LowPowerLab Forum

Hardware support => RF - Range - Antennas - RFM69 library => Topic started by: fgomes on December 19, 2016, 07:36:25 PM

Title: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on December 19, 2016, 07:36:25 PM
I have two moteinos with a 1/4 wave straight wire as antenna and RFM69HW radio, using default radio configuration parameters. The system is working for some months, and noticed that the lowest level I see in the received messages (I log the RSSI for each received message) was -94dBm. Also noticed that when the average receive level goes down to about -85dBm I start to lose some messages, even using retries. For the standard config shouldn't be expected to receive messages down to -110dBm? This is the receiver sensitivity and the configured receiver threshold, so I was expecting to see messages received with an RSSI level near -110dBm, but it seems to be limiting the reception at about -94dBm. Am I missing some point here?

As an alternative to solve this sensitivity problem, one solution could be to reduce the bandwidth and bitrate. I have already discussed this in this forum a few months ago, I have made some tests in the past and with your help I have obtained better sensitivity results but had the need to calibrate the nodes to minimize the frequency error and to compensate the frequency for temperature variation - between day and night we could have a change of more than 20ºC in the outdoor node and almost no variation in the indoor node. Another way could be to get a better antenna, perhaps a simple dipole for a test, at least it is not so dependent of the ground plane as the 1/4 wave antenna.  Do you have any other suggestions?

The missed messages that are now occurring after some months of the system working in the field seems to be related to have some cars parking between the two nodes, they only park the cars there in the winter to avoid the cold air and ice in the morning, and the system starts to lose some messages at about 8pm and recovers completely at 8am, and it is noticeable in the RSSI graph that the average level drops. For this issue, I think that to raise the antenna could avoid the cars in the middle of the RF link between the two nodes, reducing this problem, don't you think? I have to test it in the field, but since it is more than 100km from here I want to collect all the possible ideas before going there to try them :-)

Best  regards

Fernando
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard initialization parameters
Post by: joelucid on December 20, 2016, 12:17:46 AM
Quote
The system is working for some months, and noticed that the lowest level I see in the received messages (I log the RSSI for each received message) was -94dBm. Also noticed that when the average receive level goes down to about -85dBm I start to lose some messages, even using retries. For the standard config shouldn't be expected to receive messages down to -110dBm? This is the receiver sensitivity and the configured receiver threshold, so I was expecting to see messages received with an RSSI level near -110dBm, but it seems to be limiting the reception at about -94dBm. Am I missing some point here?

If you look at page 14 of the data-sheet the sensitivity at 38.4kbit is -105. At 55kbit it is a bit worse. I've certainly rx'd packets at 55kbit below -100 dBm, but when I use my own ATC which targets a packet error rate  of 5% or lower I usually end up at average RSSI's in the mid -90's. The reason is likely variability. You're quite a bit away from that though.

I've found the most common cause for these issues to be noise at the receiver. This can be conducted via the power line or the UART or radiated. I've had particularly bad experiences here with the Raspberry Pi1, but the Pi2 was also pretty bad. Power supplies differ vastly in this regard: my macbook's USB ports are so bad that I have trouble receiving below -85dBm. Apple iPhone/iPad chargers are pretty good and I use them.

The gold standard here is battery powered Moteino to battery powered Moteino. There's minimal noise with that setup. In fact when I test radio settings I typically use this setup and report the results back to my gateway to avoid the distortions that AC power and a more complicated GW setup introduce. If you need extreme range and don't want to muck around with the GW you could use this setup.

Quote
As an alternative to solve this sensitivity problem, one solution could be to reduce the bandwidth and bitrate. I have already discussed this in this forum a few months ago, I have made some tests in the past and with your help I have obtained better sensitivity results but had the need to calibrate the nodes to minimize the frequency error and to compensate the frequency for temperature variation - between day and night we could have a change of more than 20ºC in the outdoor node and almost no variation in the indoor node.

You can certainly reduce bitrate quite a bit without temp compensation. Just use a RXBW that ensures that the entire signal is within the filter bandwidth at any temperature. At low FDev's such a wide filter will hurt a little but you can get a LOT of improvement over 55kbit. Cutting bitrate in half gives you around 3 dBm in sensitivity.

Quote
Another way could be to get a better antenna, perhaps a simple dipole for a test, at least it is not so dependent of the ground plane as the 1/4 wave antenna.

Dipoles are a huge improvement over monopoles with insufficient ground plane. Just use captcha's PCB dipoles he posted here. They'll improve the link on both sides so that alone would likely completely solve your problem. You could go even further and use a directional antenna like the Yagi.

Quote
Do you have any other suggestions?

You can gain a couple dBm in sensitivity by switching on sensitivity boost:

Quote
RegTestLna (0x58)
SensitivityBoost
High sensitivity or normal sensitivity mode:
0x1B   Normal mode
0x2D   High sensitivity mode

Quote
I think that to raise the antenna could avoid the cars in the middle of the RF link between the two nodes, reducing this problem, don't you think?

Removing any metal objects between the two transceivers will definitely help  :).

Joe
 
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard initialization parameters
Post by: joelucid on December 21, 2016, 06:09:03 AM
Quote
I've found the most common cause for these issues to be noise at the receiver.

Because it fits so well: I just finished a new esp8266/rfm69hw gateway. To make it more resilient against bad power supplies I added a ferrite bead (http://www.digikey.com/product-detail/en/murata-electronics-north-america/BLM18PG471SN1D/490-5223-1-ND/1948399) and a feed through capacitor (http://www.mouser.de/Datasheets/_/?Keyword=NFM18PS474R0J3&FS=True&utm_source=eciaauthorized&utm_medium=aggregator&utm_campaign=viewall&utm_term=NFM18PS474R0J3) after the low noise regulator.

Now the two power supplies I tested worked as well as a battery. And I receive way lower: -105 dBm no longer a rare occurrence at 55555bit/s:

Code: [Select]
Dec 21 11:59:03 esp_817a48.lx  [38] [RX_RSSI:-102]
Dec 21 11:59:03 esp_817a48.lx  thol1 -> nd:38,nr:80,pw:-17,ph:1,vc:298,t:226,h:410,mv:267,fp:7
Dec 21 11:59:06 esp_817a48.lx  [38] [RX_RSSI:-107]
Dec 21 11:59:06 esp_817a48.lx  thol1 -> nd:38,nr:81,pw:-17,ph:1,vc:295,t:226,h:411,mv:282,fp:7
Dec 21 11:59:09 esp_817a48.lx  [38] [RX_RSSI:-105]
Dec 21 11:59:09 esp_817a48.lx  thol1 -> nd:38,nr:82,pw:-17,ph:1,vc:296,t:226,h:412,mv:282,fp:7
Dec 21 11:59:12 esp_817a48.lx  [38] [RX_RSSI:-101]
Dec 21 11:59:12 esp_817a48.lx  thol1 -> nd:38,nr:83,pw:-17,ph:1,vc:298,t:226,h:413,mv:281,fp:7
Dec 21 11:59:14 esp_817a48.lx  [38] [RX_RSSI:-104]
Dec 21 11:59:14 esp_817a48.lx  thol1 -> nd:38,nr:84,pw:-17,ph:1,vc:296,t:226,h:416,mv:281,fp:7
Dec 21 11:59:17 esp_817a48.lx  [38] [RX_RSSI:-104]
Dec 21 11:59:17 esp_817a48.lx  thol1 -> nd:38,nr:85,pw:-17,ph:1,vc:298,t:226,h:418,mv:281,fp:7
Dec 21 11:59:20 esp_817a48.lx  [38] [RX_RSSI:-104]
Dec 21 11:59:20 esp_817a48.lx  thol1 -> nd:38,nr:86,pw:-17,ph:1,vc:299,t:226,h:420,mv:282,fp:7
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on December 23, 2016, 06:03:21 AM
Hi Joe, thanks for all you tips! I was also suspecting of the interference between the CPU module and the RFM69HW, but you are right, the power supply could also be a problem - in the past I had that kind of issue and I did exactly the same thing you are now doing, ferrite + capacitor in the powerline of the RFM69HW, it was mandatory in that project to cope with a powerline adapter that was used in that project, otherwise I had a lousy Rx noise level.

This power supply decoupling you have done was only to the power of the RFM69HW right? I'm assuming that you have separated the power supply lines for the ESP and for the RFM69, and introduced this decoupling on the RFM69 side, can you confirm? In another project I'm using the ESP8266 (a podcast player) it was an hard work to do the power supply decoupling in order to remove the noise in the audio, due to the extreme current spikes the ESP generates. Since i was using an audio decoder module that didn't have separate grounds for analog and digital part, it was very difficult to get acceptable noise levels due to the current spikes on the ESP, and had to introduce this kind of filtering, plus higher capacitors really near the ESP (ESP-12E module).

I'll also order some pcb dipoles as you suggested, because the monopoles that i'm using have no specific ground plane, so their behavior will vary depending on their placement and the environment.

Once again thanks for your help!

Best regards

Fernando
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: joelucid on December 23, 2016, 07:22:00 AM
Quote
This power supply decoupling you have done was only to the power of the RFM69HW right? I'm assuming that you have separated the power supply lines for the ESP and for the RFM69, and introduced this decoupling on the RFM69 side, can you confirm?

I did a first design in which I did decouple the ESP and the RFM69. I had two different ground planes for each domain and used an isolator between all logic lines between ESP and RFM69. On top of the ferrite and the filter I had a common mode choke - all only for the rfm69 subsystem.

I had assumed this would work great ... only it didn't. Especially the common mode choke severely degraded performance.

I haven't completely figured out why. My best guess is that the two ground planes which now effectively had a differential 433 mhz signal on them due to the common mode filtering were acting as antenna, feeding the noise back to the main antenna.

Now I've simplified the design: I have only one ground domain and filter the power supply for both the ESP and the RFM69 together. I have 1uF and a 500pF decoupling caps at the 8266 and the rfm69, taking care of 433 mhz noise created at each chip. The isolator is gone.

This design works much better.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: perky on December 23, 2016, 10:50:00 AM
Generally speaking, with proper layout a single ground plane is almost always the right way forward. What's important is minimizing ground return paths to prevent loops, using ferrite and small capacitors on all I/O at the point of exit with a clean chassis ground if possible (including keypads, all I/O to other boards and power supplies) and ensuring decent differential mode filtering on all logic supplies internally. Switch mode supply chip components need to be close to the chips with low stray inductance (i.e. fat copper pours). It's possible to use the inherent capacitance of an ESD protection diode as part of the EMI filtering so that gets you ESD protection for free. A common mode choke on input supply is often needed to prevent conducted common mode noise on the supply.

I think most of these interference issues are common mode noise on I/O and connecting power supply cables which act as antennae which your real antenna would pick up and degrade the S/N on the radio receiver. The others are due to conducted noise on power supplies getting through on power supply and I/O pins of the transceiver, so using a ferrite pi-filter on all fast switching logic devices is a good thing, that means having a pi filter on the input supply to the transeiver and pi filters on the power supply or supplies to the MCU.

Mark.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: joelucid on December 23, 2016, 11:46:46 AM
FWIW attached is my current design which works pretty well. I have about 10 dBm less noise on this one than without filters. Good thing about a ESP8266 based gateway is that you only have power coming in (other than doing debug on the FTDI header). So fix that and things should be fine.

I think I'll play around with adding the choke again. If the issue was really the two grounds may this could help even more.

BTW, now that this one doesn't have much conducted noise I notice the radiated noise much more. Fairly significant: switching my LCD displays on or having the router near a 433mhz AC plug increases noise levels by more than 10 dBm!

And here is the gateway together with 3 small loop th-motes and captcha's dipole. Th-motes have a 32.7k clock crystal and - drum-roll, this is my first mote with one - an on/off switch.  :) An air trimmer is mounted on the underside of the board.

(http://i.imgur.com/rv9QJYY.jpg?1)

Joe
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: WhiteHare on December 29, 2016, 09:25:04 PM
How much improvement are you getting now with this fancier dipole esp8266 gateway as compared to a regular monopole Moteino?  I recall that originally (https://lowpowerlab.com/forum/projects/(update)-rfm69-library-for-esp8266-moteino-compatible!/msg13730/#msg13730), with a more rough and ready dipole setup, you thought you were getting a 16dBm improvement.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: joelucid on December 30, 2016, 06:47:47 AM
Quote
I recall that originally (https://lowpowerlab.com/forum/projects/(update)-rfm69-library-for-esp8266-moteino-compatible!/msg13730/#msg13730), with a more rough and ready dipole setup, you thought you were getting a 16dBm improvement.

Oh I don't think my first dipole was any worse than this one. This one resonates at ~440 Mhz which is close but not as close as my hand-tuned one. Plus the FR-4 will give you some dielectric loss - something that doesn't matter too much here but I'm painfully aware of for the small loop.

I like to use captcha's because it's just so easy to build/use.

With this setup (captcha dipole, small loop TH motes and esp8266 gw) I can cover a good sized home entirely with every sensor sending at the lowest tx power setting of -18 dBm (powerLevel 0 in Felix terms on the rfm69w). This requires a low noise installation location for the espgw though, which will then receive down to -105 dBm or so. Have the GW next to a computer or a 433mhz AC plug and the noise might cost you 10 dBm in sentitivity which still has you easily covered.

The small loop is still not where I'd want it to be though. The circuit inside the loop costs around 6 dBm. And I'd say dielectric losses another 6 dBm or so. A copper ring for the outer loop and a circuit board / battery perpendicular and outside of the loop should improve things dramatically. Unfortunately with the range I'm getting there isn't too much motivation for pushing on.

Joe
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on January 02, 2017, 01:09:07 PM
Hi Joe,

I was checking your schematic and noticed that you are using the filter to supply both the ESP and the RFM, don't you notice some interference of the ESP8266 power consumption on the RFM69? I was thinking if it wouldn't be better to have two separate filters to supply the RFM69 and the ESP8266? I didn't tried it yet, I'm waiting for the capacitors + inductors (just ordered them a few minutes ago), but as I said before, in a previous project I had lots of interference caused by power consumption spikes of the ESP8266, it caused a strong interference in all the analog signals powered by the same power supply (I had an audio decoder and audio amplifier connected to it).

BTW, I was able to send someone to check the gateway antenna placement, he found out that he had placed the antenna very close to a metallic window frame, he just re-positioning the antenna some 10cm away and that gave a signal about 10dBm better :-)

Best regards

Fernando


Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: perky on January 02, 2017, 01:40:30 PM
All sources of high speed and potentially glitchy switching really should have a pi filter on their supplies IMO (to prevent switching noise both to and from the device). So that's the MCU and radio, and boost or buck regulators.
Mark.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: joelucid on January 02, 2017, 04:26:18 PM
Quote
I was thinking if it wouldn't be better to have two separate filters to supply the RFM69 and the ESP8266?

Or better yet three filters - one to filter any noise entering through the power line and then one radio and the MCU. I have the pi filter on the power supply and then 500pF and 0.1uF at the radio and the MCU and I chose the 500pF especially to filter in the 430 mhz area.

In the other design I talked about I had  the filter in front of the rfm69 only and also isolated the logic lines interfacing between esp8266 and rfm69. The theory was I don't care about noise in the esp8266 world, but want to keep the rfm69 clean.  But that design didn't work well because of the common mode choke - maybe due to the split ground plane. I'll attach it for illustration.

BTW, on further testing I've noticed that radiated interference plays a large role, too. You definitely want to place the gateway where there isn't much rf noise.

Quote
BTW, I was able to send someone to check the gateway antenna placement, he found out that he had placed the antenna very close to a metallic window frame, he just re-positioning the antenna some 10cm away and that gave a signal about 10dBm better :-)

Nice!

Joe

 
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: WhiteHare on January 20, 2017, 08:41:47 AM
Or better yet three filters - one to filter any noise entering through the power line and then one radio and the MCU. I have the pi filter on the power supply and then 500pF and 0.1uF at the radio and the MCU and I chose the 500pF especially to filter in the 430 mhz area.


When you put one together, have you experimented by leaving off one set of filters or another and noticing whether it, in fact, makes any difference when you later install it?  It seems like it would be a great way to finally develop hard evidence as to which ones make a difference and which ones don't.

Also, in the interest of keeping things both simple and easy, have you considered making just a shield for the Wemos D1 Mini?  That way the ESP8266 part is already handled.  Or is your board larger on purpose, so as to create greater physical separation between the ESP8266 and the RFM69?  Or is it that you wanted just a single co-planar ground plane?
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: WhiteHare on January 20, 2017, 10:54:07 AM
See attachment for side photo.

I have a different design that should be arriving within the next couple of weeks that I think will probably surpass the performance of this early attempt that's shown in the photos.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on January 29, 2017, 09:18:40 PM
Hi Joe,

I was trying to follow your suggestion of adding the lna sensitivity boost. To test it I have reduced the power level of one node to the minimum - setPowerLevel(0) - and moved it two floors above the other node. With the standard initialization the nodes didn't communicate. I've added the sensitivity boost - writeReg(0x58, 0x2d) - at the end of the startup function and nodes started to communicate, so it did make sense add the boost in this case. I also played with the other LNA register (0x18), and found out that even without the sensitivity boost, they communicate if I write to the REG_LNA - writeReg(0x18, 0x88). But this didn't make sense to me because 0x88 is already the default value, confirmed reading the registers after initializing it and also when I didn't initialize it. Trying to go deep on it, I have added only one call writing other default value to a different register that has nothing to do with the LNA, the RegAfcBw - writeReg(0x1a, 0x8a) - and the nodes also communicate, with only the standard initialization plus that writeReg(0x1a, 0x8a).

So it seems that if I write to a RFM69HW register at the end of the setup function, even writing values equal to the base values (for example writing 0x88 on REG_LNA, its value already was 0x88), the nodes communicate, but without that writeReg the nodes don't communicate (some messages are able to pass from time to time, but most of them fail).

Do you know the reason for this behavior? I'm not finding it! Could it be only "wrong statistics", that I didn't take a log enough observation to have meaning? I just let it receive about 10 messages (the node transmits only one message per minute) for each test...

Best regards

Fernando

Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: joelucid on January 30, 2017, 03:49:29 AM
Quote
Do you know the reason for this behavior? I'm not finding it! Could it be only "wrong statistics", that I didn't take a log enough observation to have meaning? I just let it receive about 10 messages (the node transmits only one message per minute) for each test...

Hmm strange, I've never seen anything like that. I would try to replicate the findings - it really is likely "wrong statistics".
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on January 30, 2017, 06:27:15 AM
Hi Joe, I agree, I think that it should be really "wrong statistics", I don't find any other reason and the results during the night seems to agree with that. I left the code just with the standard configuration during all the night and got different results, a low success rate (<40%) between 1:00 and 4:30, and a highe success rate between 4:30 and 7:00 (>70%), without any change in the code, it might have to do with having more electromagnetic noise in the first period, but I'm not sure about that.

Just adding some more data:

As I have reduced the tx power in one of the nodes and put it two floors above, the reception level is about -85dBm, and I think it is really close to the limit it can receive (lowest level received during the test was -88dB, highest -82dB, average -85dB) so the only way to test is to have a longer run, otherwise any small change in the environment could mask the results. I'll try a longer run test with the different LNA configurations and see what happens, not only a 'quick' ten minutes test.

I changed the power supply of the gateway this morning (it was powered by my laptop during the test at night and replaced it by a mobile charger), and after that I almost get no messages, so the sensitivity to the power noise seems to be present (now I have only 8% success rate). In the receiver I already added the circuit Joe suggested, and after my first test with it I had an high increase on the sensitivity, the lowest level received was about -90dB and went to -102dB. I made it in two different units, and had similar results with both, but now I'm using one of that units I'm not able to get the same low level messages. All the radio initialization is the same (standard initialization, no specific write to RFM69 registers), so I'm not finding a reason for that difference.

At the same time similar units were installed in a vineyard (almost no electromagnetic noise, no houses, factories, nothing close to it), where I'm finding also that the lowest messages received are at about -85dB. All the nodes with received signal level above -80dB are ok, and the success rate starts to decrease fast in nodes that have an average RSSI below -80dB. The lowest level observed at the central node was -88dB, but units with average RSSI below -85dB have a very low success rate (<10%). So this seems to point that the Rx limit is about -85dB (with standard configuration), and that it might be better to work on the central node / gateway (ESP8266 + RFM69HW) to try to improve the reception threshold and/or to reduce the Rx bandwidth in order to improve the reception sensitivity.

When I have more results or identified the cause I'll post it here :-)

Best regards

Fernando
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: perky on January 30, 2017, 09:44:34 AM
Are you using AFC? If you are the problem may well be due to the RSSI threshold allowing reception of noise. Basically the receiver should be manually reset after a timeout from getting a RSSI interrupt but with no address match or no PayloadReady, otherwise the receiver is then stuck having AFC'd to that noise and is locked to the wrong frequency until it is reset. Your packet error rate will suffer significantly (I did a test simulating noise slightly off frequency and my Packet error rate was 85% without a timeout mechanism, with it the PER was 0.5%).

Mark.



Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on January 30, 2017, 11:37:33 AM
Hi Perky

Thank you very much for the tip! As far as I know, when using the default initialization the AFC is not active, but I'll check reading the RFM69 registers just to be sure. So what i understand from your statement is that if I have the RFM69 with AFC active in receive mode for a long time, and it receives 'noise' (it can be from other devices in the same frequency band, like the water heater, door control, etc. or real RF noise) in near frequencies and above the receive threshold, it can lock to the nearby frequency and will only unlock when I manually reset it (for example using the AfcClear bit in e the RegAfcFei register, or changing the RFM69 mode)? In this case it is recomended a periodic reset of the Afc? Do you configure specific events in order to know when to reset it?

Best regards

Fernando

Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: perky on January 30, 2017, 11:50:22 AM
That's basically it. I implement the timeout mechanisms given in this app note from Freescale which is based on the same silicon as the RFM69:
www.nxp.com/assets/documents/data/en/application-notes/AN4983.pdf
Mark.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on January 30, 2017, 07:13:45 PM
Just posting some additional results, they might be useful to others:

I'm testing with only two nodes, one as a sensor, other as a gateway. I've replaced the sensor node antenna by a 47 ohm resistor soldered directly to the RFM69 pins in order to be able to play with the two nodes near each other. I've also reduced the radio power of the sensor to the minimum. In these conditions, I was able to have an high success rate if I had the RSSI on the gateway above -85dB (better than -81 if I want to have no failures). I then put the sensor just a bit far in order to have no messages received on the gateway (I waited 10 minutes without any message received). Then I changed the LNA impedance for 200 ohm ( radio.writeReg(0x18, 0x88);). I started to receive messages without failures, with an RSSI level of -95dB (I got messages between -92 and -97dB without failures).
I then put again the sensor a bit more far away until I get 10 minutes without any message received on the gateway. Then I activated the LNA sensitivity boost, and it started again to receive messages, now at about -102dB, between -101 and -105, without failures. If I lower the level a bit more it start to have failures, but the improvement using the LNA configuration was huge!
I will now make a long test to see if the results are the same, and also will test with different power supplies, to see if I notice any difference. I'm already using the power supply decoupling filter suggested by Joe to power the RFM69HW. If everything works well, I'll have to repeat the test in the field.

Best regards

Fernando
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: perky on January 30, 2017, 07:43:43 PM
Can I ask what the radio settings are (Fdev, bit rate and RxBw)? If you're not using AFC I assume it's wideband otherwise there's a significant sensitivity dependence on local oscillator offset between tx and rx frequencies.
Mark.
Edit: Seems like default, 55.555kHz BR, 50kHz Fdev and 125kHz RxBw.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: joelucid on January 31, 2017, 01:03:48 PM
Quote
Then I changed the LNA impedance for 200 ohm ( radio.writeReg(0x18, 0x88);). I started to receive messages without failures, with an RSSI level of -95dB (I got messages between -92 and -97dB without failures).

That's weird - what kind of antenna is attached to the gw?

Quote
hen I activated the LNA sensitivity boost, and it started again to receive messages, now at about -102dB, between -101 and -105, without failures.

That's very good if it's with the standard 55kbaud settings. Can't get much better than that!

Btw there's an additional gotcha: if the radio is in rx and a loud unwanted signal comes in, AGC sets the gain very low. The radio will then try to receive your weak real signal using a low gain and not hear it. I've found the easiest way to deal with this is to switch off AGC, always work with max gain and set rssithresh to 255.

Joe
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: fgomes on January 31, 2017, 05:46:09 PM
Hi

@perky, I'm using the default settings, like you said, 55.555kHz BR, 50kHz Fdev and 125kHz RxBw

@joe, at the gw I'm using a home made dipole, connected by a 50 ohm cable to the RFM69HW module. I know that the dipole is 75 ohm and the cable is 50, so it is even more strange to have an advantage of changing the LNA to 200 ohm, but it seems I have better results at 200 ohm. In the sensor nodes I have in the field I use a simple monopole directly connected to the RFM69HW, but here I'm testing with a coil antenna at the sensor side. I am now making the same tests at the sensor side (with the coil antenna) and it was not so conclusive, I have almost the same reception level with different LNA parameters in the sensor. The lowest level received is always about -98 / -100 dB, with 50 ohm or 200 ohm LNA impedance, with or without sensitivity boost. Of course that to have some staistical meaning I have to do a longer test, but the advantage of using any of these parameters it is not noticeable in a short test.

Regarding the AGC, in the field I don't have any node near the gateway, so the only problem might be some noise that can more easily saturate the gateway radio, the nearest sensor is at more than 200 meters. Nevertheless thanks for the tip, sooner or later this will be an issue, so now I already know what to do!

Best regards

Fernando
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: WhiteHare on February 06, 2017, 09:08:56 AM
FWIW attached is my current design which works pretty well. I have about 10 dBm less noise on this one than without filters. Good thing about a ESP8266 based gateway is that you only have power coming in (other than doing debug on the FTDI header). So fix that and things should be fine.

I think I'll play around with adding the choke again. If the issue was really the two grounds may this could help even more.

BTW, now that this one doesn't have much conducted noise I notice the radiated noise much more. Fairly significant: switching my LCD displays on or having the router near a 433mhz AC plug increases noise levels by more than 10 dBm!

And here is the gateway together with 3 small loop th-motes and captcha's dipole. Th-motes have a 32.7k clock crystal and - drum-roll, this is my first mote with one - an on/off switch.  :) An air trimmer is mounted on the underside of the board.

(http://i.imgur.com/rv9QJYY.jpg?1)

Joe

I just now ordered your board from osh park, as well as captcha's PCB antenna.  Would you mind showing closeups of how you made the cable connections on the two pieces?  It looks from the photo you posted that you may have just directly soldered the wires to the two pieces, but I'm unsure.
Title: Re: RFM69HW sensitivity with standard library settings
Post by: joelucid on February 06, 2017, 06:23:06 PM
Quote
I just now ordered your board from osh park, as well as captcha's PCB antenna.  Would you mind showing closeups of how you made the cable connections on the two pieces? 

I have a u.fl connector on the gw, but in the pictured case I just directly soldered the dipole to the rfm69hcw connectors.