Jump to content

Recommended Posts

F5529 doesn't support EnergyTrace so I can't optimize the performance of the sensor node. That is one of the reason why I want to migrate to FR6989. Second reason is that in general compact design is more reliable i.e. LCD is  part of LP board and I guess it may consume less power.

what @@abecedarian said... The power consumption of the LCD entirely depends on how fancy an LCD you use.


The other consideration is that, since you only need the LCD for occasional "configuration" purposes, the board housing that LCD can provide power for itself and/or power (or recharge) the WSN board.  Using level shifters in the bus interface the former option, i.e. the LCD board power itself, is easily doable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe knowing more about what you're trying to accomplish could help us help you?

I designed a new MAC protocol and want to evaluate it's performance in real world. The purpose of this protocol is to maximize the lifetime of the sensor node. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 In datasheet, the minimum power consumption of CC1120 in sleep mode is less than  10 uW and about 3 uW for FR5969. So, the expected power consumption is about  20 - 100 uW. During the operation of FR5969+CC1120 the minimum power consumption recorded is about 3 mW. I can't figure out the reason behind this difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...