Topic: What radio frequency does your sensor use?

[kbellis]

What radio frequency does your outdoor sensor use to communicate with the indoor base?
After taking the poll, please identify Radio Frequency, Make, Model, and any other details in your reply.

[SLOweather]

Davis VP2

[PaulMy]

Need to correct my vote (also need to visit the optometrist) but no edit allowed.

Enjoy,
Paul

[kbellis]

Need to correct my vote (also need to visit the optometrist) but no edit allowed.

Is it possible for the OP to edit Paul's vote? If not, could the sysop?

@Paul - Regardless, what did you intend to list?

[kbellis]

Davis VP2

@ what frequency?

[PaulMy]

@Paul - Regardless, what did you intend to list?

Davis VP2 Plus It uses a frequency hopping spread spectrum frequency that ranges from 902 to 928 MHZ

In error I am marked as 433

Enjoy,
Paul

 

[johnd]

What about frequencies used outside the US? From memory, the VP2 is manufactured in at least half a dozen frequency variants for use in different world markets.

[nincehelser]

Sensors typically use 433MHz or 915MHz with a simple modulation scheme.

If 915MHz is used with spread-spectrum techniques (e.g. frequency hopping), the FCC allows more power to be used.  That's why systems like Davis can get much better range.

WiFi frequencies (2.4GHz and 5GHz) aren't typically used for sensors because of the power demands, but there are a few out there, like BloomSky.  To offset the power requirement, they likely cut way back on the transmission interval.  BloomSky is something like 5 minutes.

2.4GHz is more likely used than 5GHz because of range issues.

[kbellis]

Sensors typically use 433MHz or 915MHz with a simple modulation scheme.

If 915MHz is used with spread-spectrum techniques (e.g. frequency hopping), the FCC allows more power to be used.  That's why systems like Davis can get much better range.

WiFi frequencies (2.4GHz and 5GHz) aren't typically used for sensors because of the power demands, but there are a few out there, like BloomSky.  To offset the power requirement, they likely cut way back on the transmission interval.  BloomSky is something like 5 minutes.

2.4GHz is more likely used than 5GHz because of range issues.

Thanks for this information Mr. Nincehelser.

The PWS communications systems (and everything else PWS) are all new to me. Coming from a GNSS background using a variety frequencies for different communications and at differing power levels, I have been wondering why must there be an intermediary transmission in getting sensor data out to the internet, local device, and a local network. From what you've said, is it strictly a transmission power requirement, or is it largely a lingering legacy issue that results in lower RF transmissions being handed off to a secondary device?

[vreihen]

What about frequencies used outside the US? From memory, the VP2 is manufactured in at least half a dozen frequency variants for use in different world markets.

Most of Europe uses 868 Mhz in place of the 915 Mhz ISM band used in the USA and other ITU region 2 countries.

FWIW, Weatherflow uses 915 Mhz for most of the world, but ran a batch of 868 Mhz for original Indiegogo campaign backers who lived countries outside of ITU Region 2 that did not allow 915 Mhz transmitters.  The devices currently selling on their site are 915 Mhz only AFAIK, and can't be sold/used in countries where it is illegal.

Also FWIW, most current Acu-Rite stuff is transmitting on 433.92 Mhz.  The vaporware Atlas ELITE if it ever ships supposedly will operate on 915 Mhz, making it incompatible with all of their other sensors (and probably even their current 433 Mhz Access Internet gateway hub thingy).....

[ConligWX]

Selected other since EU/UK -  868.0Mhz

[BKS97]

2.4 GHz - RainWise MK-111 Long Range (1 mile line of sight) - solar-powered; update rate - 2 sec.

kbellis: As you probably know, the RainWise factory is located just a few miles down the road from you in Trenton.

[nincehelser]

Sensors typically use 433MHz or 915MHz with a simple modulation scheme.

If 915MHz is used with spread-spectrum techniques (e.g. frequency hopping), the FCC allows more power to be used.  That's why systems like Davis can get much better range.

WiFi frequencies (2.4GHz and 5GHz) aren't typically used for sensors because of the power demands, but there are a few out there, like BloomSky.  To offset the power requirement, they likely cut way back on the transmission interval.  BloomSky is something like 5 minutes.

2.4GHz is more likely used than 5GHz because of range issues.

Thanks for this information Mr. Nincehelser.

The PWS communications systems (and everything else PWS) are all new to me. Coming from a GNSS background using a variety frequencies for different communications and at differing power levels, I have been wondering why must there be an intermediary transmission in getting sensor data out to the internet, local device, and a local network. From what you've said, is it strictly a transmission power requirement, or is it largely a lingering legacy issue that results in lower RF transmissions being handed off to a secondary device?

A lot could be written about the subject.  I'm not even sure where to start.

Probably the biggest reason is that most of us are hobbyists without huge budgets.  Things have just evolved this way over the years following the lowest cost paths of connectivity.  Simple wireless sensors are pretty cheap, power-efficient, and don't need licensing.  We then started bridging the sensors onto the internet first through PCs and now more and more through dedicated devices.

Simply put, we're just tightwads.   

[kbellis]

2.4 GHz - RainWise MK-111 Long Range (1 mile line of sight) - solar-powered; update rate - 2 sec.

kbellis: As you probably know, the RainWise factory is located just a few miles down the road from you in Trenton.

Yes, they've been there for the past few years in the former Display Concepts building after they folded, which was a sad turn of events. Same site for Display Concepts, but different building, burned. The local communities rallied behind the company that made fantastic works of art besides just the normal types of signage for the whole USA. They built their new building, now RainWise's new home, had a big contract shortly thereafter with the Bangor Science Museum that ran into cost issues, and then folded. I always felt like Display Concepts had gotten the short end of it. The building sat empty for a while before RainWise moved their comparatively small operation from next to the post office in Bar Harbor to the much larger facility in Trenton. Jackson Lab, largest employer in Hancock County, considered moving there for a while, but in the end, bought the former Lowes building here in town, completed a multi-year renovation, and have recently moved parts of their Bar Habor-based operations into it. I haven't been inside the Trenton building since Rainwise moved in, but drive by it frequently. More than once I thought of visiting the RainWise factory, but their high prices have always ended up discouraging me from it.

[kbellis]

Simply put, we're just tightwads.   

Have me met? 

[kbellis]

We then started bridging the sensors onto the internet first through PCs and now more and more through dedicated devices.

That's the part of the PWS-internet evolutionary development that seems like it might be more efficient and cost effective to eliminate separate bridging devices, and to incorporate that functionality either in the indoor base unit or the outdoor array, or both. Simply adding a mac address and port forwarding through the user's wifi router software interface, probably wouldn't be enough - I'm only guessing - but maybe something like meteobridge layered into their existing router?

As for the costs, adding OpserverIP + WeatherBridge, for example, already costs more than many a PWS.

[nincehelser]

We then started bridging the sensors onto the internet first through PCs and now more and more through dedicated devices.

That's the part of the PWS-internet evolutionary development that seems like it might be more efficient and cost effective to eliminate separate bridging devices, and to incorporate that functionality either in the indoor base unit or the outdoor array, or both. Simply adding a mac address and port forwarding through the user's wifi router software interface, probably wouldn't be enough - I'm only guessing - but maybe something like meteobridge layered into their existing router?

As for the costs, adding OpserverIP + WeatherBridge, for example, already costs more than many a PWS.

One thing that keeps the current systems cheap are that the sensors only need to transmit, and the bridging system only needs to receive.  Two-way communications aren't necessary for what they do.

[Gyvate]

Ecowitt GW1000 and HP2551 and Froggit DP1500 and WH4000SE consoles/sensors at 868 MHz

[zoomx]

868 MHz ISM band -  Ecowitt GW-1000
433 MHz ISM band -  Ecowitt GW-1000, Oregon Scientific WRM200, Auriol Meteo station, Auriol AF-77 A1, Digoo R8g and R8H
2.4GHz WiFi - ESP8266 DIY station.