@fets So far, I have only built the 5x5 board (but the others should be schematically identical). The only issue I have found so far is that I cannot get the ISP port to work. But I have checked and I have an identical setup on the 1.0 board and that worked, so I suspect the programmer is too weak to drive the net on this one. So it is not a board-issue per se, and might only be an issue on the 5x5 board as routing is the most complex on that one due to the size.
@chbla said in Multiple uses battery RFM69 node:
Can anyone suggest a source for the parts? Are there any sources that you can upload the files by any chance?
If you mean can you upload a BOM to a company and then it generates a basket of the items, then i know that farnell and maybe digikey do this. But i only use this feature that is built into EAGLE pcb designer, so i'm not sure if they support it directly on their websites, might be worth a look.
http://www.farnell.com/
http://www.digikey.co.uk
Thanks again, learned a lot... I decide to give a try there, I also had a look on some components' datasheet and seems to be what I need... Let's see, if end up getting the boards I'll publish a review here later.
When you read the data sheet correctly you can see, that the distance between the pins is different for a AA and AAA battery holder. That`s why I was asking if somebody can recommend a holder that fits.
@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.
