RF Nano = Nano + NRF24, for just $3,50 on Aliexpress
-
Nano + NRF24 = RF Nano.
Details about the RF-Nano are here:
https://github.com/emakefun/emakefun-nano-plus/tree/master/RF-Nano -
The RF-Nano has this as a comment:
It works as expected now but I needed to reprogram the bootloader as I could not upload code in the state this nano was delivered. Used a working nano as ISP programmer. Not very convenient. If someone experiences the same issue, google for "reprogram arduino nano bootloader". You need a working arduino, the code to convert it into a ISP is in the arduino ide examples. Although it does not have the ICSP header, you can use d11, d12, d13 5v gnd and rst from the regular pins.
-
The RF-Nano has this as a comment:
It works as expected now but I needed to reprogram the bootloader as I could not upload code in the state this nano was delivered. Used a working nano as ISP programmer. Not very convenient. If someone experiences the same issue, google for "reprogram arduino nano bootloader". You need a working arduino, the code to convert it into a ISP is in the arduino ide examples. Although it does not have the ICSP header, you can use d11, d12, d13 5v gnd and rst from the regular pins.
@alowhum said in RF Nano = Nano + NRF24, for just $3,50 on Aliexpress:
The RF-Nano has this as a comment:
Good to know but really easy to do even for newbies.
There's also this comment:
Works good, I'm using with mysensors library #define MY_RF24_CE_PIN 10 #define MY_RF24_CS_PIN 9 -
Yes that MySensors comment was great to see.
I've ordered two and will try one as gateway and one as node, and then test if encryption works.
The seller's page does explicitly mention it has the latest bootloader.. strange.
-
Because it's easier for end-users to program a device by plugging in a USB cable. I'm working on a project that allows 'normal people' to create a privacy friendly smart home, and I've been working on a lot of tools and designs that make building it as easy as possible for absolute beginners.
For example, the Nano can be plugged into widely available boards that give the device way more pins to 'plug and play' connect sensors to. That way the users never have to solder.
I'll create a post about the project soon.
-
Because it's easier for end-users to program a device by plugging in a USB cable. I'm working on a project that allows 'normal people' to create a privacy friendly smart home, and I've been working on a lot of tools and designs that make building it as easy as possible for absolute beginners.
For example, the Nano can be plugged into widely available boards that give the device way more pins to 'plug and play' connect sensors to. That way the users never have to solder.
I'll create a post about the project soon.
@alowhum
For me top user friendly is ESPeasy.
Through web interface selecting which sensors on which pins connected and to which controller send data.
When user become more experienced, he can use rules to write some "programs".
No recompilation needed.
But not useful for battery powered nodes which needs receive some data. -
@kimot: thanks. When it comes to user friendliness you're probably right. If I didn't want to avoid using wifi I would probably go with that option.
However, I don't think IoT devices should use WiFi at all. In my opinion smart devices should avoid being directly connected to the same network as the user's personal devices at all cost. The security risk is too great.
If there was an easy way to combine Arduino and Zigbee, then that might be an option. Or when Bluetooth get enough useable IoT profiles it might be a good contender in the long run.
For now, MySensors solves this problem for me.
-
Is there any indication how the deep sleep performs on these?
-
@alowhum nano bootloaders have changed recently. They now use the same one as Uno, used to be an older version. I too struggled with this at first but now realise that, if you use a recent ARduino IDE (eg 1.8.8) and select 'nano' as the device, you can then further select 'processor' and have a choice of ATmega 168 and two ATmega368, one of which is 'old bootloader'. Earlier versions of the IDE will always be 'old bootloader'. So I don't know if these boards are to the new standard (and you're trying to use them as the old ones) or the old standard (and you haven't selected that in the IDE) but you'll find the same thing with some ordinary nanos too.
-
@Mark-Swift : if you give me some code to test I'll be happy to run it once it arrives.
@skywatch : yeah, that has me worried. We'll find out.
@artag: yes, I often have to use the old bootloader option for the Chinese Nano's. Hopefully that review was user error. We'll soon know.
-
Of course there is also the question as to if these are genuine Nordic NRF24L01+ chips or fake Chinese clones again...... ;)
@skywatch said in RF Nano = Nano + NRF24, for just $3,50 on Aliexpress:
Of course there is also the question as to if these are genuine Nordic NRF24L01+ chips or fake Chinese clones again...... ;)
I don't think there is any question on that ;)
-
Is there any indication how the deep sleep performs on these?
@mark-swift looking at the pictures, seems like they are using the AMS1117 regulator, which probably means some mods are in order to make it low power/battery-friendly. Still surprised that someone making a specialty unit like this would not use a torex or holtek ldo. The AMS1117 is just absolutely the worst Iq you can possibly get.
-
@mark-swift looking at the pictures, seems like they are using the AMS1117 regulator, which probably means some mods are in order to make it low power/battery-friendly. Still surprised that someone making a specialty unit like this would not use a torex or holtek ldo. The AMS1117 is just absolutely the worst Iq you can possibly get.
@jens-jensen nano has the USB to serial converter so I think there's no point to try to make it low power, it will never really be. So they went for the cheap option that's use on nanos, unos, etc
-
Just because i was interested if there is a custom board with RFM69 also, i asked a seller on ali - he sent me this link:
not a nano (but a 328p), not as cheap as the RF Nano (but cheaper as feather / moteino..), perhaps useful for the ones using rfm69 already..
-
Has anyone been able to get Ack working on this? I just got them recently and found this post but can't seem to find any datasheet or examples. Thanks
EDIT: just after posting this I figured it out, using the TMRh20 Library the ackpayload will work but enabling DynamicAck() will break it. Not sure why but for anyone using This example just comment out the
radio.enableDynamicAck();portion and it should work fine.Also
@artag said in RF Nano = Nano + NRF24, for just $3,50 on Aliexpress:
@alowhum nano bootloaders have changed recently. They now use the same one as Uno, used to be an older version. I too struggled with this at first but now realise that, if you use a recent ARduino IDE (eg 1.8.8) and select 'nano' as the device, you can then further select 'processor' and have a choice of ATmega 168 and two ATmega368, one of which is 'old bootloader'. Earlier versions of the IDE will always be 'old bootloader'. So I don't know if these boards are to the new standard (and you're trying to use them as the old ones) or the old standard (and you haven't selected that in the IDE) but you'll find the same thing with some ordinary nanos too.
I got this to work using the new bootloader, so I'm assuming this is the one to use.
-
I also just received mine.
It's a nice looking little board. It follows the nano form factor (it fits in expansion boards).
I'm glad to say code uploads just fine, using the latest Arduino bootloader. Very nice.
However, an initial quick test of MySensors code failed, so now I'm trying to find out if I should set some pins differently.
16 MCO:BGN:INIT NODE,CP=RNNNA---,REL=255,VER=2.3.1 26 TSM:INIT 27 TSF:WUR:MS=0 33 !TSM:INIT:TSP FAIL 35 TSM:FAIL:CNT=1 37 TSM:FAIL:DIS 38 TSF:TDI:TSL``` -
It works.
#define MY_RF24_CE_PIN 10 #define MY_RF24_CS_PIN 9But I'm getting FPAR issues:
16 MCO:BGN:INIT REPEATER,CP=RNNRA---,REL=255,VER=2.3.1 26 MCO:BGN:BFR 28 TSM:INIT 29 TSF:WUR:MS=0 35 TSM:INIT:TSP OK 37 TSM:FPAR 39 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 2048 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY 2050 TSM:FPAR 2052 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 4060 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY 4062 TSM:FPAR 4064 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 6072 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY 6074 TSM:FPAR 6076 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 8084 !TSM:FPAR:FAILSetting a fixed ID worked. It now communicates. It does only seem to go one way for now.
#define MY_NODE_ID 99 #define MY_PARENT_NODE_ID 0 #define MY_PARENT_NODE_IS_STATIC -
It works.
#define MY_RF24_CE_PIN 10 #define MY_RF24_CS_PIN 9But I'm getting FPAR issues:
16 MCO:BGN:INIT REPEATER,CP=RNNRA---,REL=255,VER=2.3.1 26 MCO:BGN:BFR 28 TSM:INIT 29 TSF:WUR:MS=0 35 TSM:INIT:TSP OK 37 TSM:FPAR 39 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 2048 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY 2050 TSM:FPAR 2052 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 4060 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY 4062 TSM:FPAR 4064 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 6072 !TSM:FPAR:NO REPLY 6074 TSM:FPAR 6076 TSF:MSG:SEND,255-255-255-255,s=255,c=3,t=7,pt=0,l=0,sg=0,ft=0,st=OK: 8084 !TSM:FPAR:FAILSetting a fixed ID worked. It now communicates. It does only seem to go one way for now.
#define MY_NODE_ID 99 #define MY_PARENT_NODE_ID 0 #define MY_PARENT_NODE_IS_STATIC
