2 ms·
Why not just monitor the actual beeper's voltage and alert when its going off? It seem's a lot more difficult to analyze audio and listen for specific sounds an
by moftz 9y ago
Why not just monitor the actual beeper's voltage and alert when its going off? It seem's a lot more difficult to analyze audio and listen for specific sounds and patterns than it is to just trigger an interrupt when a beeper turns on. Program an ESP8266 to fire off a message whenever the interrupt pin is driven high [1]. You might even have enough room to fit the thing inside the alarm and power it using the onboard power supply. The alarm might even have a signal that is always active when the alarm is going off versus pulsing to active the beeper. It might be cheaper and more adaptable to have just one device listening for any beeps but it's going to be much more complex than just adding modems to all your devices that you care to listen to that fire off messages to a home server that would forward alerts if need be. You could even just make the modems use all the same code and refer to them by MAC address when they are sending out alarm messages to your server ("alarm a0:b1:c2 is activated").
[1]: https://techtutorialsx.com/2016/12/11/esp8266-external-interrupts/ https://techtutorialsx.com/2016/12/11/esp8266-external-inter...
- leeoniya 9y agohmmm, i wonder if i can MITM a Roost Smart Battery, so i dont have to use their apps or servers. i guess IFTTT would be okay, and it does support this.
- microcolonel 9y agoHere in Ontario, it seems the government doesn't think too kindly of modifying smoke detectors[0], not sure about CO detectors. I suspect that wiring directly to the beeper is grey or black in many places. I guess you could do it if it's a redundant detector. [0]: http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/FireMarshal/MakeitStop/InstallSmokeAlarms/install_smoke_alarms.html http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/FireMarshal/MakeitSto...
- tzs 9y agoThe listening approach is, perhaps, more complex overall, but most of the complexity is in software. The hardware is simple commodity hardware. The put an ESP8266 in each device approach puts the complexity in hardware, and in interfacing the hardware to the smoke detector. If you ever replace a smoke detector with one from a different manufacturer you may have to change the interface method. In addition to that, the ESP8266 approach is harder to manage. Whenever you change your wifi network in a way that requires updating login parameters you have to update the firmware on all your smoke alarm monitors. With the listening approach, you just have to change login parameters on the device that is doing the listening (if it is using wifi...I'd probably actually have it on ethernet) Furthermore, the listening approach can be expanded to listen for other things besides smoke detectors just be changing software. You could add listening for your doorbell, or your telephone, or your dog barking, or glass breaking.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> Furthermore, the listening approach can be expanded to listen for other things besides smoke detectors just be changing software. You could add listening for your doorbell, or your telephone, or your dog barking, or glass breaking. Or a whistling gas kettle, which is an actual use case for me. Generally, I very like the approach of listening and trying to recognize sounds. It's much more flexible than trying to put a brain in every other thing you have at home.