SoC w/802.11b (for wireless temp/light sensor)

I'd like to use an inexpensive micro-controller (like Atmel's AVR -- I
like the Butterfly demo board but would like other suggestions). And
then add 802.11 for broadcasting temperature readings. I saw a few
serial-to-WiFi devices, but they're all > $100. Yet I can buy a
USB->WiFi dongle for ~$15. Still, many micro-controllers don't support
USB either and I don't want to run Linux (unless there's a really
compact form of it) or write fancy USB or TCP drivers.

Its been a long time since I've been in the embedded space and my
head's kind of swimming. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
Eric
yogieric -- on -- gmail

Eric Brown wrote:
> I'd like to use an inexpensive micro-controller (like Atmel's AVR -- I
> like the Butterfly demo board but would like other suggestions). And
> then add 802.11 for broadcasting temperature readings.

802.11 is overkill for temperature readings.
You can probably use a simple RF link.

>I saw a few
> serial-to-WiFi devices, but they're all > $100. Yet I can buy a
> USB->WiFi dongle for ~$15.

They are mostly for USB hosts.

> Still, many micro-controllers don't support
> USB either

Few supports devices and even fewer supports host.

> and I don't want to run Linux (unless there's a really
> compact form of it) or write fancy USB or TCP drivers.
>
> Its been a long time since I've been in the embedded space and my
> head's kind of swimming. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thanks!
> Eric
> yogieric -- on -- gmail

linnix wrote:
> Eric Brown wrote:
> > I'd like to use an inexpensive micro-controller (like Atmel's AVR -- I
> > like the Butterfly demo board but would like other suggestions). And
> > then add 802.11 for broadcasting temperature readings.
>
> 802.11 is overkill for temperature readings.
> You can probably use a simple RF link.

Huge overkill.  The spec is 528 pages at least.

If all you want to do is record and broadcast temperature readings, you
should look for integrated micro+RF.  Try:

http://www.microchip.com/stellent/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&nodeId=76

Or:

http://focus.ti.com/docs/prod/folders/print/cc1010.html

You can do your own search on Google using "integrated microcontroller
RF transceiver".

I have no experience with these but came across them while looking for
something else.

-Le Chaud Lapin-

"Le Chaud Lapin" <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1148356398.719174.234020@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
<stuff>

Ok. Consider me wossname. Why "Le Chaud Lapin"? (translation: "the rabbit 
hot", except in Canadian, where all bets are off....)

Steve
http://www.fivetrees.com 

Steve at fivetrees wrote:
> "Le Chaud Lapin" <unoriginal_username@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1148356398.719174.234020@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <stuff>
>
> Ok. Consider me wossname. Why "Le Chaud Lapin"? (translation: "the rabbit
> hot", except in Canadian, where all bets are off....)

It's the name of a sexually-oriented movie
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0071305/) and my nickname that was given
to me while on vacation in France long ago.  As I read slowly from the
ticket stub, with an American English accent, "Luh...Chawwwd Lap
Inn..." several young french women amused themselves at my ignorance
about what I was saying, and so it stuck.

My French has improved considerably, but the name has remained
honorary, as I an neither hot, nor a rabbit. ;)

-Le Chaud Lapin-

Thanks, but I want to set this up in houses and then have it send data
directly to my server. I want to make just one part, not the
transceiver and a separate receiver. The 802.11 base station is the
receiver I want to use.

802.11 is complex, but it should be getting cheap enough that there is
the possibility for inexpensive low-bandwidth solutions.

Eric Brown wrote:
> 802.11 is complex, but it should be getting cheap enough that there is
> the possibility for inexpensive low-bandwidth solutions.

It's simply not used for these sorts of applications. You use 802.11
when your application already requires a 32-bit micro.

Temperature sensors are either wireless - in which case 802.11 is too
power-hungry - or wired, in which case PLC is used.

Greetings Eric,

The Atmel AT90USB1287 is an USB OTG controller. Basically it is a 
Mega128 with USB connectivity. I am not going to tell you a lot about 
overkill etc - for that is not what you asked for ;-)

With the AT90USB1287 you should be able to connect with a WIFI-dongle. I 
am interested in seeing how you make the sw on the other side. One 
suggestion woulf be to let the AT90USB1287 act as an FTP-client as it 
uploads the data to the server.

Good luck with it :-)

/RaceMouse

Eric Brown wrote:
> Thanks, but I want to set this up in houses and then have it send data
> directly to my server. I want to make just one part, not the
> transceiver and a separate receiver. The 802.11 base station is the
> receiver I want to use.
> 
> 802.11 is complex, but it should be getting cheap enough that there is
> the possibility for inexpensive low-bandwidth solutions.
> 

Rasmus Fink wrote:
> Greetings Eric,
>
> The Atmel AT90USB1287 is an USB OTG controller. Basically it is a
> Mega128 with USB connectivity. I am not going to tell you a lot about
> overkill etc - for that is not what you asked for ;-)

OK, you can build the hardware for it, or get the atmel USB key for
$30.
Add another $20 to $30 for a Wifi adapter.

>
> With the AT90USB1287 you should be able to connect with a WIFI-dongle. I
> am interested in seeing how you make the sw on the other side. One
> suggestion woulf be to let the AT90USB1287 act as an FTP-client as it
> uploads the data to the server.

FTP is an overkill.  You can just UDP a 8 to 10 bits number every few
seconds.
Temperature don't change so often.

>
> Good luck with it :-)
>
> /RaceMouse
>
> Eric Brown wrote:
> > Thanks, but I want to set this up in houses and then have it send data
> > directly to my server. I want to make just one part, not the
> > transceiver and a separate receiver. The 802.11 base station is the
> > receiver I want to use.
> >
> > 802.11 is complex, but it should be getting cheap enough that there is
> > the possibility for inexpensive low-bandwidth solutions.
> >