Sorry, I forgot to include the [PIC] on my previous post so some may
be getting this a second time.
I have an application that I prototyped on a Parallax Javelin and an
A7 EB500 Bluetooth card. It uses Bluetooth SPP protocol
exclusively. I now want to commercialize this product, which means
dramatically reducing the cost and size of the unit. I am still not
sure what the best way to go is but I am thinking about porting the
application to one of the PICs that have built-in USB capability and
plug a USB Bluetooth dongle into the card because they are so
inexpensive now.
So, is there a flaw in this plan or is there a more intelligent way to
approach the problem? I wonder about FCC certification, for example.
Also, I do not know anything yet about using the PIC USB interface.
I will start to research that soon but if anyone has any advice or
knows why this might be hard/impossible/unfeasible, I would be
interested in hearing about it. Or maybe there is just a much better
solution to the problem. Also, if someone has specific experience
doing this and would be interested in a small contract, I would like
to talk to you.
> I have an application that I prototyped on a Parallax Javelin and an
> A7 EB500 Bluetooth card. It uses Bluetooth SPP protocol
> exclusively. I now want to commercialize this product, which means
> dramatically reducing the cost and size of the unit. I am still not
> sure what the best way to go is but I am thinking about porting the
> application to one of the PICs that have built-in USB capability and
> plug a USB Bluetooth dongle into the card because they are so
> inexpensive now.
That is not possible because you need a USB host to connect the
USB Bluetooth dongle which is a slave device. The current PIC18F
USB chips are all slave only.
Don French wrote:
> I have an application that I prototyped on a Parallax Javelin and an
> A7 EB500 Bluetooth card. It uses Bluetooth SPP protocol
> exclusively. I now want to commercialize this product, which means
> dramatically reducing the cost and size of the unit. I am still not
> sure what the best way to go is but I am thinking about porting the
> application to one of the PICs that have built-in USB capability and
> plug a USB Bluetooth dongle into the card because they are so
> inexpensive now.
Yes, that would be nice -- but as others have pointed out, PIC cannot act as
a USB host.
> So, is there a flaw in this plan or is there a more intelligent way to
> approach the problem? I wonder about FCC certification, for example.
Way too expensive compared to the cost of off-the-shelf units, unless you're
talking about very large quantities (10k+).
> Also, I do not know anything yet about using the PIC USB interface.
> I will start to research that soon but if anyone has any advice or
> knows why this might be hard/impossible/unfeasible, I would be
> interested in hearing about it. Or maybe there is just a much better
> solution to the problem. Also, if someone has specific experience
> doing this and would be interested in a small contract, I would like
> to talk to you.
Our company has just finished developing a UART/Bluetooth module that we
intend to use in one of our products. In fact, we've *just* sent the gerbers
out (literally a few hours ago), to get the PCBs made, and should have the
demo units ready in two weeks. Assuming everything works on the first try,
production units will be available in mid-October.
The module is BT Class 1, and has an 8-pin (4x2), 2 mm female header:
The cost will be around $30 in small quantities. The "Tx Enable" pin is used
in our design to hi-Z the Tx output when the host board detects that a
serial cable is plugged in.
Let me know if this sounds like something you may be interested in.
>
> Our company has just finished developing a
> UART/Bluetooth module that we
> intend to use in one of our products. In fact, we've
> *just* sent the gerbers
> out (literally a few hours ago), to get the PCBs
> made, and should have the
> demo units ready in two weeks. Assuming everything
> works on the first try,
> production units will be available in mid-October.
>
> The module is BT Class 1, and has an 8-pin (4x2), 2
> mm female header:
>
> 1 BT Status
> 2 BT Connect
> 3 Gnd
> 4 Tx Enable
> 5 Reset
> 6 Rx
> 7 +5V
> 8 Tx
>
> The cost will be around $30 in small quantities. The
> "Tx Enable" pin is used
> in our design to hi-Z the Tx output when the host
> board detects that a
> serial cable is plugged in.
>
> Let me know if this sounds like something you may be
> interested in.
>
> Vitaliy
>
What is the range of the BT you are getting from the
device? Any datasheet for your product yet?
John
____________________________________________________________________________________
Building a website is a piece of cake. Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online. http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/webhosting
Thanks for all the feedback! Since I am getting the digest and not
individual emails I will try to reply to each of you in this one post.
Dario and Xiaofan: Thanks for pointing out the big flaw in my dongle
idea. It turns out that Cypress has embedded USB host devices so I
might look into using one of them.
Vitaly: I am not sure what you were referring to when you said: "Way
too expensive compared to the cost of off-the-shelf units, unless
you're talking about very large quantities (10k+)." What
off-the-shelf units? As to your company's UART/Bluetooth module, A7
makes a similar unit, the EB100-SER and sells them for $22. One
advantage for me of using this unit is that it is command compatible
with the EB 500, which is what I used in the prototype.
John Chung wrote:
> What is the range of the BT you are getting from the
> device?
Close to the theoretical maximum. :)
> Any datasheet for your product yet?
No, not yet (PCBs won't get here for another 10 days or so, plus other
pressing projects). I can answer specific questions (dimensions, etc),
offline OK.
Don French wrote:
> Vitaly: I am not sure what you were referring to when you said: "Way
> too expensive compared to the cost of off-the-shelf units, unless
> you're talking about very large quantities (10k+)."
I meant -- rolling out your own, and getting the device FCC certified (we
researched this approach earlier this year).
> What
> off-the-shelf units?
The one you mentioned, for example.
> As to your company's UART/Bluetooth module, A7
> makes a similar unit, the EB100-SER and sells them for $22. One
> advantage for me of using this unit is that it is command compatible
> with the EB 500, which is what I used in the prototype.
You'd have to buy 1000 EB100-SER modules to get the $22 price (I quoted $30
in small quantities, perhaps 1 to 100). Also, the EB100-SER is Class 2,
requires 3.3V, and is a surface mount device (may not matter to you).
The STM4100 (our module) has an RN41 (with on-board ceramic antenna, similar
to the EB100-SER) mounted on a carrier board. EB100-SER must be permanently
soldered to the host board, which is something we didn't want to do.
In our application, the module is an optional feature (it's an add-on), and
it has to be easy to remove to replace/repair. Also, unless vertical
clearance is a problem, you get more useable board space with our module
(you can place parts underneath). We were looking for a direct serial cable
replacement, so command set wasn't important (although the module is
configurable).
The STM4100 was developed primarily for internal consumption, not for sale.
So it may not be what you need. However, since it is generic enough to be
useful to others, and since we weren't able to find anything similar on the
market, the plan is to make the STM4100 available for purchase (the target
date is currently the middle of October). I will make the announcement using
the appropriate tag, once we get the production units.
gmail.com> wrote:
