Searching \ for 'OT: Looking for small 2.4 GHz TX RX pair' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: piclist.com/techref/io/serials.htm?key=tx
Search entire site for: 'Looking for small 2.4 GHz TX RX pair'.

Truncated match.
PICList Thread
'OT: Looking for small 2.4 GHz TX RX pair'
1999\07\13@132537 by Jim Ruxton

flavicon
face
Hi ,I'm looking for a small 2.4 GHz TX - RX pair for a PIC based project
I'm working on. The RX should be small enough to strap onto a PDA
without it becoming to obtrusive. The data link only has to be one way.
Does anyone know of anything I should look at? Thanks!
Jim

1999\07\13@144442 by Barry King

flavicon
face
> Hi ,I'm looking for a small 2.4 GHz TX - RX pair for a PIC based project
> I'm working on.
If it has to be 2.4 GHz for world-wide use, you could try Digital
Wireless.  Sorry I don't have the URL.  I've been testing them, they
only sort of work, but it might still be me...

If you can go to 900 MHz (US only), try the modules from Linx.
http://www.linxtechnologies.com
Cheaper, Simpler, seem to work.

Regards,

Barry.
------------
Barry King, KA1NLH
Engineering Manager
NRG Systems "Measuring the Wind's Energy"
Hinesburg, Vermont, USA
spam_OUTbarryTakeThisOuTspamnrgsystems.com
"The witty saying has been deleted due to limited EPROM space"

1999\07\13@152149 by Craig Lee

flavicon
face
Check out RFM.  They may have a 2.4 GHz solution by now.

Their TR series hybrid transceivers are pretty awesome even at $12 CAN each
(low vol),
and they can support data rates 2x that of the linx modules.

The linx modules cost us $50 CAN each for just the transmitter or the
receiver
and they insisted that we purchase the development kit for a few hundred
before
we were allowed to purchase the modules.  Not so with RFM, and I can
purchase them
from the local Insight rep, instead of through the painfully slow US/CAN
customs route.

The RFM transceivers are .28 x .40 x 0.08 inches.  The linx modules are
significantly
larger at 1.3 x 1.1 x 0.2 inches for the transmitter and 2 x 1.2 x 0.5
inches for the
receiver.

The only advantage I see that the Linx modules have over the RFM units is
that Linx
can transmit audio just as well as data and it can be digitally tuned on the
fly to
one of 8 channels.  The RFM modules use fixed saw technology thus only fixed
freq.
are available.

Craig

> {Original Message removed}

1999\07\13@155109 by Julian Fine

flavicon
face
Hi,
If you do get the RFM product to work please email me I have hundreds of
there ASH receivers and Transmitters THAT DONT WORK.

         Julian Fine   .....julianKILLspamspam@spam@fine.co.za
Eagle Wireless Security http://www.fine.co.za
Tel +2712 664 6688    Fax +2712 664 0857
Mobile 082 492 5294 or SMS 083 288 2807


{Original Message removed}

1999\07\14@074938 by paulb

flavicon
face
Jim Ruxton wrote:

> Hi ,I'm looking for a small 2.4 GHz TX - RX pair for a PIC based
> project I'm working on. The RX should be small enough to strap onto a
> PDA without it becoming to obtrusive.

 I think you've got a conceptual problem here.  (Low-power) 2.4 GHz
equipment is portable, not mobile.  It works by sitting the unit on some
furniture and aiming receiver at transmitter and vice versa.

 You may not have to aim too accurately, but it is not the sort of
thing you walk around with.  Even less so if it's one-way because you
depend on acknowledgements and retransmission ("packet" protocols) to
get the data through if the link is anything other than fixed.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\07\14@165331 by Matthew Ballinger

picon face
In a message dated 7/14/99 7:50:02 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
paulbspamKILLspamMIDCOAST.COM.AU writes:

> Jim Ruxton wrote:
>
>  > Hi ,I'm looking for a small 2.4 GHz TX - RX pair for a PIC based
>  > project I'm working on. The RX should be small enough to strap onto a
>  > PDA without it becoming to obtrusive.
>
>    I think you've got a conceptual problem here.  (Low-power) 2.4 GHz
>  equipment is portable, not mobile.  It works by sitting the unit on some
>  furniture and aiming receiver at transmitter and vice versa.
>
>    You may not have to aim too accurately, but it is not the sort of
>  thing you walk around with.  Even less so if it's one-way because you
>  depend on acknowledgements and retransmission ("packet" protocols) to
>  get the data through if the link is anything other than fixed.
>  --
>    Cheers,
>          Paul B.
>
How do the newer 2.4GHz cordless phones work then?!  Do you have to talk in
the same room as the reciever and stand in a certain posistion? I think not.
Matt

1999\07\14@222651 by Lou

flavicon
face
 I am not sure what you are looking for, but I had some wireless video
projects where I needed
some small transmitters and cool stuff like that. I _finally_ found
somewhere to buy that stuff,
http://www.mscelectronics.com the guy there was very knowedgable, and got me
pointed in the
right direction. they have some really good quality 2.4gig fm video stuff,
and about a month
of my paychecks :)


  ---Lou


{Original Message removed}

1999\07\15@070507 by ruben

flavicon
face
> Jim Ruxton wrote:
>
> > Hi ,I'm looking for a small 2.4 GHz TX - RX pair for a PIC based
> > project I'm working on. The RX should be small enough to strap onto a
> > PDA without it becoming to obtrusive.
>
>   I think you've got a conceptual problem here.  (Low-power) 2.4 GHz
> equipment is portable, not mobile.  It works by sitting the unit on some
> furniture and aiming receiver at transmitter and vice versa.
>
>   You may not have to aim too accurately, but it is not the sort of
> thing you walk around with.  Even less so if it's one-way because you
> depend on acknowledgements and retransmission ("packet" protocols) to
> get the data through if the link is anything other than fixed.
> --
>   Cheers,
>         Paul B.


We manufacture a 2.4 GHz spread spectrum modem designed to sit on moving
vehicles (AGV's).
The range is about 500-1000 feet indoors, 3500 feet outdoors
(20 miles with high gain directional antennas).
It's a full duplex device. With automatic error checking and
retransmitting on faults. Up to 115kbps. It uses an
OEM module from Digital Wireless, check it out at
http://www.digital-wireless.com/witb.htm


==============================
Ruben Jvnsson
AB Liros Elektronik
Box 9124, 200 39 Malmv, Sweden
TEL INT +4640142078
FAX INT +4640947388
.....rubenKILLspamspam.....2.sbbs.se
==============================

1999\07\15@070511 by n.east

flavicon
face
That's the difference between the aerials .I.e. Directional (Horn or dish
etc) or omnidirectional (Dipole).
The aerial depends on the amount of gain  needed to cover the distances you
require with the power available.

{Original Message removed}

1999\07\15@112015 by David Blain

picon face
This question takes this discussion even more off topic.

I just acquired a 2.4GHz phone system.  I works really well, except when I
need to go
trough a concrete wall!  I was wondering if anyone can suggest specs for an
antenna
that I can mount on the other side of the wall to get back the range that I
have become accustom to?

Also, is it possible to attach this external antenna onto the existing one
in the base
or will I have to crack open the case to attach it to the PCB directly?

I know nothing about RF and need as much info as I can get.

Thanks.

David B.


>>That's the difference between the aerials .I.e. Directional (Horn or dish
>>etc) or omnidirectional (Dipole).
>>The aerial depends on the amount of gain  needed to cover the distances
you
>>require with the power available.

1999\07\15@191132 by paulb

flavicon
face
David Blain wrote:

> I just acquired a 2.4GHz phone system.  I works really well, except
> when I need to go trough a concrete wall!

 That's the point I was making in my previous post.  You can have small
and cheap and one-way.  You can have mobile operation.  You can have
reliable data transmission.  You can have long range.  However...

 When you want any TWO of these, you are in big trouble.  If you think
you want *three*, you are really pushing doo-doo up an incline.

>  I was wondering if anyone can suggest specs for an antenna that I can
> mount on the other side of the wall to get back the range that I have
> become accustomed to?

 That's the other thing.  At this frequency, do-it-yourself RF design
becomes *much* more difficult, compared even to VHF or UHF.  *If* you
have the resources of course, you can do great things, such as using
flat PCB antennae instead of the horns and dipoles.
--
 Cheers,
       Paul B.

1999\07\15@191748 by Dave VanHorn

flavicon
face
> >  I was wondering if anyone can suggest specs for an antenna that I can
> > mount on the other side of the wall to get back the range that I have
> > become accustomed to?
>
>   That's the other thing.  At this frequency, do-it-yourself RF design
> becomes *much* more difficult, compared even to VHF or UHF.  *If* you
> have the resources of course, you can do great things, such as using
> flat PCB antennae instead of the horns and dipoles.


Not suitable for the other side of a wall, but Digikey now carries a 2.4 GHz
patch antenna.

1999\07\17@131943 by Brian Kraut

picon face
I have three of the Hummingbird spread spectrum modems from Xetron that have
been going non stop now for about 2 years with no problems.  The evaluation kits
that came with enclosures were $800 each.

Craig Lee wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> > {Original Message removed}

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 1999 , 2000 only
- Today
- New search...