ZigBee and alternatives - low power radio links
in [Design]
|
Prev: Baxandall class D oscillator, can it produce a triangle likewaveform?
Next: Low cost anemometer, I need some help
From: mpm on 23 Jul 2010 15:28 I'm looking for an inexpensive way to poll a device from about 200 feet outdoor, line of sight. USA-only, no FCC license needed, etc... We need to exchange about 50 characters or so back in forth, a couple times in a session. Data timing is NOT critical. If more than one device is present, we need to know that, avoid data collission, and be able to talk to each device individually. We do not need a network. ZigBee looks interesting, and many modules seem to be avaialble. Does anyone here have experience with these modules? Will they fit the bill? Are there other off-the-shelf approaches, or ones that we can design-in? Our device has enough spare microprocessor horsepower to drive the logic signalling, etc... My request here is concerned with the RF interfacing to the devices. It will be a piece of field testing equipment talking wireless to devices, and there is some possibility (slight) of more than one device being present within 200 feet (+/-). If recommending ZigBee (or ???), is there a royalty fee involved? Do we have to join some group?? If such costs aren't exhorbitant, I wouldn't think that would be a factor on this project. Appreciate in advance any good URL's resources, etc... Thanks!! -mpm
From: Rich Webb on 23 Jul 2010 15:45 On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:28:41 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote: >I'm looking for an inexpensive way to poll a device from about 200 >feet outdoor, line of sight. >USA-only, no FCC license needed, etc... > >We need to exchange about 50 characters or so back in forth, a couple >times in a session. Data timing is NOT critical. If more than one >device is present, we need to know that, avoid data collission, and be >able to talk to each device individually. We do not need a network. > >ZigBee looks interesting, and many modules seem to be avaialble. >Does anyone here have experience with these modules? Will they fit the >bill? Are there other off-the-shelf approaches, or ones that we can >design-in? > >Our device has enough spare microprocessor horsepower to drive the >logic signalling, etc... >My request here is concerned with the RF interfacing to the devices. >It will be a piece of field testing equipment talking wireless to >devices, and there is some possibility (slight) of more than one >device being present within 200 feet (+/-). > >If recommending ZigBee (or ???), is there a royalty fee involved? Do >we have to join some group?? If such costs aren't exhorbitant, I >wouldn't think that would be a factor on this project. http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8695 The XBee modules are dead easy to work with, relatively cheap, fully licensed, and the newer models (linked above) claim 400 ft ranges. There's also a "Pro" model for slightly more $$ that's spec'd out to one mile. Just be a bit cautious about mixing nodes from different generations/versions. -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
From: keithw86 on 23 Jul 2010 15:55 On Jul 23, 2:28 pm, mpm <mpmill...(a)aol.com> wrote: > I'm looking for an inexpensive way to poll a device from about 200 > feet outdoor, line of sight. > USA-only, no FCC license needed, etc... It's likely overkill for what you need, but take a look at these: http://www.synapse-wireless.com/ > We need to exchange about 50 characters or so back in forth, a couple > times in a session. Data timing is NOT critical. If more than one > device is present, we need to know that, avoid data collission, and be > able to talk to each device individually. We do not need a network. > > ZigBee looks interesting, and many modules seem to be avaialble. > Does anyone here have experience with these modules? Will they fit the > bill? Are there other off-the-shelf approaches, or ones that we can > design-in? You do *not* want to do ZigBee yourself! It's a mess. > Our device has enough spare microprocessor horsepower to drive the > logic signalling, etc... > My request here is concerned with the RF interfacing to the devices. > It will be a piece of field testing equipment talking wireless to > devices, and there is some possibility (slight) of more than one > device being present within 200 feet (+/-). The above has a microcontroller that I understand is available for applications (written in Python). You might also try RFM for wireless modules.
From: mpm on 24 Jul 2010 18:25 On Jul 23, 2:45 pm, Rich Webb <bbew...(a)mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote: > On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:28:41 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmill...(a)aol.com> wrote: > >I'm looking for an inexpensive way to poll a device from about 200 > >feet outdoor, line of sight. > >USA-only, no FCC license needed, etc... > > >We need to exchange about 50 characters or so back in forth, a couple > >times in a session. Data timing is NOT critical. If more than one > >device is present, we need to know that, avoid data collission, and be > >able to talk to each device individually. We do not need a network. > > >ZigBee looks interesting, and many modules seem to be avaialble. > >Does anyone here have experience with these modules? Will they fit the > >bill? Are there other off-the-shelf approaches, or ones that we can > >design-in? > > >Our device has enough spare microprocessor horsepower to drive the > >logic signalling, etc... > >My request here is concerned with the RF interfacing to the devices. > >It will be a piece of field testing equipment talking wireless to > >devices, and there is some possibility (slight) of more than one > >device being present within 200 feet (+/-). > > >If recommending ZigBee (or ???), is there a royalty fee involved? Do > >we have to join some group?? If such costs aren't exhorbitant, I > >wouldn't think that would be a factor on this project. > > http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/product_info.php?products_id=8695 > > The XBee modules are dead easy to work with, relatively cheap, fully > licensed, and the newer models (linked above) claim 400 ft ranges. > There's also a "Pro" model for slightly more $$ that's spec'd out to one > mile. Just be a bit cautious about mixing nodes from different > generations/versions. > > -- > Rich Webb Norfolk, VA- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Thanks Rich, this looks perfect. Have you worked with these modules before? Do you (or anyone here) know if you can issue a broadcast message and have all units in range respond, or MUST you know in advance the address of each module prior to starting a session with it?? -mpm
From: Rich Webb on 24 Jul 2010 19:12
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 15:25:52 -0700 (PDT), mpm <mpmillard(a)aol.com> wrote: >Thanks Rich, this looks perfect. >Have you worked with these modules before? I played with them (er ah "evaluated suitability for an application") a couple of years ago. >Do you (or anyone here) know if you can issue a broadcast message and >have all units in range respond, or MUST you know in advance the >address of each module prior to starting a session with it?? I *think* that each module "discovers" others in range and can be queried for the IDs of accessible modules. I'll have to dig out the kit (if it's here and not at the office) and play^H^H^H^H evaluate them some more to refresh my memory, though. -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA |