Re: TI-H: Re: Quick radio link survey
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: TI-H: Re: Quick radio link survey
What is your project website?
There are so many combinations for network configuration... I list a few
here:
It would be cool if the network hardware supported cables and radio.
Hopefully 1 radiopac w/ network would create an active network for multiple
calculators.
##2 or more radiopacs with a few calculators hung off each, all calculators
talking to eachother. This seems hard to do.##
1 radiopac per calculator, n calculators.
1 server calc, multiple recieve only calcs
and the list goes on...
/////////////////
I like the idea of the use of a commercial radio. What models are you
considering? Please make sure that it would be reusable in other projects.
(connected with some sort of cable or socket)
I am willing to pay more for a radio that I can use again.
> Network support would pretty much require software drivers, as the
> calculator obviously does not support multi-link. One driverless option
> would be to put a two sets of 4 bit dipswitches on the link, in 'network'
> mode the switches would all be off, in direct connect mode the switches
> would be set to 'source' and 'destination' addresses. The microcontroller
> would always receive all broadcast data, and only send on what was
> intended for it, This would allow multiple calculators to operate in
> 'direct' mode without disturbing other calcs on the network.
I see how network support for more than 2 calculators needs software
drivers... (multiple calculator types...)...
The ability to use the radio like a plain old link would be great for
transfering drivers. A possibility would be:
Calc with drivers=D
Calc that needs em F,
Other calculators XYZ,
D says: Everybody! Stop talking untill I say OoogaBooga
(of course the calculators without drivers don't understand)
D starts communicating in TI proticol
F thinks its just a transfer, talks back in TI proticol
D sends F the file
D says: OoogaBooga.
Obviously it would be more complicated than this... what happens if more
than 1 calculator doesn't have drivers?
Opperators would have to pull thier calcs off the net... (no biggie...) But
then what's the point?!, everybody has link cables, whynot just get close to
send the drivers and then go away again?
>
> > > An option to switch between driverless TI-protocol mode
> > > and a software driver mode (for backwards compatibility
> > > mostly, to allow existing custom link protocols to work).
> > Very important for transfering drivers to friends.
> >
> > I'd like to be able to build a version that uses link cables instead of
> > radio so my less technically inclined friends could use it too.(radio
mode
> > or link mode in 1 box)
>
> Not quite sure what you mean, the calculator already supports link cables.
>
> > Network is very important.
> > Have radio boxes as hubs with cables to calcs.
>
> Connecting multiple calculators to a radio hub would be a bit more
> complicated, and while technicly pretty neat, I don't think it would be
> very useful at all.
>
> > I am willing to pay $50 plus building it. (if it had the cable network
> > option so my friends could use it)
> > $70 if I could use the radio for more things than just networking
calcs...
> > (like voice... or baby monitor)
> > These are if it is a 2way link.
>
> $50 is below what I would be willing to make them for. The cheap parts
> for one side of a link come to around $70, plus incidental parts (the
> microcontroller, A 'homemade' tranceiver module would be cheaper, but
> would also require orders of magnitude more design work, and would
> probably not be anywhere near as reliable (depending on who makes it of
> course, I'm sure there are people out there who can design a double
> conversion FM superhet receiver from scratch, but I ain't willing to do
> it).
>
> > If there is an option to make a plain 1way link $50 for both the send
and
> > recieve modual.
> > (This would be usefull for teachers to transmit data to students in a
> > classroom... it would also eliminate collisions)
>
> Yes, you could do that, but the receiver is actually the more expensive
> side, and would probably run about $70 or more complete. Transmitter
> would be somewhate less than that.
>
> > Another feature that would be nice... a directional antena option. I
don't
> > like super long range stuff because it could interefere with others. If
> > there were a way to focus the low power guy to be able to go long range
in 1
> > direction, that would be awesome!
>
> Its much easier to simply limit your broadcast power, but a directional
> antenna could probably be built.
>
> The prices I've mentioned are just guesses, and at these levels, anyone
> selling them would probably be taking a loss. Decent radios are
> expensive.
>
> Data can be transmitted much cheaper, using very simple circuits, but
> after adding error correction and retransmissions, the data rate would end
> up being pretty low.
>
> I'm still looking into options though, so maybe the cost can still come
> down a bit.
>
> DK
>
References: