2 Replies Latest reply on Apr 22, 2017 9:40 PM by user_531393

    CYBLE-012011-00 vs CYBLE-012012-10 (EZ-BLE PRoC Module)


      The EZ-BLE PRoC Module datasheets make no distinction between the 012011-00 and the 012012-10 except that the 012012-10 is missing its RF shield and is not certified by Bluetooth SIG or regulatory agencies (aside: there's a typo on the datasheet, it says "refulatory").


      What practical effect does not having the shielding have for development purposes?  I ask because I am having problems reliably connecting to my BLE application running on my prototypes running the 012012-10, and I don't have a 012011-00 version to compare against.


      I expect that from an EMI standpoint, the unshielded module would do worse; but should it otherwise functional reliably for connecting to BLE central device over a short distances (on the desk)? Or is the shield crucial to the performance of the module itself and that alternate shielding requirements expected?

        • 1. Re: CYBLE-012011-00 vs CYBLE-012012-10 (EZ-BLE PRoC Module)



          There won't be any problems for BLE connections due to unshield.


          Have you set the ECO capacitor trim value in the firmware for the module? If not, please try setting it. The unreliable connection may be because of that. Please refer the following KBA:




          For setting ECO capacitance trim value in firmware for CYBLE-012012-10, add the following code in the CYBLE_EVT_STACK_ON event: 






          Thanks & Regards,

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: CYBLE-012011-00 vs CYBLE-012012-10 (EZ-BLE PRoC Module)

            OMG, this turns out to be a key factor in the reliability of the communication between the Android phone and the CyBLE module which has been driving me nuts for the last couple weeks.  That ECO capacitor trimvalue line made an immediate difference.


            On an iPhone6, I had no problems at all.  But with the Android Nexus 6P, the connection was completely flaky and the BT stack seemed to just go nuts on the phone (likely due to data corruption).  I think this needs to be better communicated in existing appnotes and demo videos, as you would otherwise lead people down a path of doing what they think should be working, but does not.


            Still, thank you for this bit of information.  I have more work to do, but (at first glance), it seemed to have solved a huge problem of my project not working!

            1 of 1 people found this helpful