Wireless module!

[jgu1]

Hi Team!

A whish Could it be possible to add a component to FC10 for these ASK module. I know Ben have for a while ago started make a component, but we never hear from him again

Thanks in advance.

Br Jorgen.

[jgu1]

Hi Team!

Dare to ask again

I was wondering if it would be possible to create a Flowcode component macro for these small modules, both the TX and RX versions. Or is that simply not practical, and should I just forget about the idea?

I think these modules could be useful in many different projects, so having them as Flowcode components would be a great addition.

Thank you very much in advance.

Br Jorgen

[chipfryer27]

Hi Jorgen

They look similar those cheap (really cheap) modules available from all the usual places and if so, they are truly terrible. They may not be the same though so I'm not going to put you off.

The ones I looked at a few years back were probably OK-ish for simple On/Off over short distances but if sending any data then it quickly got lost. Very simple to use as basically whatever you feed at the input to Tx will appear at the output of the Rx (so sending 1010 at the Tx input should see 1010 at the Rx output).

The ones I used basically were On/Off, in that the output was High for as long as the input was High. ISM has rules prohibiting the time something can transmit, so be careful. If I remember correctly my receive circuit waited for a coded signal. If it detected a high then it waited x-mS to see if the next bit in sequence was present, repeating until it received all "bits" and if valid did something.

There are many better alternatives for not much more cost, including LoRa options that will do up to a few Km.

Regards

[jgu1]

Hi Laim!

Thank´s for answer.

I'm not entirely in agreement with you. I've seen many projects using these small, inexpensive RF modules that work very well, especially when used with the RadioHead library in the Arduino IDE, which takes care of noise handling and other communication issues (have a look on the Web ).

I'm well aware that there are many other modules available, like the ones you mentioned, with much greater range. I've also used HC-12 modules in several UART-based projects.

The projects I have in mind only require a very short communication range, for displaying data inside a car and for a few other applications. One of the reasons I like these modules is that they are very small .

I could probably use the Arduino IDE (with some help from others), but I'm a dedicated Flowcode user and, whenever possible, I prefer to stay with Flowcode because that's the environment I'm most comfortable with .

As far as I know, Ben was at one point working on developing a component macro for these ASK modules. However, if it's too much work or there simply isn't enough interest in creating a macro for these cheap tiny module in Flowcode, I'll have to look for another solution.

Most of the component macros in Flowcode are easy enough for someone like me to understand, even though I'm not a hardcore programmer.

It was just a suggestion and a wish.

Br Jorgen

[mnfisher]

They should be reasonably easy to use - they require known pattern to be transmitted first, to allow the receiver to 'lock on' and then data/checksum

As a thought experiment - connect the transmitter to Tx of a Uart and send (0b10101010) several it times then an end of preamble marker - then some text (or data) and see if the receiver catches anything. It looks like the data needs to be encoded as well for reliable transmission, but worry about that later?

Martin

[chipfryer27]

Hi

It was a few years back I played with the units and what Martin writes sounds familiar.

I needed to use a long preamble and you do need to know exactly how your data will be transmitted so you know how to decode it (e.g. each bit will have a width of x-mS or such like). Best to use a slow rate to avoid errors.

It isn't hard to interface, especially if you just want simple on/off sort of thing but the ones I had I still wouldn't recommend though. Maybe if you buy from a more reputable source you may get a better experience.

Regards

[mnfisher]

The data needs to be encoded using the Manchester coding - each bit is converted to two bits (10 or 01). This gives a transmission of 16bits per byte with am equal number of 0 and 1 bits. Otherwise the receiver would treat blocks of 0 bits as end of transmission.

Fortunately the encoding process is very simple!

I think i have a pair of these - will have a play next week when I'm home.

I'm not sure of the range or speeds you can expect - Iain didn't get good results which might be bad luck and a dodgy part, or the devices might inheritly limit this?

[chipfryer27]

Hi

Mine were bought cheap... So quality would be questionable.

It didn't have an antenna coil, you had to use a length of wire.

I am not condemning all of them, just that the ones I had were way too much trouble for what they offered. For little more I could get reasonable LoRa modules that outperformed.

I guess if you used encoding as Martin suggests then you may get far better results than I did, but for me it wasn't worth exploring..

Keen to hear how you get on though.

Regards

[mnfisher]

Interesting to see what the range is like - Bluetooth might be the obvious replacement if ~10m or nrf24l01 for better range.
LORA is longer range again but not sure how speed compares.
Cheap though 5 pairs currently £5.99 on Amazon.

I'd been wondering about doing a simple remote control boat - and decided LORA too slow, WiFi and Bluetooth too short range. There's a 'standard' control system (ecrs?) for which receivers are quite cheap (transmitters not quite so) - but I didn't get much further than the dreaming stage...

[jgu1]

Thank you to both of you.

I will try Martin¨s suggest with (0b10101010). I guess it issome kind of wake up call or AGC. Look forward to hear your result, anaway it would be nice with a Component macro for this module. P ålay with it, you hear.