Telemetry suggestions

On 10/10/2011 11:51 AM, bbhack wrote:
>> On Oct 10, 11:00 am, Don Y<nowh...@here.com> wrote:

>>> Can your "meteorological instrumentation" provide a BT link,
>>> instead? I don't know how universal serial ports are on
>>> native phone hardware (iPhone, maybe?) so, otherwise, you
>>> might have to use USB<->serial.
>
> Many or most of these weather kits are wireless, but my research is just
> starting there also. I doubt they are WiFi. Intended to be mounted on
> the roof, and read from a console, from what I can tell.

Oh, if you're looking at the sort of things I've seen,
these are closed systems.  Often using very low power/short
range RF links operating as "wires".  E.g., no smarts in
the actual sensors.

Imagine generating a "frequency" that varies with temperature
and sending that on a particular *carrier* to a "base station".
I.e., "eeeeeee" is 82 degrees, "ahhhhhhhhh" is 74.3 and "ohhhhhhh"
is 63.9 -- which the base evaluates and "digitizes" for display.

Look carefully at what you are buying before you embrace a
solution.  Look at the frequency that the device uses to give
you some idea as to how "smart" the protocol might be.

You might find that a *wired* met station is more
amenable to your use.  E.g., anemometer just outputs pulses
(which you can count), temperature measured via thermistor
(which you can use in an oscillator -- and then count!),
rain gauge just drives a contact closure each time a specific
volume of water is collected (which you can count), etc.

(do you notice my obsession with *counting*?  :> )

On Oct 10, 9:46=A0am, bbhack <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to put a remote weather station in Central Texas. There is no 3G
> there. It would be good to reduce components - using an Android phone as
> the only programmable part of the system, with a USB interface
> presumably. There is AC.
>
> Nothing is selected now. I'm not really well versed in the cellular data
> standards, but I know a little. Thoughts?

you said you have AC so, maybe X10/domotics to a 'receiver'/'host
computer in a more hospitable location. Then either internet or phone
or ???

> You might find that a *wired* met station is more
> amenable to your use. =A0E.g., anemometer just outputs pulses
> (which you can count), temperature measured via thermistor
> (which you can use in an oscillator -- and then count!),
> rain gauge just drives a contact closure each time a specific
> volume of water is collected (which you can count), etc.
>
> (do you notice my obsession with *counting*? =A0:> )

OK, i got it.  You are a "bean counter". :-}

I, however, am a picture guy.  Since we are talking about Android
phones (most with camera), nothing wrong with taking pictures of
themometer, rain guage and wind vane.  With the right image
processing, you can get any data you want.

BTW, serial link (from USB2Serial) can send image data over hundreds
of feet.  That's why i am so obsessed with serially linked droids.

On 10/10/2011 12:40 PM, linnix wrote:
>> You might find that a *wired* met station is more
>> amenable to your use.  E.g., anemometer just outputs pulses
>> (which you can count), temperature measured via thermistor
>> (which you can use in an oscillator -- and then count!),
>> rain gauge just drives a contact closure each time a specific
>> volume of water is collected (which you can count), etc.
>>
>> (do you notice my obsession with *counting*?  :>  )
>
> OK, i got it.  You are a "bean counter". :-}

No beans; events!  I like doing things "over time" (e.g.,
integrating converters) -- trading time for resolution, etc.

E.g., the Am9513 was one of the "drool parts" ages ago (too bad
it was so expensive -- *huge* die!)

On 10/10/2011 2:24 PM, Don Y wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 11:51 AM, bbhack wrote:
>>> On Oct 10, 11:00 am, Don Y<nowh...@here.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Can your "meteorological instrumentation" provide a BT link,
>>>> instead? I don't know how universal serial ports are on
>>>> native phone hardware (iPhone, maybe?) so, otherwise, you
>>>> might have to use USB<->serial.
>>
>> Many or most of these weather kits are wireless, but my research is just
>> starting there also. I doubt they are WiFi. Intended to be mounted on
>> the roof, and read from a console, from what I can tell.
>
> Oh, if you're looking at the sort of things I've seen,
> these are closed systems. Often using very low power/short
> range RF links operating as "wires". E.g., no smarts in
> the actual sensors.

I just mentioned that most of the ones I saw for sale were wireless 
between the sensors and the base in response to the question about BT. I 
have no intention of running over the wireless provided by the as yet 
unselected unit.

ASCII over a serial link is what would be preferred.


>
> Imagine generating a "frequency" that varies with temperature
> and sending that on a particular *carrier* to a "base station".
> I.e., "eeeeeee" is 82 degrees, "ahhhhhhhhh" is 74.3 and "ohhhhhhh"
> is 63.9 -- which the base evaluates and "digitizes" for display.
>
> Look carefully at what you are buying before you embrace a
> solution. Look at the frequency that the device uses to give
> you some idea as to how "smart" the protocol might be.
>
> You might find that a *wired* met station is more
> amenable to your use. E.g., anemometer just outputs pulses
> (which you can count), temperature measured via thermistor
> (which you can use in an oscillator -- and then count!),
> rain gauge just drives a contact closure each time a specific
> volume of water is collected (which you can count), etc.
>
> (do you notice my obsession with *counting*? :> )

On 10/10/2011 3:01 PM, bbhack wrote:

>>>>> Can your "meteorological instrumentation" provide a BT link,
>>>>> instead? I don't know how universal serial ports are on
>>>>> native phone hardware (iPhone, maybe?) so, otherwise, you
>>>>> might have to use USB<->serial.
>>>
>>> Many or most of these weather kits are wireless, but my research is just
>>> starting there also. I doubt they are WiFi. Intended to be mounted on
>>> the roof, and read from a console, from what I can tell.
>>
>> Oh, if you're looking at the sort of things I've seen,
>> these are closed systems. Often using very low power/short
>> range RF links operating as "wires". E.g., no smarts in
>> the actual sensors.
>
> I just mentioned that most of the ones I saw for sale were wireless
> between the sensors and the base in response to the question about BT. I

OK.  I had originally assumed you were *making* something
(even if that meant piecing together various bits and pieces).

> have no intention of running over the wireless provided by the as yet
> unselected unit.

You may, instead, want to look into the wired option.  The one
that I cannabilized had lots of telephone-like cables (the flat
stuff that you sometimes see used for network cabling) that
plugged into the display unit.  *Long* cables since the display
was intended to be indoors while the instruments were typically
roof mounted.

So, the signals coming down those wires had a high degree of
inherent noise immunity -- often easy to interface with.

> ASCII over a serial link is what would be preferred.

You might find something like that harder to locate.  Or, more
costly (?)

I wonder if you could, also, come up with an SD-card-like
interface to connect your field to the phone?  Or, even a
*real* hack -- using the headphone out signal to control
a multiplexer... that presents some selection of signal(s)
on a mic in connector?  This would probably be the least painful
mod to the phone (and low-enough-tech that it would be easy
to breadboard "one-off")

On 10/10/2011 2:35 PM, 1 Lucky Texan wrote:
> On Oct 10, 9:46 am, bbhack<bbh...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> I want to put a remote weather station in Central Texas. There is no 3G
>> there. It would be good to reduce components - using an Android phone as
>> the only programmable part of the system, with a USB interface
>> presumably. There is AC.
>>
>> Nothing is selected now. I'm not really well versed in the cellular data
>> standards, but I know a little. Thoughts?
>
> you said you have AC so, maybe X10/domotics to a 'receiver'/'host
> computer in a more hospitable location. Then either internet or phone
> or ???

This is for pretty much out in the middle of nowhere.

On Oct 10, 4:48=A0pm, bbhack <bbh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2011 2:35 PM, 1 Lucky Texan wrote:
>
> > On Oct 10, 9:46 am, bbhack<bbh...@gmail.com> =A0wrote:
> >> I want to put a remote weather station in Central Texas. There is no 3=
G
> >> there. It would be good to reduce components - using an Android phone =
as
> >> the only programmable part of the system, with a USB interface
> >> presumably. There is AC.
>
> >> Nothing is selected now. I'm not really well versed in the cellular da=
ta
> >> standards, but I know a little. Thoughts?
>
> > you said you have AC so, maybe X10/domotics to a 'receiver'/'host
> > computer in a more hospitable location. Then either internet or phone
> > or ???
>
> This is for pretty much out in the middle of nowhere.

How far away are the sensors from your central (for lack of a better
term) location?

On 10/10/2011 07:48 PM, linnix wrote:
> On Oct 10, 4:48 pm, bbhack<bbh...@gmail.com>  wrote:
>> On 10/10/2011 2:35 PM, 1 Lucky Texan wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 10, 9:46 am, bbhack<bbh...@gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>> I want to put a remote weather station in Central Texas. There is no 3G
>>>> there. It would be good to reduce components - using an Android phone as
>>>> the only programmable part of the system, with a USB interface
>>>> presumably. There is AC.
>>
>>>> Nothing is selected now. I'm not really well versed in the cellular data
>>>> standards, but I know a little. Thoughts?
>>
>>> you said you have AC so, maybe X10/domotics to a 'receiver'/'host
>>> computer in a more hospitable location. Then either internet or phone
>>> or ???
>>
>> This is for pretty much out in the middle of nowhere.
>
> How far away are the sensors from your central (for lack of a better
> term) location?

The sensors and the "station" are in the same place. So there is no 
complicated scheme between the sensors the telemetry node.

Don Y <nowhere@here.com> sent on October 10th, 2011:
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"On 10/10/2011 10:44 AM, bbhack wrote:                                       |
|[..]                                                                         |
|> Polled operation should be fine, and SMS for communications should suffice.|
|                                                                             |
|I was wondering if you could actually opt for *voice* output                 |
|(or, a tone-based scheme if you know the device will always                  |
|be talking to another "device" -- i.e., non-human).  My                      |
|thinking, here, is that a voice-only plan might save you                     |
|some money?                                                                  |
|                                                                             |
|> AT&T has some pre-paid plans that should work OK.                          |
|[..]"                                                                        |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Telephone companies change pricing schemes, but supposedly (perhaps in
Europe and definitely when all telephones were landline telephones)
using a telephone line only for data instead of voice was charged at
a higher rate.