing?  IF Harmonics?

Since in my application I am equally likely to have either high or low side jammers, is there something I can do (vary data rate slightly, etc) to more balance out the higside/lowside IF filtering of the jammer signal???

Thread Notes

  • I check jammer to signal levels and frequency spacing on a spectrum analyzer, so it is not because one of the board's frequency is way off.  And the receiver's RX bandwidth is at 300 KHz for the above data.

  • I was also wondering if there is any way for me to manually control the IF frequency inside of the chip (by selecting a slightly different LO frequency)?  There might be some odd image or fold over noise going on in the IF and moving the LO freqency around for my data rate might make a big difference.

  • I'm sorry. Questions on ISM and Licensed Band Transceivers (products with ADF7XXX part numbers)  are no longer being handled on the EngineerZone and should be directed to your local sales organization (http://www.analog.com/salesdir/continent.asp).

  • Well, thats too bad, as I tried to get support that way, and was told to post on THIS forum for answers!

    I did notice that switching the RX filter to 200 KHz apparently moves the IF frequency lower automatically, and the image frequency shrinks in closer than with the RX filter is 300 KHz wide.

    I tried reprogramming the Image cal amplitude and image cal phase registers to 8 and 55, but I could not detect much of a change in jammer supression.

    If you want good jammer suppression at 200 kbps, the sweet spot starts with 70 khz deviation and 639 khz channel spacing.  At that point highside jammers are supressed about the same as lowside jammers.  Closer spacing than 639 KHz, and the lowside suppression will be much worse.

    I am not 100% sure the image cal registers stay as programmed during a PER test.  If you run a PER test, and then read the image cal registers, there is a new value in them.  If you read the registers a 2nd time, THEN it reads like what you programmed in. Very odd.

  • This question has been assumed as answered either offline via email or with a multi-part answer. This question has now been closed out. If you have an inquiry related to this topic please post a new question in the applicable product forum.

    Thank you,
    EZ Admin