We got about 30 users (and some devs from this hackaday article) but we'd love more users and devs to join this happy-happy project:
https://hackaday.com/2020/02/26/lora-mesh-network-with-off-t...
I'm happy to respond to any questions or comments...
We got about 30 users (and some devs from this hackaday article) but we'd love more users and devs to join this happy-happy project:
https://hackaday.com/2020/02/26/lora-mesh-network-with-off-t...
I'm happy to respond to any questions or comments...
You say a few miles per node - I am having trouble seeing how that's possible without elevating all the nodes
But they're still cool and I still want some for non-hiking applications. With the very low power idle and low cost they could be set up with solar panels in the tops of trees or in similar high height above terrain positions.
At very low bit rates you need very little SNR.
There is probably very low noise out in hiking environments.
Yes, attenuation due to terrain is going to be a killer, but my experience with non line of sight 900 MHz links blasting through trees leads me to believe it would be workable for low bit rate data between a series of hikers along the same trail.
It is sending only location and text messages so intermittent link status or re-tries due to temporarily terrain/foliage obstructions will not cause degradation in service that you would experience trying to watch netflix over this mesh.
902-928 has almost no advantage over 2.4 GHz when it comes to line of sight issues with terrain. In fact, it's more problematic due to the increased size of the fresnel zone. Sure, it does better through trees but a slight rise of ground is just as much of a problem for 915 and 2400. The freq here isn't helping much. It's the chirp and LORA modulation helping the link budget. But no line of sight is no line of sight.
I would expect to be able to send a few bytes between two stations maybe 400m apart through non-line of sight forest with 900 MHz and both stations at the same elevation. Certainly the grandparent quoting miles would be for mountain top to mountain top.
(Also, the hardware they're using is fairly generic, and pretty much all the vendors selling them offer them in 915/920MHz and also 868MHz and 433MHz variants. I've seen claims of over 10km range with 433MHz LoRa gear without special antennas or clear line-of-sight...)
If someone else's ISM radio is using a specific frequency (perhaps with CDMA or TDMA), a "chirp" that's spears over about a hundred kHz and -20db or so down in the noise is unlikely to bother them, but is quite useable/reliable for the LORA gear to detect.
https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/278192/under...
I find it entirely believable that a lower data-rate modulation could get better range than that, even on less power and worse antennas.
And you can do a LOT with antennas on 900MHz.
OP is also talking about using off the shelf LoRa boards and their project is more about the software, so they are stuck with the bands available on the commercial LoRa transceivers those boards use.
I don't have any relevant skills for radio or SDR stuff, but I'd love to mess around with it for a couple of hours a week.
Keep notes as you do, and that can feed directly into improving the documentation to be more noob-friendly.
You'll find more ways to get involved from there, including just using and sharing the project with friends.
Thanks for the encouragement, by the way. I really appreciate that.
However, I'll take the cynical route and say mesh radios, for the general public, are still not very popular. Gotenna and Beartooth, among others appear to be common and popular, and highly reviewed, but in my hikes and ski trips, I haven't seen or heard from a single one. I've seen FAR more basic FRS radios, and SPOT satellite messengers.
Gotenna is stupid expensive. And spot is pretty evil (or at least the instances I've encountered it).
I think what most of the public expects from a radio device is PTT audio. Which isn't going to work with these low bitrate lora devices. I think if they got conditioned to some of this form factor, it would catch on a lot better.
Edit: The issue was making a jump from a local cluster to another cluster far away as local messaging was easy but the further out, the harder it became to maintain connectivity since the amount of devices entering and leaving a mesh became a factor. We actually thought of using amateur radio (to basically allow you to extend the range using them for transfer)
So if Bob at a ski resort in Colorado want to message someone in Germany his message would propagate around the mesh until a gateway noticed it was for a client that hasn't ever been seen by that gateway. The gateway/router would do a DHT lookup, and would find a router in Germany had seen that user recently and forward the message there. Next time that router heard (directly or indirectly) that the recipient was online it would forward it (directly or through store and forward) to the user. Sure this process might take minutes, but generally it would still be useful.
Imagine an island like Haiti or Puerto Rico is hit by a storm and only one in 5000 people has a cell signal or sat uplink. Add a mesh and just a few uplinks for the whole island and important communications could get through. Maybe even putting a sat uplink on a car that could drive around and allow messages in/out even just once a day could be quite valuable. This of course needs to be combined with store/forward messages and the other various delay tolerant network features.
Seems much more useful than using HF radios to scan the planet for open Ham <-> email gateways. I was rather amused to hear that to communicate across Puerto Rico they often ended up sending messages through an email gateway they could reach in Italy... just to get messages across the island.