433MHz to LAN gateway or miniserver?
in [Design]
|
Prev: Various Fashion Brand Watch Wholesale In China Watch Like LV,Bape,D&G,exempt freight
Next: PCB routing
From: Joerg on 2 Apr 2010 13:06 Nico Coesel wrote: > Joerg <invalid(a)invalid.invalid> wrote: > >> Is there a cheap (as in mass produced and <$100) pod that plugs into a >> LAN port of a regular router and have a, say, 433MHz radio link? >> Something that could then connect to several thermometers or weather >> stations and ask for their readings. > > Thats on-route. When do you need it and in what quantities? > Realistically around next winter, so there is time. But it must be something where we don't have to EMC-cert it for every market. Quantities depend on user acceptance. I'd have to ask. Initially probably a few hundred, later thousands per year. So it can't be an elaborate full-custom solution, must be almost off-the-shelf because of the low quantities. There could also be a huge initial demand if existing systems are to be upgraded with this feature. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Frank Buss on 2 Apr 2010 13:11 Jan Panteltje wrote: > On a sunny day (Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:40:57 +0200) it happened Frank Buss > <fb(a)frank-buss.de> wrote in <16p0s3e190clo$.16ntttgfjbapu$.dlg(a)40tude.net>: > >>Jan Panteltje wrote: >> >>> Those modules are certified. >>> What else if no design? >>> Try shopping unlimited. >> >>This doesn't matter. If you are assembling multiple modules to a new >>device, you have to certify the whole device again (but chances are good, >>that it passes the tests without problems, if the components passed the >>test already). > > Use 2 boxes. > Boxes are cheap. I'm not an expert, because I'm just a programmer (and Ocarina player on iPhone since yesterday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFOSVE_yqbc :-) , but at least the RF module needs its own PCB and I think as soon as you solder some module to another PCB and put it in a box, you have to test it again. -- Frank Buss, fb(a)frank-buss.de http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
From: Frank Buss on 2 Apr 2010 13:21 Joerg wrote: > Frank Buss wrote: >> >> says there is an implementation which needs a 32 bit microcontroller with >> 192 kB ROM and 96 kB RAM. Looks like the IEEE 802.15.4, which is the base >> standard for it, is not easy to implement. Same if you would use something >> like Bluetooth-Piconet. >> > > Yikes. That sounds like Windows or MS-Office where you need at least a > gigabyte of RAM to write "Hello World". No, just 96 kB RAM :-) But you are right, maybe too much for low cost mass production. > It's strange, everyone is talking about ambient assisted living but it's > all just PowerPoint jockeying and talk, no real action. LoWPAN doesn't sound bad and maybe is better, if you have multiple devices from different vendors, but unversal multi layer protocols are complicated and devices are more expensive. -- Frank Buss, fb(a)frank-buss.de http://www.frank-buss.de, http://www.it4-systems.de
From: Joerg on 2 Apr 2010 13:26 Frank Buss wrote: > Joerg wrote: > >> Frank Buss wrote: >>> says there is an implementation which needs a 32 bit microcontroller with >>> 192 kB ROM and 96 kB RAM. Looks like the IEEE 802.15.4, which is the base >>> standard for it, is not easy to implement. Same if you would use something >>> like Bluetooth-Piconet. >>> >> Yikes. That sounds like Windows or MS-Office where you need at least a >> gigabyte of RAM to write "Hello World". > > No, just 96 kB RAM :-) But you are right, maybe too much for low cost mass > production. > This time it doesn't have to be super low cost. But at the same time it shouldn't be over-engineered. This easily happens when standards committees get together. What's the old saying? Too many cooks spoil the broth. >> It's strange, everyone is talking about ambient assisted living but it's >> all just PowerPoint jockeying and talk, no real action. > > LoWPAN doesn't sound bad and maybe is better, if you have multiple devices > from different vendors, but unversal multi layer protocols are complicated > and devices are more expensive. > Well, if there were off-the-shelf units at reasonable cost I wouldn't care whether there is a 32bit ARM in there of some lowly 8051. -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
From: Joerg on 2 Apr 2010 13:36
Frank Buss wrote: > Jan Panteltje wrote: > >> On a sunny day (Fri, 2 Apr 2010 18:40:57 +0200) it happened Frank Buss >> <fb(a)frank-buss.de> wrote in <16p0s3e190clo$.16ntttgfjbapu$.dlg(a)40tude.net>: >> >>> Jan Panteltje wrote: >>> >>>> Those modules are certified. >>>> What else if no design? >>>> Try shopping unlimited. >>> This doesn't matter. If you are assembling multiple modules to a new >>> device, you have to certify the whole device again (but chances are good, >>> that it passes the tests without problems, if the components passed the >>> test already). >> Use 2 boxes. >> Boxes are cheap. > > I'm not an expert, because I'm just a programmer (and Ocarina player on > iPhone since yesterday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFOSVE_yqbc :-) , but > at least the RF module needs its own PCB and I think as soon as you solder > some module to another PCB and put it in a box, you have to test it again. > Yes. Even mounting the antenna yourself can already put you into a legal gray zone. Doing the box and antenna mount yourself definitely will. For hobby projects all this may sound easy but when it's a consumer product that's a whole different ballgame. Sometimes younger engineers tell me "Oh man, it's so easy, you simply do this, that and the other thing and you're done". Until they have to trudge through the paperwork of EMC cert themselves for the first time and a check for a princely sum is plopped onto the table at the compliance lab. After that they usually never say this again :-) -- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM. |