The parts catalog and minimal requirements short description


(Lora Waw U) #1

Hi All,

I try to start my first DIY project and actually try to discover best part for initial TTN project.
I assume that a lot of you already have this knowledge what kind of parts like MCU, RF modules we have to use for each part of TTN elements and get good or even good enough result.
I’ve discovered many interesting projects, where the Raspberry was used, but I’m not sure if all the time it require so brilliant platform.
I prefer low budget but still efficient solutions :slight_smile:

It would be nice to know what to expect, when I will use an Arduino, NodeMCU or even SAM D21/STM controllers.

eg,

  1. Arduino (UNO / Mega) will quite enough for Sensor or Devices projects, but not acceptable for any type of Gateway.
  2. NodeMCU will efficient for all Sensor types and simple Gateway (one channel)

Similar descriptions for RF modules required for any device, Gateways.

In my opinion this can help in further development of more efficient and cost effective devices, isn’t it?

Thanks.
Lech


Recommended Gateway Alternatives to the Things Gateway - €300 - €900
(Marssystems) #2

Check out the TTN Labs pages for inspiration -

https://www.thethingsnetwork.org/labs/stories/


(Lora Waw U) #3

Thanks,

That’s impressive, but this is “only” story study.

I thought about something in different layout and content.

If we collect all requirements ready to use by constructors and developers we’ll able to save much time for discussing well known details.

eg. like Gateway performance or traffic requirements including growing numbers of sensors/nodes.

If we’ll collect most of our experience in on place, it should helps the community, hardware suppliers.
Same as each Knowledge Base, isn’t ?


#4

you are free to start… and almost impossible to keep up to date

something like this ?


(Lora Waw U) #5

Right, almost impossible…

Your list is almost complete, but we’ve to redesign it a little.
It should be added the several categories for better exploring. eg. LoRa domain, meeting expectations factor

The biggest advantage will be an actual and supported list of interesting parts with real chance for success.
Home builders will have a choice between quality and (limited) functionality.
I’m sure some of them will try to improve existing cheap parts (eg. RFM95) by adding shields.

We have to ask our HAM Radio colleagues for other building ideas and improvements of it (good idea)
They will best testers and reviewers of our projects including measurement.


#6

its not my or our list, its a well done example of how you could start.
I don’t have the time for this (nor do I want to make time for this) ,so there is no we , personally I use google or the search on this forum and find what I want, if not I can ask.

so your free to start if you can spare the time :slight_smile:


(Lora Waw U) #7

Clear, not mine and yours… :slight_smile:

First step is quite easy, I’ll start my work in mean time.

We need even more than one description/reference for DIY GW with multi channel support and/or even multi band (for EU users).
In general our success Stories are relate to 868 Mhz band, but on EU area we able to use both 433 and 868 bands.
Why we don’t construct / use this lower band?

Next topic is why we don’t use any “open router” projects for our applications . eg. OpenWRT ?
It’s not to hard discover such project on the net or GitHub.


(Antony Fry) #8

@BoRRoZ 's https://things4u.github.io/HardwareGuide/hardware_guide.html is useful but no price/performance comparison. 8 channels required BTW.


#9

Used by too many applications with a lot of noise.


(Lora Waw U) #10

How they say it depends.
Most of lower band RF’s use low power, but it have to be tested.

I’ll build my first GW for this band initially.
I’ve a lot of LORA RF’s and enough MCU in my drawer :wink:


(Lora Waw U) #11

Thanks a lot.
I’ve discovered similar list on Slack, attached to the #hardware channel. I’ll merge it together :wink:


(Antony Fry) #12

Agree too many applications; also, in my view, fragmentation would result. Upside is better indoor penetration and greater range.


(Lora Waw U) #13

I agree, to many transmitters makes rush and transmission troubles.
But it have to be tested deeply, I think the WiFi band is much more overloaded especially on cities interior :frowning:

Does anybody tried to solve or divide this traffic like an intend low band (433MHz) for local and extremely low power (short range) IoT nodes?
eg up to 600m IoT, then the rest allocate (switch) into High band.
Besides, the “low band” RF’s parts are cheap and easily accessible on “China shops” :slight_smile:

We’re an open community, so we should advance and promote cheaper solutions or ready to build as DIY.

Does anybody remember the FidoNet and eg. BBS network? Most popular BBS nodes supported all speeds modems :slight_smile:
We should think and prepare several solutions for future massively huge IoT traffic.