Збирач потоків

Rohde & Schwarz and Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. have reached another pivotal milestone in 6G research and ecosystem readiness, successfully demonstrating carrier aggregation across FR1 and FR3 frequency ranges. The joint achievement is showcased live at MWC Barcelona 2026.

At MWC Barcelona, Rohde & Schwarz and Qualcomm Technologies present a live demonstration at the Rohde & Schwarz booth (5A80) that aggregates a mid-band channel around 2.5 GHz (FR1) with an upper mid-band channel around 7 GHz (FR3), using 4×4 MIMO on both bands and higher-order modulation. With this setup, the two companies validate end-to-end device behaviour across the aggregated spectrum.

At the heart of the test setup is the CMX500 one-box signalling tester from Rohde & Schwarz, extended with the new RFU18 board to provide coverage up to 18 GHz. RFU18 is a modular hardware upgrade for the CMX500 platform, giving customers a straightforward, cost-effective path to extend existing testers towards 6G. As the device under test (DUT), Qualcomm Technologies provided a Mobile Test Platform (MTP) powered by the Qualcomm® Modem-RF System, enabling comprehensive validation of RF performance and protocol behaviour across the aggregated FR1 and FR3 bands.

The FR3 frequency range (7.125 to 24.25 GHz) has been identified by industry and research as a “sweet spot” for combining wide-area coverage with high capacity. FR3 in terrestrial networks (TN) and non-terrestrial networks (NTN) is expected to support demanding applications such as eXtended Reality (XR), connected and autonomous vehicles and industrial automation. By validating FR3 as an additional frequency range for future networks, the partners are helping accelerate 6G development and ecosystem readiness.

Goce Talaganov, Vice President Mobile Radio Testers at Rohde & Schwarz, said: “Through our ongoing collaboration with Qualcomm Technologies, we continue to push the boundaries of wireless communications. As the ecosystem moves toward 6G, we’re showing how easy innovation can be with our test equipment. In response to customer demand, we are extending the CMX500 platform to 18 GHz – so that our customers gain headroom for FR3 evolution and higher-frequency emissions and harmonic testing.”

Tingfang Ji, Vice President of Engineering and Head of 6G Research at Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., said: “Our collaboration with Rohde & Schwarz highlights the importance of aggregating existing spectrum bands with new 6G spectrum in FR3 to establish 6G as the high-efficiency digital infrastructure for the 2030s. By validating new spectrum layers and advanced RF capabilities using our MTP powered by Qualcomm Modem-RF System, we are accelerating innovation across the ecosystem and helping prepare devices and networks for the next-generation of services.”

Future-ready CMX500 platform for 6G:

The CMX500 is a modular, powerful and future-proof one-box signalling tester enabling comprehensive multi-technology testing – from RF to protocol – across all relevant frequency ranges (FR1, FR2 and FR3). All existing CMX500 platforms can be enhanced with the new RFU18 board to extend frequency coverage and capabilities without replacing the entire system, offering users a simple upgrade path.

Engineered for data rates up to 20 Gbps, the CMX500 is one of the most versatile mobile device test platforms, supporting wide dynamic range, 4096QAM and up to 16 device antenna ports for advanced spatial multiplexing. With its multi-band capabilities, it covers LTE and NR in SA/NSA modes, NR-NTN, NB-NTN, Direct-to-Cell (D2C/DTC) testing, and WLAN, including Wi‑Fi 7 and future Wi‑Fi 8.

The post R&S Propels 6G Readiness With FR1–FR3 Carrier Demonstration appeared first on ELE Times.

КПІ на «Дистанції безпеки»: дистанційні системи для гуманітарного розмінування kpi пн, 03/02/2026 - 12:34

In booth #2027 at the IEEE Applied Power Electronics Conference (APEC 2026) in San Antonio, Texas (22–26 March), Navitas Semiconductor Corp of Torrance, CA, USA — which provides GaNFast gallium nitride (GaN) and GeneSiC silicon carbide (SiC) power semiconductors — is exhibiting its latest innovations for AI data centers, performance computing, energy and grid infrastructure, and industrial electrification...

🚀 Інженерний конкурс «Збудуй свою мрію» для учнів 8–11 класів kpi пн, 03/02/2026 - 11:15

ROHM and Suchi Semicon have announced the establishment of a strategic semiconductor manufacturing partnership in India.

This collaboration reflects a shared commitment to strengthening semiconductor manufacturing capabilities in India while supporting the requirements of both domestic and global markets. By combining ROHM’s device technology expertise and global semiconductor leadership with Suchi Semicon’s manufacturing capabilities and operational execution, the companies aim to build a reliable and scalable manufacturing framework aligned with evolving industry needs.

This partnership supports the expansion of semiconductor manufacturing capabilities in India (aligned with the “Make in India” objective) while maintaining global standards of manufacturing excellence. The collaboration aims to enhance supply chain resilience and provide customers with trusted manufacturing solutions.

Specifically, ROHM is considering the outsourcing of back-end processes for power devices and IC products to Suchi Semicon and has begun technical evaluations toward potential mass production shipments starting in 2026. Through these efforts, ROHM aims to build, in collaboration with Suchi Semicon, an early-stage manufacturing framework in India that aligns with the expected industry ramp-up in the coming years.

Furthermore, ROHM and Suchi Semicon will share a roadmap to expand the range of locally manufactured packages, thereby broadening the scope of collaboration between the two companies.

The partnership between ROHM and Suchi Semicon will extend beyond semiconductor manufacturing. Both companies recognise the growing expectations from customers across diverse sectors for locally manufactured semiconductors for the Indian market and will jointly pursue new business development opportunities to meet this demand. In addition, the collaboration will leverage Suchi Semicon’s strong local marketing expertise to conduct joint marketing initiatives that enhance visibility and customer engagement. Importantly, the alliance is not limited to these areas alone; ROHM and Suchi Semicon are committed to exploring further avenues of cooperation, ensuring that the partnership evolves into a comprehensive and long-term alliance that supports the sustainable growth of India’s semiconductor industry over time.

The post ROHM and Suchi Semicon Establish a Strategic Semicon Manufacturing Partnership in India appeared first on ELE Times.

Batteries have quietly become the limiting factor of modern technology. They define how far an electric vehicle can go, how safely energy can be stored in a city, how fast systems can charge, and how reliably power can be delivered over years of use. In transport, grids, and electronics alike, progress is no longer constrained by motors or software—it is constrained by electrochemical trade-offs embedded deep inside the cell.

At the heart of those trade-offs sits a deceptively simple question: what are you optimising for? Every battery design balances five variables—energy density, safety, lifetime, cost, and scalability—and no chemistry can maximise all five at once. Push harder on one axis, and something else gives way. This is not a materials problem waiting for a perfect solution; it is an engineering problem that demands choice.

That choice, today, largely resolves into two dominant lithium-ion chemistries: LFP and NMC. They are not incremental variations of the same idea. They represent two fundamentally different engineering philosophies. LFP embeds stability, durability, and cost control into the chemistry itself. NMC extracts higher performance by operating closer to material limits, shifting risk and complexity to system-level design.

For companies such as Amara Raja Advanced Cell Technologies, this divergence is not theoretical. It directly shapes manufacturing strategy, product architecture, and long-term capacity planning. The future is not converging toward one universal battery. It is segmenting.

Engineering First, Chemistry Second

Every battery discussion eventually sounds like a chemistry debate—but the real argument is architectural.

Engineers do not choose LFP or NMC because of crystal diagrams; they choose them based on how each chemistry behaves across five non-negotiable constraints:

• Energy density
• Safety under abuse or fault
• Cycle life and ageing behaviour
• Cost stability and manufacturability
• Scalability across millions of cells

From a manufacturer’s standpoint, these trade-offs extend beyond lab performance. When thermal management, battery management system (BMS) complexity, and warranty risk are considered, the hidden advantages of LFP become system-level advantages.

According to Yi Seop Ahn, Associate Vice President – Centre of Excellence at Amara Raja Advanced Cell Technologies, customers today largely understand LFP’s strengths over NMC:

• Less heat generation, reducing thermal management burden
• Lower degradation at high temperatures
• Reduced BMS complexity due to smaller variation in cell ageing
• Lower warranty risk because of longer intrinsic cycle life

One often underestimated advantage, however, lies in cell sizing. Because LFP carries a lower risk of rupture or explosion compared to NMC, manufacturers can scale cell capacity significantly higher. Larger-format LFP cells reduce the proportion of inactive components within a pack, partially offsetting LFP’s lower gravimetric energy density. In other words, system-level design can compensate for chemistry-level limitations.

Structural Philosophy: Conservative vs Aggressive

At the material level, LFP and NMC reflect opposing design philosophies.

LFP: Structurally Conservative
Its iron–phosphate framework is chemically and mechanically stable. The lattice resists deformation during cycling, tolerates elevated temperatures, and does not readily release oxygen under stress. Stability is intrinsic, not engineered on top.

NMC: Structurally Aggressive
Its layered oxide structure enables higher voltage and energy density, but expands and contracts during cycling. At high states of charge or temperature, structural instability increases. The chemistry delivers more—but demands tighter control.

This difference cascades into real-world outcomes: thermal behaviour, ageing, fast-charging margins, and pack architecture.

India’s Conditions and LFP’s Rise

In India, the expansion of LFP is not accidental—it is contextual.

Yi Seop Ahn notes that most Indian vehicle usage consists of daily commuting and urban mobility rather than sustained high acceleration or long-distance highway driving. In a price-sensitive market, these usage patterns favour a chemistry optimised for durability, cost stability, and safety rather than peak energy density.

Temperature is an even stronger driver. Intrinsically, LFP performs weaker at low temperatures compared to NMC. However, India’s predominantly hot climate turns this limitation into an advantage. LFP cells exhibit lower degradation at high temperatures and require less aggressive cooling strategies. In such environments, LFP becomes a natural fit.

The result is not merely economic preference — but climatic alignment.

Energy Density, Heat, and Ageing

Energy density, thermal behaviour, and lifetime are not separate attributes. They stem from how aggressively a material system is pushed.

NMC achieves higher energy density through higher operating voltage and electrochemically active nickel content. But that gain comes with tighter stability margins and increased reliance on cooling, sensing, and control algorithms.

LFP sacrifices some voltage and gravimetric energy density but maintains wider thermal margins. Ageing remains slower and more predictable due to minimal structural strain during cycling.

From a system-design perspective, LFP reduces the engineering burden outside the cell. NMC shifts complexity upward—into pack design, software controls, and thermal infrastructure.

Innovation Pathways: Chemistry, Cell, and System

While LFP is often described as “mature,” its evolution continues across three parallel layers: chemistry, cell design, and system integration.

Chemistry
Over the past decade, LFP active materials have undergone incremental but meaningful improvements. Manufacturing costs have declined significantly, enabling price competitiveness over NMC. Compaction density has steadily increased through sintering process refinements, with further improvements expected. New chemistries such as LMFP are entering the market, targeting improved cycle life alongside electrolyte advancements.

Cell Architecture
Capacity per cell has expanded dramatically. LFP cells have moved into the 300 Ah range and are advancing toward 400–500 Ah formats. Larger cells reduce inactive material proportion and improve effective pack-level energy density.

System Integration
Innovation is accelerating at the integration layer—moving from module-based packs to cell-to-pack and cell-to-chassis architectures. As integration tightens, chemistry choice increasingly influences vehicle platform design.

All three vectors—chemistry, cell scaling, and system integration—are advancing in parallel rather than sequentially.

The NMC Equation: Performance at a Price

NMC’s performance advantages remain real and strategically important.

Despite requiring more robust and complex pack management, NMC offers:

• Better low-temperature performance
• Higher power output
• Longer-range capability
• Stronger suitability in weight- and space-constrained applications

These characteristics ensure NMC’s continued relevance in premium and performance-oriented platforms.

Moreover, innovation in electrolyte systems—including semi-solid and solid-state approaches—aims to mitigate thermal risks. Pairing high-nickel cathodes and silicon-dominant anodes with safer electrolyte systems and improved thermal insulation could extend high-energy-density solutions into domains currently dominated by LFP.

In that sense, NMC is not static. It is evolving along a different axis.

Platform Standardisation: The Inevitable Split

Looking five to seven years ahead, battery chemistries are unlikely to remain interchangeable components.

Different nominal voltages and operating profiles between LFP and NMC inherently drive platform divergence. NMC’s need for more robust management systems further reinforces chemistry-specific architectures.

While experimental “dual-pack” or “two-heart” systems exist—combining different chemistries in one vehicle—they require discrete BMS systems and add architectural complexity. The broader trend points toward OEMs standardising around chemistry-specific platforms rather than designing neutral battery bays.

This is not convergence. It is structural segmentation.

Two Futures, Not One

LFP and NMC are not competitors in a zero-sum contest. They are solutions optimised for different definitions of performance. LFP embeds safety, longevity, and cost predictability into the chemistry itself—reducing system-level burden and aligning naturally with India’s climate and usage patterns. NMC maximises energy density and performance, accepting tighter operating margins and higher management complexity.

For manufacturers such as Amara Raja Advanced Cell Technologies. 

The post Two Batteries, Two Futures: Why LFP and NMC Are Splitting the EV & Energy Landscape appeared first on ELE Times.

submitted by /u/Andres166 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ForeverHomeDiaries [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/SpaceRuthie [link] [comments]

For coverage of all the key business and technology developments in compound semiconductors and advanced silicon materials and devices over the last month...

submitted by /u/1Davide
[link] [comments]

submitted by /u/Green-Pie4963 [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/AutoModerator
[link] [comments]

submitted by /u/ThomasTTEe2 [link] [comments]

Designing actual schematics for the device took a while. It appears to require 56 distinct components and 101 in total (see repository - condevtion/i2c-pps-hw). Which is actually a huge project for me. A lot of useful information was there in the controller’s datasheet (obviously). But it isn’t really possible to get the design right without complimentary schematic checklist which can be found in the FAQ page. And some insides can be peeked from the evaluation board user guide. Still there are some mysteries to figure out in practice. The first picture shows the controller and power stage block. Besides what name implies it shows components which should be placed near to the controller. The evaluation board guide mentions snubber networks for MOSFETs. For now they remain DNP as their values can be figured out only for particular PCB impedance which only can be obtained from measuring actual ringing. Also I left zero resisters here in case dv/dt requires adjustments (if the whole thing works, at the end of the day). The second picture shows input and output filters and sensors. As I limited myself to 4-6V input and 5A max current (comparing to 20A the controller capability) I also relaxed requirements for the components here accordingly (while indeed 5A is still a hell of ambitions). In the other hand it’s probably better to have generally the same input and output components (obviously most capable) to have less number of distinct components to order. The next picture contains the master switch itself, and a protection circuit. The protection includes a resectable fuse, a TVS diode for overvoltage, and a Schottky diode for polarity. I’m looking forward to see how hot the latest gets at max current. The switch itself is a high side P-channel MOSFET controlled by a PNP transistor making a host device (RPI) to hold a pin high making the device in its turn work. If the host dies and drops its pin low the switch should turn off the device. The last one shows the digital I/O and programming circuits. The I/O contains its very own low power regulator to be independent on the host system. I2C lines use solder jumpers to disconnect pull-ups if they are somewhere else (when several I2C devices connected to the bus). I just thought, I’d add several more LEDs to indicate presence of input, output, and other signals and make the thing more RGB. The programming set of resistors just defines all adjustable controller parameters - switching frequency (250kHz), mode (buck-boost), and voltage/current limits. Curiously, the checklist and the evaluation board design show RC filters around IIN and IOUT resistors but don’t mention them or requirements for them anywhere. All set to finalize the BOM with market-available parts and proceed with PCB design. submitted by /u/WeekSpender [link] [comments]

submitted by /u/MountainFootball7002
[link] [comments]

Про підсумки фінансово-господарської діяльності КПІ ім. Ігоря Сікорського за 2025 рік та деякі завдання на 2026 рік Інформація КП пт, 02/27/2026 - 20:37

submitted by /u/adkio [link] [comments]

18 pair cable from a Toshiba CT scanners got cut... somehow... submitted by /u/antek_g_animations [link] [comments]