Raspberry Pi Pico, DS18B20 on 1-Wire library from the original code so not production ready, RAK4260 module.
The Pico in the foreground is a Pico setup as a programmer / debugger.
Still working on the exact figures but the Pico isn’t going to be suitable as a battery device as the minimum I’ve seen so far is 900uA. As such I won’t be stampeding to use these unless I end up the a compelling use case - probably edge-AI/ML.
Take a couple of RPi Pico boards, a hand full of of LoRaWAN modules (Note not LoRa modules, so you dont have to worry about porting e.g. Aunties version of LMIC or other such LoRaWAN stacks! and avoid wrangling Arduino-like implementations for such), add a few sensors… and a nice weekend project?! If LoRaWAN Stack based devices should go straight to V3? what can possibly go wrong?!
Perfect thanks, from the Github : the application is for a comms module on a UART like ESP8266 for Wifi or a LoRa/LoRaWAN AT based module and have a GPS on another UART : Just what I need
p.s. took nearly a month but finally got the picture to load and completed the post! (Remembered that one and couple of other pics had been interupted during phone download - looks like however it was corrupted stopped forum loading - 2nd pull from phone worked fine )
Would be interesting to hear here if other Forumites have a Pico working with LoRaWAN/TTN…come on guys get posting!
This antenna is nice looking with rubber protection at the ends of the radials
From experience, I know that these rubbers will detune the antenna frequency down, and when I verified the antenna I found that the 868 MHz antenna actually was resonant at 816 MHz and not 868 MHz. At the resonant frequency, antenna performance is pretty good with 18 dB return loss. However, at 868 MHz return loss was 9 dB. That did not meet my quality standards.
Because the antenna resonance frequency was lower than 868 MHz the elements of the antenna were too long and can be shortened to tune for an exact 868 MHz. In an iterative process with intermediate measurements, I shortened the elements on average 2 mm with a satisfying result: return loss was >26 dB from 864 to 873 MHz.
Radio link performance is directly influenced by the quality of the antenna. I know this antenna is performing well.
The only problem left is that the antenna is not waterproof but that can be solved with some Self-amalgamating tape.
No. The antenna is performing well enough for many applications.
That is because the top is hard-plastic and I expect that the capillary effect will allow water to enter. As the internal connector is an F-type (from what I know is this connector 75 ohms, not 50) the water might leak into the coaxial cable connected to it.
No, there is additional length taken from the rods to tune it.