Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Serial to WiFi Module — Parallax Forums

Serial to WiFi Module

Bill ChennaultBill Chennault Posts: 1,198
edited 2009-05-07 15:57 in General Discussion
All--

I have RC Buster up and running wirelessly via Bluetooth. I found out that Bluetooth does not like 9000lb. rocks. Whenever I let RC Buster loose out in the back yard and a big rock gets between him and my USB WiFi Class I dongle, I usually lose communications. I might try Parallaxs 433MHz stuff.

What I would like to know is if the WIZ610wi-EVB might fill the WiFi need on RC Buster. In my lay way of thinking, if I stuck the WIZ610wi on the 'bot, figured out a way to give it some power,·and interfaced it to the SX48, then I could talk to it . . . somehow. (I haven't got that figured out. If you do, I would love to hear about it.)

Thanks!


--Bill

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
You are what you write.

Comments

  • devide by zerodevide by zero Posts: 3
    edited 2009-04-24 10:48
    hi Bill

    2.4GHz Bluetooth signals do not penetrate rock; You could try placing the USB Bluetooth dongle at a higher location (on the end of a USB extension cable) for improved coverage ?

    regards


    devidebyzero

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    G
  • Bill ChennaultBill Chennault Posts: 1,198
    edited 2009-04-24 14:49
    devidebyzero--

    We live in a walkout. Currently, the laptop from which I am running RC Buster is on the lower floor and highly subject to those big rocks lining my patio. Soon, I will move it to the upper level and rocks should not be a problem . . . other than the ones in my head.

    --Bill

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    You are what you write.
  • Invent-O-DocInvent-O-Doc Posts: 768
    edited 2009-04-24 16:41
    How about a serial port hooked up to XBee modules? They have great range (always buy the 60mW version) and if you have a spot they cant get around, you can put a third one up and use mesh firmware to get around the problem (though that does introduce latency). I use them all the time.

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    Thomas Talbot, MD
    Gunpowder, MD, USA
  • Bill ChennaultBill Chennault Posts: 1,198
    edited 2009-04-24 17:44
    Thomas--

    I have no experience with XBee, although I know they are popular. Thank you for the suggestion . . . I will keep it on my list of things to try when I finally convince myself WiFi is not a viable option!

    --Bill

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    You are what you write.
  • $WMc%$WMc% Posts: 1,884
    edited 2009-04-26 06:31
    Mr. Chennault

    I would drop the Blue tooth and go with WIFI.

    WIFI has the range You need.

    _______$WMc%____________

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    The Truth is out there············································ BoogerWoods, FL. USA
  • RS_JimRS_Jim Posts: 1,771
    edited 2009-04-26 14:30
    problem is that bluetooth and WiFi operate in same frequency band, thus line of site! You will need a "satellite" View of the area to get line of site coverage with 2.4GHz.· Or, You would need some form of multiple "cell" sites that cover the area from ground level at various locations.

    rs_jim
  • $WMc%$WMc% Posts: 1,884
    edited 2009-04-26 23:08
    WIFI has a lot more RF power output then Bluetooth.
    10x more power = 10x more range



    ____________$WMc%____

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    The Truth is out there············································ BoogerWoods, FL. USA
  • RobotWorkshopRobotWorkshop Posts: 2,307
    edited 2009-04-29 19:12
    To make sure you are getting the best range with the Bluetooth adapters you should make sure both ends are using Class 1 devices. They have the longest range and most of those will have little antennas. Under good conditions you could get 100m. The Class 2 devices are popular but are only supposed to go 10m. If one end has a class 1 device then you are limited to 10m. Some sites that explain them:

    http://bluetoothinsight.blogspot.com/2008/01/bluetooth-power-classes.html

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluetooth

    Robert
  • Bill ChennaultBill Chennault Posts: 1,198
    edited 2009-04-29 21:06
    Robert--

    I have a Class I dongle with an antenna. I do not know if the eb501 is Class I or Class II. Do you?

    I am not complaining too much about the range I get from this setup. Other than failing to punch through solid rock, my Bluetooth setup pretty much covers my property and I have yet to bring the "base station" to the upper level of my walkout.

    I just wish there were a WiFi equivalent of the Bluetooth serial cable replacement made possible by the A7 software. (Maybe there is and I just need to keep spending money until I find it.)

    --Bill

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    You are what you write.
  • RobotWorkshopRobotWorkshop Posts: 2,307
    edited 2009-04-30 01:05
    The eb501 should be a class 1 device.· It has a connector for an antenna (at least mine did) but the antenna was optional.· Did you get an antenna with your module?· If not you should pickup some more distance by using one.· You can get them directly from A7 or from mouser, Digikey, etc.

    Robert
  • Bill ChennaultBill Chennault Posts: 1,198
    edited 2009-04-30 13:54
    Robert--

    Yes, my eb501 has an antenna that cost me extra.

    I am not really complaining about Bluetooth and the eb501; the serial cable replacement mode·is neat and the range is fine for my CURRENT needs which are just to teach me a bit about a form of remote control. However, "down the pike" it will have to be replaced.

    Ugha had a great suggestion for me: Instead of struggling to made the Logitech game pad work or striving to use my mouse-driven VB GUI, why not simply create a keyboard interface? It is so obvious it hurts. These young people!!! What will they think of next? [noparse]:)[/noparse]

    --Bill

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    You are what you write.
  • RS_JimRS_Jim Posts: 1,771
    edited 2009-05-07 14:45
    Bill,

    What I ment by "Cell Sites" was the concept of using 2 or more bluetooth tranceivers linked to the laptop with cat 5.· These two devices would each be paired with buster and set at angles such that if buster is in the rock shadow of one it could see the other.·I believe the bluetooth·on buster can be programed to automaticlly connect to paired devices when it looses communication with one it would connect to the next device it can find. ·Each Cell could be on an sx28 with RS485 or you could even go Eather net if you were so inclined.· RS485 would allow you to daisy-chain devices on a single cable back to central control.· The "Sattelite" idea was·an SX-28 with bluetooth linked back to control·via cat 5 and the "flown" over the back·yard with a fence to fence wire, balloon etc.

    rs_jim
  • Bill ChennaultBill Chennault Posts: 1,198
    edited 2009-05-07 15:57
    rs_jim--

    I get it. What a neat idea! I am going to save it and try it if my next neat idea does not do what I want.

    However, the next idea is so neat (stupid?) that I don't think I am going to say a lot about it before I do it! [noparse]:)[/noparse]

    --Bill

    ▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
    You are what you write.
Sign In or Register to comment.