nRF5 action!
-
@NeverDie I would not go less then 3 address bytes or random noise may look like valid addresses. The more address Bytes the less chance of that happening.
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
@NeverDie I would not go less then 3 address bytes or random noise may look like valid addresses. The more address Bytes the less chance of that happening.
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
@NeverDie I would not go less then 3 address bytes or random noise may look like valid addresses. The more address Bytes the less chance of that happening.
According to the datasheet, it appears to force a minimum of 3 address bytes anyway: 2 base address bytes plus 1 prefix address byte. With no prefix byte, it would appear that's as low as the hardware will allow.
-
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
@NeverDie I would not go less then 3 address bytes or random noise may look like valid addresses. The more address Bytes the less chance of that happening.
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
@NeverDie I would not go less then 3 address bytes or random noise may look like valid addresses. The more address Bytes the less chance of that happening.
According to the datasheet, it appears to force a minimum of 3 address bytes anyway: 2 base address bytes plus 1 prefix address byte. With no prefix byte, it would appear that's as low as the hardware will allow.
-
I can't make sense of the Packet configuration register 1 (PCNF1). Upon powering up, its value reads 0x262164, which doesn't really make any sense. I then try changing it to 0x22164. When i re-read it though, its value is then 0x139620, which is completely different. And this is 100% repeatable.I can't make sense of this. What's going on with PCNF1? Why doesn't it keep the value that I set it to? why does it rapidly change over to the other number, and why that number in particular? I've tried setting it to other numbers also, but each time it doesn't stick and instead produces a puzzling number in its place. I've even confirmed that the radio is in a DISABLED state prior to making the change, but that doesn't seem to help either.[Edit: mystery solved. I was accidently printing it as decimal instead of HEX. So, it works perfectly after all. :)].
. -
Setting aside that mystery for the moment, the remote control presently is working very well, and the current draw during listen mode is now down to this:
which is certainly less than previously. Scale: 1mv=1ma.It turns out that there's a minimum of 1 preamble byte. So, all told, there is a minimum of 4 bytes total that have to be transmitted: 1 preamble, 2 base address, 1 address prefix.
Eyeballing it, it does look as though the actual window of active listening is already around 30us, and unfortunately the granularity of the RTC prevents me from making it smaller than that. So, I suspect that, regarding power draw, this is already as good as it's possible to get. :)
-
Setting aside that mystery for the moment, the remote control presently is working very well, and the current draw during listen mode is now down to this:
which is certainly less than previously. Scale: 1mv=1ma.It turns out that there's a minimum of 1 preamble byte. So, all told, there is a minimum of 4 bytes total that have to be transmitted: 1 preamble, 2 base address, 1 address prefix.
Eyeballing it, it does look as though the actual window of active listening is already around 30us, and unfortunately the granularity of the RTC prevents me from making it smaller than that. So, I suspect that, regarding power draw, this is already as good as it's possible to get. :)
@NeverDie I would use 3 ADDRESS bytes, for the reason I gave before. The receiver could see noise as a valid packet and try to process it. and the fact you have no data packet and no CRC could cause you issues in a noisy 2.4Ghz environment. . Also be aware that if the radio is not already in receive or transmit mode the PLL takes about 130us to come up and settle. Crystal start and settle time will also depend on the CL value of the Crystal and not all manufactures use the same value. Conversely you can only transmit packets for 4ms before you need to bring down the transmitter and bring it back up again for the PLL to start and settle.
-
@NeverDie I would use 3 ADDRESS bytes, for the reason I gave before. The receiver could see noise as a valid packet and try to process it. and the fact you have no data packet and no CRC could cause you issues in a noisy 2.4Ghz environment. . Also be aware that if the radio is not already in receive or transmit mode the PLL takes about 130us to come up and settle. Crystal start and settle time will also depend on the CL value of the Crystal and not all manufactures use the same value. Conversely you can only transmit packets for 4ms before you need to bring down the transmitter and bring it back up again for the PLL to start and settle.
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
Conversely you can only transmit packets for 4ms before you need to bring down the transmitter and bring it back up again for the PLL to start and settle.
Is that true for the nRF52832 as well? I had read it was true of the nRF24L01+, which is what led me to set it aside and go full bore on the nRF52832 instead.
-
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
Conversely you can only transmit packets for 4ms before you need to bring down the transmitter and bring it back up again for the PLL to start and settle.
Is that true for the nRF52832 as well? I had read it was true of the nRF24L01+, which is what led me to set it aside and go full bore on the nRF52832 instead.
-
@NeverDie said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
Yes, but it made no difference. NCA78's post explains why. So, I guess that connector, which looks so promising, amounts to just marketing bait? i.e. in terms of practicality, it's little more than a decoration?
I did the change on a PA LNA nrf24 from CDEByte, it was a real pain especially when the module was already soldered and surrounded by connectors. In the end I lost the cap somewhere on my desk and so I replaced it with a 0603 of the same capacity. Not looking great but much easier and it works better with the ipx antenna than with PCB.
@Nca78 said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
so I replaced it with a 0603 of the same capacity.
Uh, what exactly is that capacitor value? I just had the same thing happen to me!
-
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
Conversely you can only transmit packets for 4ms before you need to bring down the transmitter and bring it back up again for the PLL to start and settle.
Is that true for the nRF52832 as well? I had read it was true of the nRF24L01+, which is what led me to set it aside and go full bore on the nRF52832 instead.
-
I received this from Amazon today and hooked an Ebyte nRF52832 (with the switched capacitor) into it:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01B94U438/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1It actually does extend range. Not as well as I had hoped, but better than this high gain antenna, which I also received today and which, in comparison, I would call little better than a placebo:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073SWWMRG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Soooo... With the bad news just received about the nRF51 (above) being limited to 4ms of Tx time at a time.... I guess it's time for this as Plan B on an nRF52832 gateway. Unless someone has a better idea. What I do like about it, given that it is a bolt-on, is that it senses when the nRF52832 begins to transmit, and only switches on the PA then. The rest of the time its in receive mode.
-
@NeverDie I would use 3 ADDRESS bytes, for the reason I gave before. The receiver could see noise as a valid packet and try to process it. and the fact you have no data packet and no CRC could cause you issues in a noisy 2.4Ghz environment. . Also be aware that if the radio is not already in receive or transmit mode the PLL takes about 130us to come up and settle. Crystal start and settle time will also depend on the CL value of the Crystal and not all manufactures use the same value. Conversely you can only transmit packets for 4ms before you need to bring down the transmitter and bring it back up again for the PLL to start and settle.
@Jokgi said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
Also be aware that if the radio is not already in receive or transmit mode the PLL takes about 130us to come up and settle.
Actually, maybe that's not so bad after all. So after Txing an nRF51 for up to 4ms, I can DISABLE it (which takes how long?), and then be back up for TXing for another 4ms after about 130us? If so, that's not as bad as I had feared.
-
@Nca78 said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
so I replaced it with a 0603 of the same capacity.
Uh, what exactly is that capacitor value? I just had the same thing happen to me!
@NeverDie said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
@Nca78 said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
so I replaced it with a 0603 of the same capacity.
Uh, what exactly is that capacitor value? I just had the same thing happen to me!
Sorry I did that on a NRF24 modules.
I tried to measure on my nrf52832 module but didn't manage, I've got out of range measurement in capacitor measurement mode, and in "scan" mode it's detecting it as a resistor with 0.9 Ohms value... -
The passive part for switching between antennas is a 0ohm resistor I think. Depends on the circuit, but it makes sense (I designed a few boards with pcb ant + uFl, and I do the same).
I bought this antenna a while ago, for testing/tuning purposes..
(in case, I have not yet compared range vs others antenna ;) )
Looks the same as @NeverDie ordered, except this one is wideband 700 to 2600Mhz which is pretty cool :)https://www.passion-radio.com/gb/wide-band/umts-magnetic-314.html
-
The passive part for switching between antennas is a 0ohm resistor I think. Depends on the circuit, but it makes sense (I designed a few boards with pcb ant + uFl, and I do the same).
I bought this antenna a while ago, for testing/tuning purposes..
(in case, I have not yet compared range vs others antenna ;) )
Looks the same as @NeverDie ordered, except this one is wideband 700 to 2600Mhz which is pretty cool :)https://www.passion-radio.com/gb/wide-band/umts-magnetic-314.html
-
@Uhrheber
i'm using it in a simple way, with rtl-sdr, and for its versatility.
they say 9dB, but I don't really mind about that. It would not change anything to connect it for increasing range of 4db nrf52.
I'm just interested in the overall quality, as it's mostly for receiving with rtl, and doing checks etc.
I'm also planning to test other types of antenna, and build one for discovery.It's not for my HA network, of course it would be too bulky ;)
-
I received this from Amazon today and hooked an Ebyte nRF52832 (with the switched capacitor) into it:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01B94U438/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1It actually does extend range. Not as well as I had hoped, but better than this high gain antenna, which I also received today and which, in comparison, I would call little better than a placebo:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073SWWMRG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Soooo... With the bad news just received about the nRF51 (above) being limited to 4ms of Tx time at a time.... I guess it's time for this as Plan B on an nRF52832 gateway. Unless someone has a better idea. What I do like about it, given that it is a bolt-on, is that it senses when the nRF52832 begins to transmit, and only switches on the PA then. The rest of the time its in receive mode.
@NeverDie said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
It actually does extend range. Not as well as I had hoped, but better than this high gain antenna, which I also received today and which, in comparison, I would call little better than a placebo:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073SWWMRG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Those 2.4GHz pseudo stocked dipole antennas have always been crap.
Even if they had 9dBi, they'd lose most of it because of the thin lossy cables.
Never combine a high gain antenna with a long cheap cable, it's a waste of money.Most better patch antennas work quite well, as do parabolic and backfire types.
I have a 16dBi patch antenna, that works amazingly well. I can, from inside the house, see WiFi APs that are kilometers away.If you're on a budget, build a cantenna. If not, buy a not too cheap patch antenna.
-
@Uhrheber
i'm using it in a simple way, with rtl-sdr, and for its versatility.
they say 9dB, but I don't really mind about that. It would not change anything to connect it for increasing range of 4db nrf52.
I'm just interested in the overall quality, as it's mostly for receiving with rtl, and doing checks etc.
I'm also planning to test other types of antenna, and build one for discovery.It's not for my HA network, of course it would be too bulky ;)
@scalz For rtlsdr, I once bought one of those (outdoor) scanner antennas, that claim to be usable from 20MHz to 2GHz, only to find out, that a simple coat hanger antenna made from coax performs ways better.
I can even receive the NOAA satellites with it. -
The passive part for switching between antennas is a 0ohm resistor I think. Depends on the circuit, but it makes sense (I designed a few boards with pcb ant + uFl, and I do the same).
I bought this antenna a while ago, for testing/tuning purposes..
(in case, I have not yet compared range vs others antenna ;) )
Looks the same as @NeverDie ordered, except this one is wideband 700 to 2600Mhz which is pretty cool :)https://www.passion-radio.com/gb/wide-band/umts-magnetic-314.html
@scalz said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
The passive part for switching between antennas is a 0ohm resistor I think.
Thanks! That would make all the difference, because it will be a lot easier to solder bridge the new connection than it is to re-position an itty-bitty cap.
-
@NeverDie said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
It actually does extend range. Not as well as I had hoped, but better than this high gain antenna, which I also received today and which, in comparison, I would call little better than a placebo:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073SWWMRG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Those 2.4GHz pseudo stocked dipole antennas have always been crap.
Even if they had 9dBi, they'd lose most of it because of the thin lossy cables.
Never combine a high gain antenna with a long cheap cable, it's a waste of money.Most better patch antennas work quite well, as do parabolic and backfire types.
I have a 16dBi patch antenna, that works amazingly well. I can, from inside the house, see WiFi APs that are kilometers away.If you're on a budget, build a cantenna. If not, buy a not too cheap patch antenna.
@Uhrheber said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
I have a 16dBi patch antenna, that works amazingly well. I can, from inside the house, see WiFi APs that are kilometers away.
Do you have a link to the one you purchased? Rather than rolling the dice again, I'd rather get something that's "known good".
-
@NeverDie said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
It actually does extend range. Not as well as I had hoped, but better than this high gain antenna, which I also received today and which, in comparison, I would call little better than a placebo:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B073SWWMRG/ref=oh_aui_detailpage_o00_s00?ie=UTF8&psc=1Those 2.4GHz pseudo stocked dipole antennas have always been crap.
Even if they had 9dBi, they'd lose most of it because of the thin lossy cables.
Never combine a high gain antenna with a long cheap cable, it's a waste of money.Most better patch antennas work quite well, as do parabolic and backfire types.
I have a 16dBi patch antenna, that works amazingly well. I can, from inside the house, see WiFi APs that are kilometers away.If you're on a budget, build a cantenna. If not, buy a not too cheap patch antenna.
@Uhrheber said in nRF5 Bluetooth action!:
Those 2.4GHz pseudo stocked dipole antennas have always been crap.
Even if they had 9dBi, they'd lose most of it because of the thin lossy cables.
Never combine a high gain antenna with a long cheap cable, it's a waste of money.Has anyone found a source for good quality pre-made cables with the connectors already attached? Again, I'd prefer to buy a "known good" product from a known good source than to keep rolling the dice.
