> Joel Koltner JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com posted to
> sci.electronics.design:
>
>> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:qgIVi.9684$Pv2.9474@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Yes, those are already on my list. There are a bit above the Dollar
>>> pain threshold right now and some clients frown upon the 8051
>>> architecture (not me, I actually like it).
>> Hopefully they realize that one of the reasons the 8051 architecture
>> is still so popular is because it's dirt cheap!
>
> Don't forget the second part of dirt cheap, there is plenty of
> expertise out there running around. Can you say self-fulfilling
> prophecy?
>
Exactamente. While an MSP430 programmer might have to be flown in you
can usually find 8051 guys right there.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by Joel Koltner●October 31, 20072007-10-31
"JosephKK" <joseph_barrett@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Si_Vi.3669$Nz7.3392@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Don't forget the second part of dirt cheap, there is plenty of
> expertise out there running around. Can you say self-fulfilling
> prophecy?
Yep... PICs are the same way -- not the world's most inspired architecture,
but dirt cheap and made readily avaialble to hobbyists/college students/etc.
early one; now they're a everywhere too.
Reply by JosephKK●October 31, 20072007-10-31
Joel Koltner JKolstad71HatesSpam@yahoo.com posted to
sci.electronics.design:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:qgIVi.9684$Pv2.9474@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> Yes, those are already on my list. There are a bit above the Dollar
>> pain threshold right now and some clients frown upon the 8051
>> architecture (not me, I actually like it).
>
> Hopefully they realize that one of the reasons the 8051 architecture
> is still so popular is because it's dirt cheap!
Don't forget the second part of dirt cheap, there is plenty of
expertise out there running around. Can you say self-fulfilling
prophecy?
Reply by Spehro Pefhany●October 30, 20072007-10-30
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 17:28:28 GMT, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Joel Koltner wrote:
>> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
>> news:qgIVi.9684$Pv2.9474@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>>> Yes, those are already on my list. There are a bit above the Dollar pain
>>> threshold right now and some clients frown upon the 8051 architecture (not
>>> me, I actually like it).
>>
>> Hopefully they realize that one of the reasons the 8051 architecture is still
>> so popular is because it's dirt cheap!
>>
>
>Sure is. Also, you can find local programmers in even the smallest of
>towns which is a huge upside. Last but not least there is often a 2nd
>source. If there ain't you can usually find a very similar 8051 device
>so that code portability isn't a serious issue.
I like the architecture as well, for very small applications only, of
course. They took the Mark I MCS-48 series and added all the stuff
that was missing. Most of the modern variants dispense with the
horrible pseudo-bidirectional ports and add useful peripherals that
were missing or were very primitive in the earlier versions.
Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
Reply by Joerg●October 30, 20072007-10-30
Joel Koltner wrote:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:qgIVi.9684$Pv2.9474@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>> Yes, those are already on my list. There are a bit above the Dollar pain
>> threshold right now and some clients frown upon the 8051 architecture (not
>> me, I actually like it).
>
> Hopefully they realize that one of the reasons the 8051 architecture is still
> so popular is because it's dirt cheap!
>
Sure is. Also, you can find local programmers in even the smallest of
towns which is a huge upside. Last but not least there is often a 2nd
source. If there ain't you can usually find a very similar 8051 device
so that code portability isn't a serious issue.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by Joel Koltner●October 30, 20072007-10-30
"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message
news:qgIVi.9684$Pv2.9474@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
> Yes, those are already on my list. There are a bit above the Dollar pain
> threshold right now and some clients frown upon the 8051 architecture (not
> me, I actually like it).
Hopefully they realize that one of the reasons the 8051 architecture is still
so popular is because it's dirt cheap!
Reply by Joerg●October 30, 20072007-10-30
Jim Granville wrote:
> Joerg wrote:
>> Hello Folks,
>>
>> After some Google searching and perusing the sites of the usual
>> contenders I only found one uC family that has serious on-chip RF
>> transceiver capabilities, the Cypress CYWUSB6953 and its brethren.
>> rfPICs and others usually only have a transmitter.
>>
>> Anyhow, the Cypress will only serve 2.45GHz but I need the lower UHF
>> bands for range reasons. Is anything coming down the pike soon or will
>> that have to remain a two-chip solution?
>>
>
> You've seen the new device from TI ?
> Sub GHz and adds USB ?
> Part name Frequency Flash RAM USB
> CC1110 Sub-1 GHz 8/16/32 KB 1/2/4 KB No
> CC1111 Sub-1 GHz 8/16/32 KB 1/2/4 KB Yes
> CC2510 2.4 GHz 8/16/32 KB 1/2/4 KB No
> CC2511 2.4 GHz 8/16/32 KB 1/2/4 KB Yes
>
> http://www10.edacafe.com/nbc/articles/view_article.php?section=ICNews&articleid=452233
>
Yes, those are already on my list. There are a bit above the Dollar pain
threshold right now and some clients frown upon the 8051 architecture
(not me, I actually like it).
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by Jim Granville●October 30, 20072007-10-30
Joerg wrote:
> Hello Folks,
>
> After some Google searching and perusing the sites of the usual
> contenders I only found one uC family that has serious on-chip RF
> transceiver capabilities, the Cypress CYWUSB6953 and its brethren.
> rfPICs and others usually only have a transmitter.
>
> Anyhow, the Cypress will only serve 2.45GHz but I need the lower UHF
> bands for range reasons. Is anything coming down the pike soon or will
> that have to remain a two-chip solution?
>
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:04:19 -0700, Joerg
> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> Paul Keinanen wrote:
>>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:24:31 GMT, Joerg
>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul Keinanen wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:34:29 -0700, Joerg
>>>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>> * data rate needed, both up- and downlink (and hence bandwidth and
>>>>> regulatory limits)
>>>> Very low, basically no more than a TV remote has to communicate. 300bps
>>>> would be plenty.
>>> That significantly increases the range. However, the frequency
>>> accuracy and temperature stability requirements can become quite
>>> demanding and it would be questionable, if a built in crystal
>>> oscillator would be stable enough.
>>>
>> On higher frequencies all you can really do is sweep and then AFC-lock.
>> Else it becomes prohibitively expensive.
>
> This is a good system for full-duplex links in areas with low
> interference. For instance various "Gunnplexer" systems consisting of
> one more or less stable Gunn diode master station at 10 GHz sends out
> a constant carrier and the slave station uses frequency locking to
> lock into that signal and then generates the uplink 100 or 144 MHz
> above or below the downlink.
>
> However, with half duplex communication, you would have to send a very
> long preamble before the message to allow locking to the incomming
> signal. If the data rate is below 300 bits/s, which would require
> about 300 Hz bandwidth with BPSK, you would need less than 1 ppm
> accuracy at 433 MHz, which would be quite expensive. With 10 ppm
> accuracy, you definitively would need to scan the 4.3 kHz bandwidth
> for the signal. This is OK, as long as the desired signal is the only
> signal within that bandwidth.
>
> If many similar signals are within that band, you would have to check
> for correct code, before proceeding into next carrier. As long as the
> actual message is quite long, you could tolerate a long
> synchronisation preamble.
>
>>> Those frequency bands as well as 2.45 GHz are known as ISM
>>> (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) bands and they were _not_ intended
>>> for radio communication but for e.g. RF-heating of the human body,
>>> food and plastics (welding).
>>>
>>> Later on, various license free radio communication applications were
>>> allowed on this "wasteland" of spectrum and the communication systems
>>> had to cope with the ISM usage e.g. by using spread spectrum to avoid
>>> the interference from ISM devices.
>>>
>>> If you need some degree of protection for your communication system,
>>> you should use a licensed frequency band.
>>>
>> That is very much impossible for consumer gear. I remember when we got
>> our first microwave, pretty much the first people in town, and the radio
>> authority folks in Germany had to come out and bless the "installation".
>> That was a substantial roadblock and later removed.
>
> Was that on the former 1.27 GHz ISM band or at 2.45 GHz ?
>
AFAIR it was on 2.45GHz. But in the 70's that was not released for
public use in Germany so each unit needed a license. Pretty impressive
when one of those yellow vans with lots of rotating antennas stops at
your house and neighbors become curious what happened.
--
Regards, Joerg
http://www.analogconsultants.com/
Reply by Paul Keinanen●October 29, 20072007-10-29
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:04:19 -0700, Joerg
<notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>Paul Keinanen wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 15:24:31 GMT, Joerg
>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Keinanen wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:34:29 -0700, Joerg
>>>> <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> * data rate needed, both up- and downlink (and hence bandwidth and
>>>> regulatory limits)
>>>
>>> Very low, basically no more than a TV remote has to communicate. 300bps
>>> would be plenty.
>>
>> That significantly increases the range. However, the frequency
>> accuracy and temperature stability requirements can become quite
>> demanding and it would be questionable, if a built in crystal
>> oscillator would be stable enough.
>>
>
>On higher frequencies all you can really do is sweep and then AFC-lock.
>Else it becomes prohibitively expensive.
This is a good system for full-duplex links in areas with low
interference. For instance various "Gunnplexer" systems consisting of
one more or less stable Gunn diode master station at 10 GHz sends out
a constant carrier and the slave station uses frequency locking to
lock into that signal and then generates the uplink 100 or 144 MHz
above or below the downlink.
However, with half duplex communication, you would have to send a very
long preamble before the message to allow locking to the incomming
signal. If the data rate is below 300 bits/s, which would require
about 300 Hz bandwidth with BPSK, you would need less than 1 ppm
accuracy at 433 MHz, which would be quite expensive. With 10 ppm
accuracy, you definitively would need to scan the 4.3 kHz bandwidth
for the signal. This is OK, as long as the desired signal is the only
signal within that bandwidth.
If many similar signals are within that band, you would have to check
for correct code, before proceeding into next carrier. As long as the
actual message is quite long, you could tolerate a long
synchronisation preamble.
>> Those frequency bands as well as 2.45 GHz are known as ISM
>> (Industrial, Scientific, Medical) bands and they were _not_ intended
>> for radio communication but for e.g. RF-heating of the human body,
>> food and plastics (welding).
>>
>> Later on, various license free radio communication applications were
>> allowed on this "wasteland" of spectrum and the communication systems
>> had to cope with the ISM usage e.g. by using spread spectrum to avoid
>> the interference from ISM devices.
>>
>> If you need some degree of protection for your communication system,
>> you should use a licensed frequency band.
>>
>
>That is very much impossible for consumer gear. I remember when we got
>our first microwave, pretty much the first people in town, and the radio
>authority folks in Germany had to come out and bless the "installation".
>That was a substantial roadblock and later removed.
Was that on the former 1.27 GHz ISM band or at 2.45 GHz ?
Paul