Quickie ZigBee Application Kit from Rabbit!

Hello Don,


> "Any time you see a product that is CARBIDE TIPPED you know it has a
> hefty price tag on it".  (and, those products that are NOT
> "carbide tipped" don't last long cutting through masonry!  ;> )
> 

Tell me about it. I managed to gum up one of these because the wood I 
bought wasn't as well dried as advertised. Stood there in a plume of 
blue smoke and almost cussed. Spent at least 15 minutes to expose the 
carbide tips again because the blade had cost a bundle.

>>
>> My old wireless thermometer has a battery life of over two years and 
>> it doesn't use Zigbee ;-)
> 
> Yeah, and I've never replaced the battery in my wireless garage
> door opener in the 6 years since the purchase of the garage door...
> Amazing how devices that don't transmit any data (i.e. *do* any
> electrical "work") seem to last SO LONG on a single battery!  ;-)
> 

Au contraire. This thermometer relays a reading every 30 seconds and 
runs on a couple of AAA alkalines for two years, even when it's 25F. The 
receiver is constantly polling for outdoor stations. That one also runs 
on batteries which don't need to be changed over a two year time frame.

Then there is the atomic clock which operated five (!) years on the 
first set of two AA batteries.


>>> No, it's not sexy, and it's not high speed, and it's not faster than 
>>> a speeding bullet.
>>> But yeah, it's growing faster than Bluetooth ever did.
>>
>>
>> Any hard data to back up that claim? I mean, not prognostic but proven 
>> sales numbers?
> 
> 
> Perhaps in terms of *nodes*, but not in terms of "deployments".
> E.g., you may opt to use zigbee for a security system, intrusion
> detection, HVAC control, etc. -- in which case, you might
> easily have 1000 nodes in a single site (e.g., a hotel).
> 
> But, the hundreds of *guests* staying in that hotel at any
> given instant probably ALL own a BT-enabled phone -- or, soon
> *will*!
> 
> Amusing thought:  book a room in said hotel and set up a zigbee
> master waking up all the nodes within "earshot" every second or
> so.  And chuckle to think of the maintenance staff scratching
> their heads wondering why all of the zigbee devices in "the east
> wing" had batteries die twice as fast as those in the other
> parts of the hotel  :>


I am afraid there will be an unpleasant awakening when users realize 
that while the node hopping feature increases network reliablity it 
might slurp batteries like popcorn.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Don wrote:
> *Exactly*.  I looked seriously at ZigBee for a few product designs
> and backed away from it, quickly.  For any *sustained* data rates,
> it holds no advantages over BT (design an intercom system using
> Zigbee and look at the power consumption  :> ).  And, it doesn't
> "play well with others" (zigbee-enabled printer?  zigbee-enabled
> cell phone??  zigbee-enabled keyboard?)

That is not the design space for ZigBee. It is low data rate, low battery
life. It is one, if not two, orders of magnitude lower power usage, with
the restriction that it is orders of magnitude lower data rate.


> Have you analyzed "price per transmitted data bit"?  Or, "price
> per WHr?

For me, price per trasmitted bit for both the radio and the batteries to
drive it are important.

Not that ZigBee is the only thing in this space. ANT is also here, and Nokie
just announced a new competitor.

> Yeah, and I've never replaced the battery in my wireless garage
> door opener in the 6 years since the purchase of the garage door...
> Amazing how devices that don't transmit any data (i.e. *do* any
> electrical "work") seem to last SO LONG on a single battery!  ;-)

Duh, but ZigBee is designed for usage patterns far higher than a garage door
opener.

That said,
So far, ZigBee seems to have no legs


> Perhaps in terms of *nodes*, but not in terms of "deployments".
> E.g., you may opt to use zigbee for a security system, intrusion
> detection, HVAC control, etc. -- in which case, you might
> easily have 1000 nodes in a single site (e.g., a hotel).

I don't see those as good matches, for HVAC, you run wires or pneumatic
controls. The ZigBee Allaince folks brag about using ZigBee to replace X10.
no legs there either.

 
> But, the hundreds of *guests* staying in that hotel at any
> given instant probably ALL own a BT-enabled phone -- or, soon
> *will*!

BT works for phones, people are used to recharging them.
Today's bluetooth is far too power hungry for sensor networks, altho people
are trying.

A future Bluetooth could work, but that is futures.

 
> Amusing thought:  book a room in said hotel and set up a zigbee
> master waking up all the nodes within "earshot" every second or
> so.  And chuckle to think of the maintenance staff scratching
> their heads wondering why all of the zigbee devices in "the east
> wing" had batteries die twice as fast as those in the other
> parts of the hotel  :>

That should not be a problem with a properly specified network. But software
has been known to have bugs.

-- 
Pat

Don wrote:
at least it's cheap, anytime you see a product that is bluetooth
> >>> compatible you know it has a hefty pricetag on it.
>
> As with everything, "that depends".
>
> Have you analyzed "price per transmitted data bit"?  Or, "price
> per WHr?
>
> "Any time you see a product that is CARBIDE TIPPED you know it has a
> hefty price tag on it".  (and, those products that are NOT
> "carbide tipped" don't last long cutting through masonry!  ;> )
>
> Horses for coarses.

But I don't want and don't need a carbide tipped cutting tool, that was
my point, Zigbee is cheap, small (4x4mm), and some come integrated with
a 8051 processor, at continuous modes it has a decent rates of 250 Kbps

Joerg wrote:
> I am afraid there will be an unpleasant awakening when users realize
> that while the node hopping feature increases network reliablity it
> might slurp batteries like popcorn.

Might? Using the ZigBee mesh increases battery usage a ton. 

-- 
Pat

"Bill Giovino" <contact1@nospam-microcontroller.com> wrote in message 
news:faKdncCbcs_gJLbYnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
> "steve" wrote...
>>
>> larwe wrote:
>> > Bill Giovino wrote:
>> >
>> > > This is a great starter kit, and by this time next year ZigBee will 
>> > > be a needed
> skill to
>> > > list on your resume.
>> >
>> > Hardly. Zigbee is one of those license portfolios^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hvaluable
>> > technological innovations you approach, see if you can use any parts,
>> > then back away again.
>> >
>> at least it's cheap, anytime you see a product that is bluetooth
>> compatible you know it has a hefty pricetag on it.
>
> Bingo! The importance of ZigBee is also that it is not only (usually) 
> inexpensive, but
> most importantly it is very low power. And the adoption rate I'm seeing in 
> the market is
> tremendous because it is serving an unaddressed market.
>
> In the field of wireless sensors alone, ZigBee is becoming the dominant 
> wireless
> technologies because with just a small sensor hooked up to a ZigBee node 
> with a common
> battery, you can have a battery life of over a year.
>
> No, it's not sexy, and it's not high speed, and it's not faster than a 
> speeding bullet.
> But yeah, it's growing faster than Bluetooth ever did.
>
> Regards,
>
> Bill Giovino

Z-Wave seems to be a better solution,
though most of the big boys are jumping
on the Zigbee bandwagon.

Pat Farrell wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> *Exactly*.  I looked seriously at ZigBee for a few product designs
>> and backed away from it, quickly.  For any *sustained* data rates,
>> it holds no advantages over BT (design an intercom system using
>> Zigbee and look at the power consumption  :> ).  And, it doesn't
>> "play well with others" (zigbee-enabled printer?  zigbee-enabled
>> cell phone??  zigbee-enabled keyboard?)
> 
> That is not the design space for ZigBee. It is low data rate, low battery
> life. It is one, if not two, orders of magnitude lower power usage, with
> the restriction that it is orders of magnitude lower data rate.

That was my point -- "faulting" BT because it is "power hungry"
is equivalent to faulting Zigbee for being *slow*, etc.

>> Have you analyzed "price per transmitted data bit"?  Or, "price
>> per WHr?
> 
> For me, price per trasmitted bit for both the radio and the batteries to
> drive it are important.

As they are with me.  But, I have *lots* of bits to transmit
and Zigbee falls off the curve quickly.

> Not that ZigBee is the only thing in this space. ANT is also here, and Nokie
> just announced a new competitor.
> 
>> Yeah, and I've never replaced the battery in my wireless garage
>> door opener in the 6 years since the purchase of the garage door...
>> Amazing how devices that don't transmit any data (i.e. *do* any
>> electrical "work") seem to last SO LONG on a single battery!  ;-)
> 
> Duh, but ZigBee is designed for usage patterns far higher than a garage door
> opener.

Sure.  The example illustrates that battery life is related
to "work done" (data transmitted)

> That said,
> So far, ZigBee seems to have no legs
> 
> 
>> Perhaps in terms of *nodes*, but not in terms of "deployments".
>> E.g., you may opt to use zigbee for a security system, intrusion
>> detection, HVAC control, etc. -- in which case, you might
>> easily have 1000 nodes in a single site (e.g., a hotel).
> 
> I don't see those as good matches, for HVAC, you run wires or pneumatic
> controls. The ZigBee Allaince folks brag about using ZigBee to replace X10.
> no legs there either.

For *new* HVAC installations, yes.  But, the cost of REwiring
a school, hotel, hospital, residential care facility, etc.
pays for a wireless solution by a couple of orders of
magnitude.  In many of these environments, self-contained
heating/cooling units are sprinkled liberally around the
facility -- needing only *power* (i.e. often the thermostat
is part of the unit itself -- to eliminate control wiring).

Adding controls to allow effective load management, energy
control, etc. for the price of a wireless node w/ microcontroller
is a *huge* win over asking a licensed electrician to string
wires (to where??).

I suppose it's only a matter of time before some of these
sites are "hacked"

steve wrote:
> Don wrote:
> at least it's cheap, anytime you see a product that is bluetooth
>>>>> compatible you know it has a hefty pricetag on it.
>> As with everything, "that depends".
>>
>> Have you analyzed "price per transmitted data bit"?  Or, "price
>> per WHr?
>>
>> "Any time you see a product that is CARBIDE TIPPED you know it has a
>> hefty price tag on it".  (and, those products that are NOT
>> "carbide tipped" don't last long cutting through masonry!  ;> )
>>
>> Horses for coarses.
> 
> But I don't want and don't need a carbide tipped cutting tool, that was
> my point,

Hence the "horses for coarses" comment.  Zigbee (BT, etc.) is
not a panacea.  It fits *a* market niche.  In *my* case, BT
fits my niche while Zigbee couldn't approach it on power,
data rate, etc.

"Horses for coarses"

> Zigbee is cheap, small (4x4mm), and some come integrated with
> a 8051 processor, at continuous modes it has a decent rates of 250 Kbps

Ideal for a tiny, "simple" sensor or actuator.  Where the "brains"
of the application can reside elsewhere.  (assuming that sensor
or actuator does not need any clever recovery algorithms to handle
loss of communication, etc. -- a problem not unique to zigbee
but, rather, inherent in wireless designs and often not well
handled)

Don wrote:

> E.g., you may opt to use zigbee for a security system, intrusion
> detection, HVAC control, etc. -- in which case, you might
> easily have 1000 nodes in a single site (e.g., a hotel).

Actually, this is precisely where you WON'T use ZigBee. The profits in
wireless security are in the sensors. There is a strong disincentive
for security system vendors to commoditize those sensors, and the most
they would do with zigbee is pick and choose some particular design
aspects, then add a lot of product differentiation and proprietary
stuff. Anyway, wireless security and fire safety have a lot of special
regulatory requirements and specific customer expectations, and ZigBee
doesn't meet these elegantly.

Zigbee's "rational" target market is home automation. Look at the
staggering penetration of technologies like X10  (yes I'm being very
sarcastic) and you can see just what untold wealth is waiting there.

I repeat my retort to Bill that saying "next year you'll need it on
your resume" is mere breathless marketing puffery. Next
week/month/whatever he'll have a new group of advertisers pimping
something else and ZigBee will be a distant memory.

Hello Pat,

> 
>>I am afraid there will be an unpleasant awakening when users realize
>>that while the node hopping feature increases network reliablity it
>>might slurp batteries like popcorn.
> 
> Might? Using the ZigBee mesh increases battery usage a ton. 
> 

So, is this whole Zigbee thing sponsored by Duracell?

8-D

-- 
SCNR, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com

Hello Lewin,

> 
> Zigbee's "rational" target market is home automation. Look at the
> staggering penetration of technologies like X10  (yes I'm being very
> sarcastic) and you can see just what untold wealth is waiting there.
> 

IMHO X10 failed to penetrate because it is not reliable. We have X10 and 
I would never use it for anything critical. Insteon is too young to say 
much about it. Whether Zigbee lives up to the task remains to be seen. 
The issues I see coming are battery life and lacking RF range in some 
situations. Just trying to get any decent signal into our garage or the 
room next to it can be (and has been) frustrating. Even the cell phone 
often hangs up and we can literally see the tower.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com