4 ms·
Looks great! Out of curiosity, why go with the hub/node approach using ZigBee for sending such a small amount of data? There are WiFi modules like TI's CC3000 (
by jpwright 13y ago
Looks great! Out of curiosity, why go with the hub/node approach using ZigBee for sending such a small amount of data? There are WiFi modules like TI's CC3000 (http://www.ti.com/product/cc3000 http://www.ti.com/product/cc3000) available for very low cost that would make separate hub hardware unnecessary. This is the product used in Spark Core (https://www.spark.io/ https://www.spark.io/), for example. I imagine there are a few different reasons why you might spring for a hub-based solution despite the higher cost, but just wondering what your thinking is.
- clement87 13y agoI know, it's all about the battery life (about years). The ZigBee chip require only 40mA in transmit and less than 1uA on idle mode... You can't do the same with a WiFi chip, ask Spark... Also, with Hub/Node there is no "association" need like entering the WPA key. It's all automatic
- swamp40 13y agoWe use a wifi module in a battery operated environment (we kill power to the module when it isn't in use). It uses about 225mA @ 3.2V. The connection/handshaking take about 5-7 seconds to talk to a local server, plus the time for whatever data you are sending. When talking to an internet based server, the connection time can extend out to 20+ seconds. So you can see wifi isn't the greatest choice for low power/battery operated environments. (Now on something you don't mind recharging a few times a week, it is perfect.)