Which are the *best* NRF24L01+ modules?
-
@hek : Yes but I havn't notable difference with the one from itead ! And you know it is clone.
@NeverDie : The first 2 chip from Itead : 1443IA , not a dot but a square and too small to see if there is a hole inside the +. I think i don't investigate more with others sketch because with my dupont cable error rate can increase a lot when just touching a cable.
I just setup a Iboard with PA+LNA from electrodragon and all my sensebender with clone from electrodragon too, and everything is working fine, up 20 meters without any problems.
For security I will change my NRF with the ones from Itead and will keep my PA+LNA for milight gateway emulation. -
@hek : Yes but I havn't notable difference with the one from itead ! And you know it is clone.
@NeverDie : The first 2 chip from Itead : 1443IA , not a dot but a square and too small to see if there is a hole inside the +. I think i don't investigate more with others sketch because with my dupont cable error rate can increase a lot when just touching a cable.
I just setup a Iboard with PA+LNA from electrodragon and all my sensebender with clone from electrodragon too, and everything is working fine, up 20 meters without any problems.
For security I will change my NRF with the ones from Itead and will keep my PA+LNA for milight gateway emulation.@Fabien said:
@hek : Yes but I havn't notable difference with the one from itead ! And you know it is clone.
Move your test nodes further apart, and keep increasing the distance until you start losing a higher percentage of packets. Most likely, as the separation distance and/or RF impairments increase, at some point one module or the other is going to perform much better than the other--that is unless they're using the same type of NRF chip. At least to date that's been my experience with the very few datapoints I've collected so far.
-
@Fabien said:
@hek : Yes but I havn't notable difference with the one from itead ! And you know it is clone.
Move your test nodes further apart, and keep increasing the distance until you start losing a higher percentage of packets. Most likely, as the separation distance and/or RF impairments increase, at some point one module or the other is going to perform much better than the other--that is unless they're using the same type of NRF chip. At least to date that's been my experience with the very few datapoints I've collected so far.
@NeverDie If/when you get contact with nordic rep, it would be great if they can provide a sketch that does the testing. they probably have one...
-
@NeverDie If/when you get contact with nordic rep, it would be great if they can provide a sketch that does the testing. they probably have one...
@Moshe-Livne said:
@NeverDie If/when you get contact with nordic rep, it would be great if they can provide a sketch that does the testing. they probably have one...
What kind of testing?
-
@Moshe-Livne said:
@NeverDie If/when you get contact with nordic rep, it would be great if they can provide a sketch that does the testing. they probably have one...
What kind of testing?
- Authentic module testing (they might be reluctant to give something like this as it can probably be used to make the copies closer to the original - but worth the try)
- QA testing - packet drop, etc at different speeds
-
- Authentic module testing (they might be reluctant to give something like this as it can probably be used to make the copies closer to the original - but worth the try)
- QA testing - packet drop, etc at different speeds
@Moshe-Livne said:
- Authentic module testing (they might be reluctant to give something like this as it can probably be used to make the copies closer to the original - but worth the try)
- QA testing - packet drop, etc at different speeds
OK. I haven't yet been contacted by Nordic, and I don't know how that conversation will unfold. If there' is room for Q&A, then I'll be sure to ask them your questions as well as relay their answers back to you.
-
@Moshe-Livne said:
- Authentic module testing (they might be reluctant to give something like this as it can probably be used to make the copies closer to the original - but worth the try)
- QA testing - packet drop, etc at different speeds
OK. I haven't yet been contacted by Nordic, and I don't know how that conversation will unfold. If there' is room for Q&A, then I'll be sure to ask them your questions as well as relay their answers back to you.
-
NORDIC has on their Website the option to raise questions (MyPage) which are handled by their Tech Support Team. Normally they reply fast.
@GIEL said:
NORDIC has on their Website the option to raise questions (MyPage) which are handled by their Tech Support Team. Normally they reply fast.
Thanks! I tried it just now, so hopefully I will get a response soon.
Today I ordered some RFM69's. Unit cost is higher, but shipping cost is so much lower that the total cost is actually lower. If they test out better, then I may just go that route instead. In fact, if they test out better. then is there any reason to prefer the NRF24L01+?
-
I received the NRF24L01+'s that are on the red PCB's (above), and when I saw they were using the now notorious 1242AF chips, I had little hope. However, I tested them at 1mbps over the same challenge distance as the others, and so far they're doing very well: I transmitted over 200,000 packets, and there were only 0.03% lost packets. Average round trip time was 2.2ms.
As before, I'm using the RFToys to do the testing. The modules seem more finicky about their orientation than others that I've tested, and moving things just a little can make for much, much worse results.
I bought them from MDFly on ebay.
-
I received more blob modules, and they continue to impress. me. I sent 160,000 packets, and there's only .22% packets lost with an average roundtrip time of 2.2ms. Also, the module doesn't seem particularly sensitive as to its orientation. For that reason, I like them more than the red modules.
-
I did some current consumption testing on my modules and the results were quite surprising.
What should happen is that the current consumption rises during transmission, then stays high until transmission is finished.
Most modules however show very deep spikes in current consumption during transmission.
This behavior does not seem to be chip related, more module related (the green ones perform best in this respect).
It could be caused by the board layout and/or components used.
My HF knowledge is very limited, so maybe anyone of you have any ideas?http://yveaux.blogspot.nl
-
I did some current consumption testing on my modules and the results were quite surprising.
What should happen is that the current consumption rises during transmission, then stays high until transmission is finished.
Most modules however show very deep spikes in current consumption during transmission.
This behavior does not seem to be chip related, more module related (the green ones perform best in this respect).
It could be caused by the board layout and/or components used.
My HF knowledge is very limited, so maybe anyone of you have any ideas?@Yveaux said:
I did some current consumption testing on my modules and the results were quite surprising.
What should happen is that the current consumption rises during transmission, then stays high until transmission is finished.
Most modules however show very deep spikes in current consumption during transmission.
This behavior does not seem to be chip related, more module related (the green ones perform best in this respect).
It could be caused by the board layout and/or components used.
My HF knowledge is very limited, so maybe anyone of you have any ideas?I don't know HF, but....
How many bytes in your "transmission" versus how many bytes in your packet data payload? i.e. I wonder if each of your spikes simply correspond to different packets.
If that's not it, you should compare your measurements to what this guy measured:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvjpmsH2wKI
as it seems he did some careful measurements. -
I received and tested these 10 pin modules from Alice on ebay:
I hooked them up to Arduino Uno's using 10 pin adapters, also from Alice on Ebay.Results are interesting:
1.21% packet loss over 580,000 packets sent. Average round trip was 1.52ms. The lowest roundTrip time recorded was 0.872ms. These times are a lot lower than on any other modules I've tested.As with the red modules, results are sensitive to the antenna orientation .
-
I bought some modules from gc_supermarket which had "antenna symbol" on one side and pinout markings, marked "GOOD QUALITY". Reality was all thrown into a single antistat bag, no markings at all and crap transmissions. I confronted them (after ebay feedback timeout had passed), and they replied "We may send you another 10pcs" two weeks ago. Waiting to receive them.
I got a batch from ITEAD, with good packaging (individual box+antistat+foam) and the two I've tested so far are surely the best I've had. I can place sensors in my car on the driveway, signal getting into the house (passing through large parts of the engine, metal sheets, thick house walls, inner walls, ...).
-
I bought some modules from gc_supermarket which had "antenna symbol" on one side and pinout markings, marked "GOOD QUALITY". Reality was all thrown into a single antistat bag, no markings at all and crap transmissions. I confronted them (after ebay feedback timeout had passed), and they replied "We may send you another 10pcs" two weeks ago. Waiting to receive them.
I got a batch from ITEAD, with good packaging (individual box+antistat+foam) and the two I've tested so far are surely the best I've had. I can place sensors in my car on the driveway, signal getting into the house (passing through large parts of the engine, metal sheets, thick house walls, inner walls, ...).
@Stric said:
I bought some modules from gc_supermarket which had "antenna symbol" on one side and pinout markings, marked "GOOD QUALITY". Reality was all thrown into a single antistat bag, no markings at all and crap transmissions. I confronted them (after ebay feedback timeout had passed), and they replied "We may send you another 10pcs" two weeks ago. Waiting to receive them.
I got a batch from ITEAD, with good packaging (individual box+antistat+foam) and the two I've tested so far are surely the best I've had. I can place sensors in my car on the driveway, signal getting into the house (passing through large parts of the engine, metal sheets, thick house walls, inner walls, ...).
Can you provide a link to the modules you purchased from gc_supermarket? I just want to make sure I don't order precisely the same thing. I haven't tried their blob modules yet, and was literally just about to place an order.
Did you get your ITEAD modules from the factory or from one of their distributors? I wish I had your good fortune regarding the ITEAD modules. I believe you, but the ones I have from their distributor just don't test out well.
In fact, for me personally I've concluded that the blob modules work the best. Great range, low packet loss, and no finicky antenna orientation to consider. It turns out they're also among the least expensive modules, but that's just a nice bonus, not my primary consideration. The downside is that they're definitely not genuine NRF24L01+'s, and so I worry there might be some subtle code incompatibility that will someday bite me.
Anyhow, I'm tired of testing NRF24L01+'s from different vendors, and that's what I'm going with. I have some RFM69HW's on order. If they turn out to be a lot better, then I''ll probably standardize on them, and all this will be moot.
-
Wow, what a mess to sort out.
A given module may have
- genuine Nordic nRF24L01+
- genuine Nordic nRF24L01 (no ESB, no 250Kbps) - possibly marked as +
- quality clone of either, possibly even out-performing Nordic in some way
(some have higher RF power output) - clone with inverted OTA ack bit (ESB OK between same, incompatible with Nordic)
- clone with reduced sensitivity and/or increased power usage
- any of the above with missing passive components compared to Nordic reference design
Meanwhile:
- We cannot count on visual inspection (Nordic is fabless, some genuine chips may differ over time) or date codes.
- We do not know of register tests to distinguish differences (except L01 vs L01+)
- The inverted NoAck bit could be easily tested OTA using ESB mode to a known-good module.
The packet loss testing may have value, but it can be tricky. NeverDie says " The modules seem more finicky about their orientation than others that I've tested, and moving things just a little can make for much, much worse results."
That makes comparison difficult - is a given module better/worse than another, or was it it moved "just a little"? There's also the issue of intermittant interference in a crowded band.
The idea of having "screwed down" test positions as someone suggested is making a lot of sense. Maybe.
I'm wondering about the blobs that worked better than genuine/iTead nRF24L01+ (@1Mhz), is that because they are the higher powered clones? What's the power supply drain during transmit, compared to genuine?
The RFM69 family is a good alternative for most sensors, where lower data rates and (regulatory) lower duty cycles of 433/868/915 MHz bands are usually OK. If we want the higher data rates of GFSK at 2.4GHz, maybe the RFM73 is more consistent (fewer if any clones)?
-
Wow, what a mess to sort out.
A given module may have
- genuine Nordic nRF24L01+
- genuine Nordic nRF24L01 (no ESB, no 250Kbps) - possibly marked as +
- quality clone of either, possibly even out-performing Nordic in some way
(some have higher RF power output) - clone with inverted OTA ack bit (ESB OK between same, incompatible with Nordic)
- clone with reduced sensitivity and/or increased power usage
- any of the above with missing passive components compared to Nordic reference design
Meanwhile:
- We cannot count on visual inspection (Nordic is fabless, some genuine chips may differ over time) or date codes.
- We do not know of register tests to distinguish differences (except L01 vs L01+)
- The inverted NoAck bit could be easily tested OTA using ESB mode to a known-good module.
The packet loss testing may have value, but it can be tricky. NeverDie says " The modules seem more finicky about their orientation than others that I've tested, and moving things just a little can make for much, much worse results."
That makes comparison difficult - is a given module better/worse than another, or was it it moved "just a little"? There's also the issue of intermittant interference in a crowded band.
The idea of having "screwed down" test positions as someone suggested is making a lot of sense. Maybe.
I'm wondering about the blobs that worked better than genuine/iTead nRF24L01+ (@1Mhz), is that because they are the higher powered clones? What's the power supply drain during transmit, compared to genuine?
The RFM69 family is a good alternative for most sensors, where lower data rates and (regulatory) lower duty cycles of 433/868/915 MHz bands are usually OK. If we want the higher data rates of GFSK at 2.4GHz, maybe the RFM73 is more consistent (fewer if any clones)?
@Zeph said:
I'm wondering about the blobs that worked better than genuine/iTead nRF24L01+ (@1Mhz), is that because they are the higher powered clones? What's the power supply drain during transmit, compared to genuine?
I wonder about that as well. For instance, the Si24R1 supposedly has a max transmit power of 7dB, which is well above the maximum of 0dB for a true NRF24L01+.
Unfortunately, I'm not presently setup to measure that, so I don't know the answer. However, the range and performance is simply so much better that I'm guessing that might be the reason for it. And if that is the reason, then great: I can dial back the Tx power when it's not needed, but it's there when it is needed.
However, I doubt it's the whole story. I also tried some high power modules with PA + LNA that I got from IC Station. These are the same modules that got top rank by a guy who reviewed a whole bunch of modules:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtM832Z0ujE
Guess what? They don't perform as well as the blob modules! At least not in my indoor test setup environment. They cost a lot more too than the blob modules. It's difficult to fathom. -
The packet loss info could be useful.
The Round Trip Time (RTT) testing would seem to make sense only if using ESB with ack and auto-retry is enabled, and there are errors which require one or more retries. Without retry, the packet should either be received in a fixed amount of time, or not received; the nRF24L01+ doesn't "think it over" for a while before deciding on weak packets. So it's just a disguised packet loss test, but harder to interpret.
If we want to test link quality, I think packet loss without retries is a the measurement.
And there should often be different packet losses with short and long packets. Long packets are more likely to get corrupted and lost (failing the CRC test).
