Previous in Forum: Remote Monitoring   Next in Forum: Best Way to Store GPS Coordinates? (What Data Type?)
Close
Close
Close
15 comments
Rate Comments: Nested
Commentator

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 78
Good Answers: 2

Radio Frequency Communications

07/12/2010 11:53 PM

I'm going square eyed reading FCC docs.

I designed and programmed a gaming system a while back for Australian use that involves spurious RF transmissions of data between the weapons, for price and simplicity reasons at the time I went with a 433MHz system using a TI CC1101 on a small pcb on a header connected to a small whip antenna. Works well within Australia and reliably communicates to the 150metre design range.

Problem is that the client now wishes to expand into the US market and FCC 15.231e is not going to allow more than about a 10m range at 433MHz.

15.231 uses a linear power regression, so I can change some component values on my PCB and make some code changes and get up to the 868Mhz band with a corresponding doubling of power, as the comms only requires line of sight I will get maybe an extra 50% range .. still problematic.

I don't really want to go through the spread spectrum, frequency hopping route and get into the 900Mhz band, its going to be tricky to do reliably with up to 1000 devices communicating on multiple channels as it currently does.

Ideally a solution would allow use in any country in the world, though I'm starting to think that will be impossible.

I am not sure what range I can get with 2.4GHz .. I was thinking of dropping in a microchip at 2.4GHz. If I can get 120 metres or so line of sight,reliably, all good.

I'm not an RF engineer by a long shot, I write code and design hardware .. so HELP ! or just comments would be very very much appreciated.

Any ideas on what band/method I should be looking at, specifically to obtain FCC compliance in the short term .. any/all other countrys as well ideally.

Register to Reply
Pathfinder Tags: 15.231 FCC RF
Interested in this topic? By joining CR4 you can "subscribe" to
this discussion and receive notification when new comments are added.
Anonymous Poster
#1

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/13/2010 3:51 PM

if you expand your bandwith 500MHz that does twice as much in the length you will find youreself cooeperating less

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 3)
Commentator

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 78
Good Answers: 2
#2
In reply to #1

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 12:12 AM

I have no idea at all what any of that means.

Register to Reply
Power-User

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Thousand Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 187
Good Answers: 9
#3
In reply to #2

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 12:40 AM

Oh good,, I thought I was loosing my mind, it made no sense at all.

Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#4
In reply to #1

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 3:14 AM

WHAT DOES THIS MEAN????

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Anonymous Poster
#5
In reply to #1

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 3:15 AM

if you expand your bandwith 500MHz that does twice as much in the length you will find youreself cooeperating less

THIS MAKES NO SENSE

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: India
Posts: 1246
Good Answers: 34
#6

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 6:17 AM

2.4 Ghz is promising. Make a prototype and try it out.

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2446
Good Answers: 60
#7

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 7:05 AM
Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2446
Good Answers: 60
#8

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 7:11 AM

Question ?

Does it have to radiate signal in all directions ie omni.

or can it transmit to a single point ?

and if it uses gprs you encode error checking to help with problems of interference, ie send information in packets error check then if ok another packet if not resend last packet.

could you also specify what sort of area it is going to operate in, indoors/ outdoors electrically quiet/noisy

Register to Reply
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2446
Good Answers: 60
#9

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 7:29 AM
Register to Reply
Anonymous Poster
#11

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 12:20 PM

This system sounds pretty neat. (At least in my imagination it does!) What sort of name does it go by in Australia, and when do you think we'll see one of these in the USA? I am a big kid at heart and love new toys.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 6)
Commentator

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 78
Good Answers: 2
#12
In reply to #11

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/14/2010 9:23 PM

have a look at battlefieldlive.com

this is the SATR system.

Register to Reply Off Topic (Score 5)
Guru

Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2446
Good Answers: 60
#13
In reply to #12

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/15/2010 3:25 AM

Very Good looks like fun.

so the radio modem comuunicates back to a central point then for scoring ?

i assume hit info after being shot is stored on the target vest ?

Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 78
Good Answers: 2
#14
In reply to #13

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/19/2010 12:14 PM

The original spec specifically requested no scoring, this was to promote teamplaying and stop one upmanship. Over the years as its developed the users and operators have requested more of this ability though.

I haven't seen one of the vests actually, currently there are multiple modes available for any device from master controller to any weapon or mines and medic and ammunition resupply posts. More modes are likely to be added as time progresses.

I can't for obvious reasons go into future development areas.

I could really use some pointers with the RF, specifically with regards to what the FCC will allow that is as simple as possible to implement in hardware and software.

Its looking quite difficult currently.

Register to Reply
Commentator

Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 78
Good Answers: 2
#15

Re: Radio Frequency Communications

07/23/2010 1:15 AM

just an update ..

Looks like we are going to give Zigbee or preferably MiWi a go using MRF24J40MB modules from Microchip, these are a module using the IEEE 802.15.4 (2003) standard and have FCC compliance so long as transmit power is under -1.9dB.

For that o/p power I could use the MRF24J40MA module which has no PA or LNA, but the LNA gives 10dB more sensitivity and will be required I expect.

I figure it will be far quicker in the long run to port the existing MiWi code than developing my own peer to peer code which without a mesh is unlikely to work very well over 100m at those power levels.

Register to Reply
Register to Reply 15 comments
Copy to Clipboard

Users who posted comments:

Anonymous Poster (4); baxterm (1); Joshi (1); peterg7lyq (5); stoney (4)

Previous in Forum: Remote Monitoring   Next in Forum: Best Way to Store GPS Coordinates? (What Data Type?)

Advertisement