Skip to content
  • 5 Votes
    5 Posts
    115 Views
    William MeliW
    @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.
  • 1 Votes
    31 Posts
    4k Views
    BearWithBeardB
    No, I didn't seriously consider it. I have a minimal programming circuit with ZIF-sockets to program DIPs, but those are easily removed from a circuit (assuming they are put into sockets and not soldered) in case they need to be reproprammed . Doing this with a TQFP seems like a one-way road, so I think a way for in-circuit programming should be provided regardless. I mean, I didn't have to reprogram my first revision nodes so far, but I might want to add signing support later on or upgrade to MySensors 2.4 or 3.0 for some reason, so it should definitely be possible, but I'm not too worried, if the programming process is a little cumbersome, if the SOICbite experiment doesn't work out.
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    911 Views
    No one has replied

10

Online

11.7k

Users

11.2k

Topics

113.1k

Posts