Re: TI-H: radio link...what's stopping us?
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: radio link...what's stopping us?
>From: Alex <tihardware@gmx.net>
>>Who would design [a radio link requiring software]?
>>The only logical one
>>is just simply taking the stuff from the port and transmitting it.
>>The software one would be 1. more complex 2. useless
Who would design a memory expander requiring software?
>Not necessarily true in either case. If one were to find an
>integrated transmitter/receiver that would work except
>required input different than the TI-Protocol (I2C for example),
>it might be simpler to use it instead of designing a new transmitter/
>receiver pair, even if that use required software to drive the port.
The point is that you already have an application and a protocol designed,
you just want to bridge the two. Thats where software comes into play.
>>so I think you must fu**in stupid to if you build a software one.
>
>Not necessarily, there would be nothing wrong with building an
>application specific radio link that required software to drive it,
>particularly if the software could transmit at a higher data rate
>than the TI-protocol (which wouldn't be particularly suprising,
>TI-protocol isn't all that fast). It just wouldn't be as convenient to
>as many people.
It cost $2.80 for the 500mw amp, $8 for the transciever, and about $19 for
the dac/adc set.
Then you have a 1mbps radio link. Prototypes would cost near $60 a piece
(not assembled).
It is tooo easy to design a radio link. Once you figure out all of the
neato stuff like isolation, and frequency designing boards, as well as
designing it so the FCC doesn't think you are a landing airplane is hard.
Basically, the hardware is easy...but getting it to work legally and
correct is another thing.
References: