@NeverDie Thx for appreciating the work done. There will also be an open source part in the future. When and how extensive the open source part will be, remains to be seen. The release of certain information (block diagram, ..., in this post) is related to those open source parts.
There are some OBD solutions, however most of them (in my experience) give back low frequency data put by the car manufacturer on the OBD-bus (CAN, ...). Therefore transients evolving directly from the battery could only be recorded if the manufacturer sends those data accordingly on the bus. Due to the small bandwidth(also because of other car data that have to be sent, ...), such battery data are sent more often once per second or less. Fast battery events (i.e. cranking events, ...) are therefore imperceptible. Unless the manufacturer processes the fast events and then sends them (once per second or less), which is very unlikely if the manufacturer does not market this feature itself. Third parties devices for high frequency sensing costs several hundreds dollars.
In my experience, important battery states (especially the fast ones) are recorded by measuring and processing corresponding data directly on the battery.
I agree with you about the limits related to the communication over Bluetooth. But i think Bluetooth 5.0 will improve a lot. However, WiFi will always remain an important option due to the high data throughput. The combination of both (BLE & WiFi), especially with regard to energy consumption, will gain in importance.
Not yet !
In fact, the interrupt must be short enough and fast enough to be sure to not miss the RFM69 interrupts.
The code for 8 dimmers will not be really more complicated : in fact, each time we got a zero cross, we must set a timer to zero, and then wait the good amount of milliseconds to turn on the needed outputs.
So, yes, we'll have an interrupts each 10ms (each time the wave crosses the zero, to be precise !), but I think all we have to do in the interrupt handler is set the timer to zero (or to micros() ...) and then on the main loop, wait the good amount of time for each output before setting them ON.
Seems simple on paper, perhaps it will not work on the chip....
In facts, my main concern is : will the RFM interrupt be short enough to not disturb the zero crossing interrupt ?
Although, not yet tested the RFM : do we NEED the interrupt pin ? Can't we poll frequently the RFM?
@DavidZH - I really hate our electrical system here, but that is coming from an electronics guy, not a electrician. I like the idea of low voltage in the switches, however its AC. I would prefer to see DC, but the voltage drops might be something that they're attempting to avoid by sending AC instead. Yes, i agree about those damn rings and we also don't have the room here in the UK like you mentioned about the NL.
Does anybody have a link to a fixed version of this board? It's exactly what I am looking for form-wise, but I'd be nice if VCC was wired to 3.3v out of the box. Thanks!!
