wiegand protocol

"Ali" <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1158075033.811071.280660@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
<Snip>
>To pass that to a UART will require some buffering.
>
> So the bottomline is not to use weigand if UART is way down in
> communication link , right?
>
>
Wrong,
    The bottomline is not to use Weigand unless you need to (i.e. the device 
you're talking to uses Weigand), and if you need to, then use it regardless 
of what else is in the comms chain.   If you're asking this question, then 
you probably would not use Weigand.

It would be real strange to use it as a general communications physical 
layer, it's not an alternative to standard NRZ as used in UARTs.  It would 
be like travelling to work in a wheelchair instead of a car/train etc.  It 
could be done, but you wouldn't do it unless there was a darn good reason.

Cheers,
Alf 

Alf Katz wrote:
> "Ali" <abdulrazaq@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1158075033.811071.280660@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> <Snip>
> >To pass that to a UART will require some buffering.
> >
> > So the bottomline is not to use weigand if UART is way down in
> > communication link , right?
> >
> >
> Wrong,
>     The bottomline is not to use Weigand unless you need to (i.e. the device
> you're talking to uses Weigand), and if you need to, then use it regardless
> of what else is in the comms chain.   If you're asking this question, then
> you probably would not use Weigand.
>
> It would be real strange to use it as a general communications physical
> layer, it's not an alternative to standard NRZ as used in UARTs.  It would
> be like travelling to work in a wheelchair instead of a car/train etc.  It
> could be done, but you wouldn't do it unless there was a darn good reason.
>
> Cheers,
> Alf


> It would be like travelling to work in a wheelchair instead of a car/train etc.  It
>could be done, but you wouldn't do it unless there was a darn good reason.

Wao! that sounds more interesting ;-)

Meindert Sprang wrote:

> Is that still true? In my experience with cardreaders and access control
> systems (in Europ, that is) most systems have an Omron interface as common
> denominator, which has a data, clock and cls (Card Load Signal) signal.

I've seen more pigtailed card readers with Wiegand or Wiegand/magcard
outputs than magcard-only types.
We use iButtons for our controller boards. Since a lot of customers
wanted to keep existing RF cards (and readers), we developed a
Wiegand/iButton inteface so we could attach their existing readers to
our controller. We also have a magcard/iButton interface, but we've
never used that for anything other than actual magcard readers with TTL
outputs.

IMHO emulating magnetic cards in modern equipment is no better than
emulating Wiegand cards. It's just as unidirectional as Wiegand and
since magcard emulation usually adheres to the track2 format, you're
limited to something like 4 bits/character.

Viktor