Dass sieht interesant aus, aber die Frage ist, uber wieviel Meter kann mann 
diese WLAN benuetzen?  Dass habe ich nicht gefunden auf deine Website.

(Ja, ich weiss, mein Deutsch ist beschissen)

-- 
...The Bit Eimer     NAR 84054      L0
"My goal in life is to be the kind of person my cat thinks he is"
[remove keinewurst and reverse letters in domain to email me]
--------------------------------------------------------------


<matt@avisaro.com> wrote in message 
news:1103193084.878843.10700@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi,
>
> indeed, by using modules you don't have to worry about WLAN driver or
> TCP stacks.
>
> The company I work for builds modules which connect to WLAN on one side
> an RS232 on the other side. By using simple "AT" commands or by
> configuring the module over a website you can set up a connection to
> another modul, to a PC or to the Internet. Your PIC does not need any
> protokoll stuff.
>
> Take a look at www.avisaro.com . Contact me if you need an English
> speeking person.
>
> If you are concerned about outdoor range, use 802.11b rather than
> 802.11g . The rule of thumb is: the higher the bandwith the lower the
> range.
>
> Most Bluetooth modules have a range of 10m, only a few provide 100m.
> The main difference is the protokoll: if you need network connectivity,
> you don't get TCP or UDP with Bluetooth modules (at least the one I
> know). If you only need a point to point connection, you are fine with
> bluetooth.
>
> Matthias Colsman
> Avisaro AG
>

Hi,

indeed, by using modules you don't have to worry about WLAN driver or
TCP stacks.

The company I work for builds modules which connect to WLAN on one side
an RS232 on the other side. By using simple "AT" commands or by
configuring the module over a website you can set up a connection to
another modul, to a PC or to the Internet. Your PIC does not need any
protokoll stuff.

Take a look at www.avisaro.com . Contact me if you need an English
speeking person.

If you are concerned about outdoor range, use 802.11b rather than
802.11g . The rule of thumb is: the higher the bandwith the lower the
range.

Most Bluetooth modules have a range of 10m, only a few provide 100m.
The main difference is the protokoll: if you need network connectivity,
you don't get TCP or UDP with Bluetooth modules (at least the one I
know). If you only need a point to point connection, you are fine with
bluetooth.

Matthias Colsman

Avisaro AG

Jeremy Bentham wrote:
> "bit eimer" <bit_eimer.keinewurst@ten.xoc> wrote:
>
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I'm usually just a lurker.  But now I'm getting interested in doing
a link
> >from an 'F877 to a PC:
> >
> >PIC s/w -> UART -> USB (adapter) -> 802.11g (adapter)  --//-->
802.11g
> >(adapter) -> USB -> Win XP -> app s/w
>
> Sounds unnecessarily complex, why not just connect an 802.11b PCMCIA
> or CF card directly to the PICmicro? It might be a bit tricky because
> of the small amount of RAM on the PIC16F877, but a PIC18F452 works
> just fine.
>
> >Have chosen neither the USB adapter nor the 802.11g adapter yet.
And I'm
> >fairly concerned about the potential complexity of USB and 802.11g
protocols
> >that I will have to implement on the PIC side.
>
> You don't have to understand the inner workings of 802.11, as the
WLAN
> card processor does all the hard work; once set up, it provides a raw
> data link similar to Ethernet. You can invent your own communication
> protocol to run over this link, but most people use TCP/IP. If you're
> a newcomer to this protocol family I'd suggest checking out UDP,
> because it is realtively easy to implement and debug.
>
> >Any one have advice on any part of the above or pointers to some
actual
> >implementations I could possibly leverage or adapt?
>
>  www.iosoft.co.uk
>
> >BTW, I'm leaning toward 802.11g rather than Bluetooth in order to
achieve
> >higher (I think) outdoor range.  Any confirmation of that
assumption?
>
> I don't know much about Bluetooth, but the usual quoted range seems
to
> be 10 meters (32 feet) as opposed to 100 meters or more for 802.11 -
> but of course this depends on the type of antennas, obstructions etc.
> 
> Jeremy Bentham
> Iosoft Ltd.

Hi,

indeed, by using modules you don't have to worry about WLAN driver or
TCP stacks.

The company I work for builds modules which connect to WLAN on one side
an RS232 on the other side. By using simple "AT" commands or by
configuring the module over a website you can set up a connection to
another modul, to a PC or to the Internet. Your PIC does not need any
protokoll stuff.

Take a look at www.avisaro.com . Contact me if you need an English
speeking person.

If you are concerned about outdoor range, use 802.11b rather than
802.11g . The rule of thumb is: the higher the bandwith the lower the
range.

Most Bluetooth modules have a range of 10m, only a few provide 100m.
The main difference is the protokoll: if you need network connectivity,
you don't get TCP or UDP with Bluetooth modules (at least the one I
know). If you only need a point to point connection, you are fine with
bluetooth.

Matthias Colsman
Avisaro AG

"bit eimer" <bit_eimer.keinewurst@ten.xoc> wrote :

> Mea culpa,  my source (the following article) discusses g vs a,
> not g vs b. It appears g and b are about equilvalent on range,
> albeit not on data rate. 
> 
> http://www.commsdesign.com/story/OEG20030114S0008

great, but OFDM works at speeds >= 6Mbit/sec.
Every 802.11G chip falls back to CCK@5.5Mbit/sec DQPSK@2Mbit/sec and 
DBPSK@1Mbit/sec if it cannot establish 6Mbit/sec link. And sensitivity 
at >11Mbit/sec sucks. Those faster speeds are available only if strong 
signal is present. Full 54Mbit (real 34Mbit) speed is only possible in 
the same room :).

Pozdrawiam.
-- 
RusH   //
 http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

"bit eimer" <bit_eimer.keinewurst@ten.xoc> wrote:

>Hi all,
>
>I'm usually just a lurker.  But now I'm getting interested in doing a link 
>from an 'F877 to a PC:
>
>PIC s/w -> UART -> USB (adapter) -> 802.11g (adapter)  --//--> 802.11g 
>(adapter) -> USB -> Win XP -> app s/w

Sounds unnecessarily complex, why not just connect an 802.11b PCMCIA
or CF card directly to the PICmicro? It might be a bit tricky because
of the small amount of RAM on the PIC16F877, but a PIC18F452 works
just fine.

>Have chosen neither the USB adapter nor the 802.11g adapter yet.  And I'm 
>fairly concerned about the potential complexity of USB and 802.11g protocols 
>that I will have to implement on the PIC side.

You don't have to understand the inner workings of 802.11, as the WLAN
card processor does all the hard work; once set up, it provides a raw
data link similar to Ethernet. You can invent your own communication
protocol to run over this link, but most people use TCP/IP. If you're
a newcomer to this protocol family I'd suggest checking out UDP,
because it is realtively easy to implement and debug.

>Any one have advice on any part of the above or pointers to some actual 
>implementations I could possibly leverage or adapt?

 www.iosoft.co.uk

>BTW, I'm leaning toward 802.11g rather than Bluetooth in order to achieve 
>higher (I think) outdoor range.  Any confirmation of that assumption?

I don't know much about Bluetooth, but the usual quoted range seems to
be 10 meters (32 feet) as opposed to 100 meters or more for 802.11 -
but of course this depends on the type of antennas, obstructions etc.

Jeremy Bentham
Iosoft Ltd.

"RusH" <logistyka1@pf.pl> wrote in message 
news:Xns95B2D4A8F5178RusHcomputersystems@193.110.122.97...
> "bit eimer" <bit_eimer.keinewurst@ten.xoc> wrote :
>
<snip>

>> Hmmm, my research led me to believe that g had more range than b
>> (?)
>
> why ? same frequency, same power, less sensitivity and faster, why on
> earth would you believe that you can get better range ?

Mea culpa,  my source (the following article) discusses g vs a, not g vs b. 
It appears g and b are about equilvalent on range, albeit not on data rate.

http://www.commsdesign.com/story/OEG20030114S0008


Thanks again.

-- 
...The Bit Eimer     NAR 84054      L0
"My goal in life is to be the kind of person my cat thinks he is"
[remove keinewurst and reverse letters in domain to email me]
--------------------------------------------------------------

"bit eimer" <bit_eimer.keinewurst@ten.xoc> wrote :

> Any idea what kind of range one could expect from a bluetooth/USB
> dongle (without external antenna)?

100m max, but it must be class 3 BT dongle (17dbm)
external antenna = 
 http://flakey.info/antenna/omni/quarter/
for example, works great, costs pennies

>> first of all 802.11g has lower range than 802.11b.
> 
> 
> Hmmm, my research led me to believe that g had more range than b
> (?)

why ? same frequency, same power, less sensitivity and faster, why on 
earth would you believe that you can get better range ?

>  Are you thinking of a, perhaps, which has poor change due to
> higher freq? 

a has the same range (approximatelly) as g if you thing about 54Mbit 
speeds (which are 34Mbit max in reality by the way :P)

> Can you recommend specific Bluetooth products that would interface
> well (or easily) to a PIC?

no :) but any RS232 BT would work, I would use one with integrated BT 
stack, implementing your own stack my take a while (or two)

Pozdrawiam.
-- 
RusH   //
 http://randki.o2.pl/profil.php?id_r=352019
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

On Wednesday, in article <U1ord.190858$hj.187576@fed1read07>
     bit_eimer.keinewurst@ten.xoc "bit eimer" wrote:

>"Paul Carpenter" <paul$@pcserv.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
>news:20041201.0922.304645snz@pcserv.demon.co.uk...
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:49:12 -0700, in article
>
><snip>

................
>> The problem is you want to put potentially three heavy layers of software
>> onto a PIC, which I would not dream of doing.
>
>Thanks for these explanations.  Sounds like 802.11 is simply too loaded up 
>with capabilities for me to easily make use of.  Others suggest Bluetooth, 
>though I would have all the
>same questions about that technology.

>>
>>>All I really want to do is get packets from the PIC to my application in 
>>>the
>>>PC (about 150 meters away in outdoor terrain), but I'm sure there's all
>>>kinds of maintenance functions that must be dealt with.
>>
>> The first real question is not the mechanics of which 'bits' to use but
>> what is the data transfer?
>>
>> How much data for how long and how often?
>
>Actually, the comm is bidirectional.  At this stage I would estimate my 
>PC-to-remote data rate requirement at about 30k bits/sec; remote-to-PC at 
>about 5k bits/sec with the possibility of 2 remote devices, each at that 
>rate.  Packet sizes vary from 4 bytes up to 20 bytes.

5Kbits/sec can be done easily on standard telemetry bands with modem chips
(10KHz or 25KHz channel bandwidth most authorities don't like people
 using n channels witdth for higher rates). However with two remote systems
you would need a separate channel (RX/TX) pair for each remote or time
slicing issues.

30kbps is difficult on standard license free telemetry bands in most
countries. But you might squeeze the data rate into a 25KHz channel with
an appropriate modem chip (33kps modems chip POSSIBLY).

However even with using 433/459MHz sets you have the issues of cost.

>At one point I was considering a 900 MHz linksys transciever, but I can't
>deal with the licensing issue.

Steer clear of anything requiring licensing, but be aware that license exempt
bands still need to be dealt with carefully for other users on the same band.
This is also true for ANY wireless band you use (bluetooth, 802.11x etc.).

>> Alternatively get a 802.11g module that is menat for interfacing to an
>> embedded system that deals with the protocols etc.. Meaning you have
>> a more complex micro dedicated to the link. There have been some articles
>> in Circuit Cellar www.circuitcellar.com, about doing that sort of thing.
>
>Thanks, I'll go looking.

It is not a simple requirement.

-- 
Paul Carpenter          | paul@pcserviceselectronics.co.uk
<http://www.pcserviceselectronics.co.uk/>    PC Services
<http://www.gnuh8.org.uk/>              GNU H8 & mailing list info
<http://www.badweb.org.uk/>             For those web sites you hate

"Paul Carpenter" <paul$@pcserv.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:20041201.0922.304645snz@pcserv.demon.co.uk...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:49:12 -0700, in article

<snip>

>
> There are UART to USB devices that are primarily meant as slave devices to
> the HOST device the PC (See www.ftdi.com). These are relatively easy
> because the hard work of USB is done in the host. Doing host side USB in 
> an
> embedded device can be done but is a lot of work, and normally involves
> buying stacks for processors other than PIC. Various USB host devices have
> been mentioned previously in this group.
>
> However you also have the headache of 802.11g which normally involves
> encapsulation of TCP/IP protocol. Some people have put stripped down
> TCP/IP protocols onto a PIC (see the Lean TCP/IP book). Also note
> TCP/IP is a bidirectional protocol.
>
> The problem is you want to put potentially three heavy layers of software
> onto a PIC, which I would not dream of doing.

Thanks for these explanations.  Sounds like 802.11 is simply too loaded up 
with capabilities for me to easily make use of.  Others suggest Bluetooth, 
though I would have all the
same questions about that technology.


>
>>All I really want to do is get packets from the PIC to my application in 
>>the
>>PC (about 150 meters away in outdoor terrain), but I'm sure there's all
>>kinds of maintenance functions that must be dealt with.
>
> The first real question is not the mechanics of which 'bits' to use but
> what is the data transfer?
>
> How much data for how long and how often?


Actually, the comm is bidirectional.  At this stage I would estimate my 
PC-to-remote data rate requirement at about 30k bits/sec; remote-to-PC at 
about 5k bits/sec with the possibility of 2 remote devices, each at that 
rate.  Packet sizes vary from 4 bytes up to 20 bytes.

At one point I was considering a 900 MHz linksys transciever, but I can't 
deal with the licensing issue.

>
> Alternatively get a 802.11g module that is menat for interfacing to an
> embedded system that deals with the protocols etc.. Meaning you have
> a more complex micro dedicated to the link. There have been some articles
> in Circuit Cellar www.circuitcellar.com, about doing that sort of thing.

Thanks, I'll go looking.


<snip>


> First of all it would be more helpful to know what the data rate and 
> packet
> sizes are to give a meaningful response.

See above.



Thanks for your response.

-- 
...The Bit Eimer     NAR 84054      L0
"My goal in life is to be the kind of person my cat thinks he is"
[remove keinewurst and reverse letters in domain to email me]
--------------------------------------------------------------