Micro controllers with UHF transceivers?

larwe wrote:
> On Oct 24, 9:13 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
> wrote:
> 
>>> How about CC1110F32 from TI.
>> Thanks, Don! How could I have missed that? I was looking at lots of
>> CC11xx datasheets today. Five bucks is a bit highish but would work in
> 
> You should consider this part limited lifespan IMHO precisely because
> of the 51 core. Remember Chipcon is now owned by TI. I would say if
> your design horizon exceeds 3~4 years it would be better not to pick
> this part.
> 

You think Chipcon might dry up after the aquisition? That wouldn't be 
good. TI had touted in a MSP seminar more than a year ago that there 
would be MSP430 with RF on board. But none so far. What's wrong with a 
51 core? Tons of products still use it, including almost anything 
installed in our house.


> What part of the spectrum are you trying to cover; 433MHz? 860-ish?
> Quite a few solutions aimed at markets like RKE. For example Atmel
> covers certain frequencies from 315 to 915MHz ASK/FSK selectable.
> 

Has to be worldwide, longer range (several hundred feet out of a 
building), preferably without re-config. That rules out anything but the 
433MHz band. Here, the FCC limits burst mode tricks to 20dB net power 
advantage AFAIK.

I checked Atmel but among the available chip found only transmitters on 
there.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> hath wroth:
> 
>> 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?
> 
> Atmel:
> <http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/devices.asp?family_id=651>
> 

The ATA chips don't contain a micro controller ;-)

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:AT2Ui.1136$%13.464@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> larwe wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 9:13 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> How about CC1110F32 from TI.
>>> Thanks, Don! How could I have missed that? I was looking at lots of
>>> CC11xx datasheets today. Five bucks is a bit highish but would work in

Look up the thread "Chipcon/8051 sanity check" from March this year.

-- 
Regards,
Richard.

+ http://www.FreeRTOS.org
13 official architecture ports, 1000 downloads per week.

+ http://www.SafeRTOS.com
Certified by T&#4294967295;V as meeting the requirements for safety related systems.

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:Q4STi.351$%Y6.219@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
> I guess the programmers will throw tomatoes when I suggest that. It's a 8051 
> core (I love the 8051...)

Mmm... have you ever tried an AVR or an MSP430?

Of course, if they're programming in C it's a relatively moot point -- the 
move to using higher-level languages has, IMHO, keep a lot of 
less-than-stellar CPU architectures viable.  (Not points for lumping x86 into 
that list :-) ).

---Joel

"Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message 
news:AT2Ui.1136$%13.464@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
> I checked Atmel but among the available chip found only transmitters on 
> there.

I don't suppose you came across any receive-only chips (rx + microcontroller) 
in your search, did you?

Presumably there's nothing wrong with using one of those ChipCom ICs in 
receive-only mode, although the currents are a little higher (18.9mA) than I'd 
like and I'm thinking that perhaps an IC optimized as receive-only could be 
less.

Thanks,
---Joel

FreeRTOS.org wrote:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:AT2Ui.1136$%13.464@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> larwe wrote:
>>> On Oct 24, 9:13 pm, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> How about CC1110F32 from TI.
>>>> Thanks, Don! How could I have missed that? I was looking at lots of
>>>> CC11xx datasheets today. Five bucks is a bit highish but would work in
> 
> Look up the thread "Chipcon/8051 sanity check" from March this year.
> 

Hmm, did they really say "not for volume production"? That thread was 
half a year ago and they still offer the chips. Also, I wonder what 
alternatives there really are if 2.45GHz ain't cutting it because of 
lack of range.

Maybe I should resort to rolling my own, just like I usually do in the 
analog world.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joel Koltner wrote:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:AT2Ui.1136$%13.464@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>> I checked Atmel but among the available chip found only transmitters on 
>> there.
> 
> I don't suppose you came across any receive-only chips (rx + microcontroller) 
> in your search, did you?
> 

Actually yes but I tossed them all because long term they aren't useful 
for me. There has to be feedback about machine status.


> Presumably there's nothing wrong with using one of those ChipCom ICs in 
> receive-only mode, although the currents are a little higher (18.9mA) than I'd 
> like and I'm thinking that perhaps an IC optimized as receive-only could be 
> less.
> 

The only disconcerting thing is that Digikey doesn't seem to carry them. 
Usually a red flag for me, so Lewin might have a point here. But what 
alternatives are there really? Maybe we should stay with the two-chip 
strategy for a while until the dust has settled.

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joel Koltner wrote:
> "Joerg" <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> wrote in message 
> news:Q4STi.351$%Y6.219@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> I guess the programmers will throw tomatoes when I suggest that. It's a 8051 
>> core (I love the 8051...)
> 
> Mmm... have you ever tried an AVR or an MSP430?
> 

Yes, the MSP430 but they are still too expensive.


> Of course, if they're programming in C it's a relatively moot point -- the 
> move to using higher-level languages has, IMHO, keep a lot of 
> less-than-stellar CPU architectures viable.  (Not points for lumping x86 into 
> that list :-) ).
>

For most of my clients this is the order of priority:

1. Cost
2. 2nd Source
3. 2nd Source
4. 2nd Source

-- 
Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> hath wroth:

>Jeff Liebermann wrote:
>> Joerg <notthisjoergsch@removethispacbell.net> hath wroth:
>> 
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Atmel:
>> <http://www.atmel.com/dyn/products/devices.asp?family_id=651>

>The ATA chips don't contain a micro controller ;-)

Oops.  Only the transmitter is integrated with a MARC4 controller on
the ATAR862-8.  The receiver is stand alone.   Sorry.

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

On Oct 25, 11:46 am, Joerg <notthisjoerg...@removethispacbell.net>
wrote:

> You think Chipcon might dry up after the aquisition? That wouldn't be

I think that the MSP430 with on-chip RF is going to replace the 51
parts.

> would be MSP430 with RF on board. But none so far. What's wrong with a
> 51 core? Tons of products still use it, including almost anything

Sure, but the target markets for much of Chipcon's stuff would benefit
from an MSP430 core.

> 433MHz band. Here, the FCC limits burst mode tricks to 20dB net power
> advantage AFAIK.

Depends on the application. In my day job I work a little lower down
in the band, ASK, low duty cycle.

> I checked Atmel but among the available chip found only transmitters on

Eh? Did you find your way to this page: <http://www.atmel.com/dyn/
products/devices.asp?family_id=651>