<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>NFC中的主题 MFRC630 and CLRC663 Interchangeability?</title>
    <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/NFC/MFRC630-and-CLRC663-Interchangeability/m-p/894028#M5305</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently our product uses two pcs of CLRC663. They are matched to 50Ohms impedance, so they will not make use of the "high current" capability of the CLRC663. For the furture, we want to save on production costs and use just one CLRC663 (needed because it must support 14443 and 15693) and one MFRC630 (second reader only needs mifare). &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I succesfully tested our own library on both products and they seem to work, even with "changeable" uid chip types very&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;well. So it wouldn't be a software thing. My guess is that the MFRC630 is just a different firmware than CLRC630, to not support ISO15693&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Footprint and pinout are the same&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only thing i wonder is about the matching.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Could the CLRC663 which is matched for mifare, replaced by a drop-in MFRC630 without changing the matching network?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2019 08:29:23 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>jof</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2019-04-28T08:29:23Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>MFRC630 and CLRC663 Interchangeability?</title>
      <link>https://community.nxp.com/t5/NFC/MFRC630-and-CLRC663-Interchangeability/m-p/894028#M5305</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Currently our product uses two pcs of CLRC663. They are matched to 50Ohms impedance, so they will not make use of the "high current" capability of the CLRC663. For the furture, we want to save on production costs and use just one CLRC663 (needed because it must support 14443 and 15693) and one MFRC630 (second reader only needs mifare). &lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I succesfully tested our own library on both products and they seem to work, even with "changeable" uid chip types very&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;well. So it wouldn't be a software thing. My guess is that the MFRC630 is just a different firmware than CLRC630, to not support ISO15693&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Footprint and pinout are the same&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The only thing i wonder is about the matching.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Could the CLRC663 which is matched for mifare, replaced by a drop-in MFRC630 without changing the matching network?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2019 08:29:23 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.nxp.com/t5/NFC/MFRC630-and-CLRC663-Interchangeability/m-p/894028#M5305</guid>
      <dc:creator>jof</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2019-04-28T08:29:23Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

