Subject:
|
Re: BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Wed, 1 Jun 2005 19:47:09 GMT
|
Original-From:
|
Bruce Hopkins <javaspaces@IHATESPAMgmail.com>
|
Reply-To:
|
bhopkins@AVOIDSPAMapress.com
|
Viewed:
|
1407 times
|
| |
|
|
I'm biased, so here's my rebuttal:
1. The JB-22 is a great, affordable Bluetooth development kit under $200 USD.
http://www.javabluetooth.com/jb22.html
2. Class 1 Bluetooth devices have a range of +300ft. Anycom makes one
that is rated at 330ft, but tests have shown that it can communicate
at 500 ft.
http://www.anycom.com/anycom/products/prod_main.php?prodid=CC3035&lang=us
3. Bluetooth services can be cached, and connections from clients can
be made without the latency of device and service discovery.
4. Cell phone vendors (Motorola, Nokia, SonyEricsson, etc) do NOT
cripple Bluetooth functionality. Blame that on the mobile networks
(Sprint and Verizon are notorious).
5. Bluetooth has a VERY strong momentum in the industry. Over 5
million, Bluetooth devices ship per week. No, that's not a typo; 5
million devices per week:
http://www.bluetooth.com/news/releases.asp?A=2&PID=1521&ARC=1
Regards,
Bruce Hopkins
On 6/1/05, Bruce Boyes <bboyes@systronix.com> wrote:
> At 07:47 PM 5/31/2005, Steve Baker wrote:
> > > Bluetooth is a very versatile RF-communication that could allow real
> > > flexible
> > > networking for multi-agent applications. This would be a much faster
> > > communication than slow IR.
> >
> > Bluetooth has a maximum range of 30 feet. That's in optimum conditions.
> > You might get down as low as 15 feet in real world applications. At 2GHz
> > or so, it doesn't go through walls very well either.
>
> Bluetooth is actually very poor for embedded or robotic applications. It's
> a power hog, development tools are expensive (try $5000 minimum), true peer
> to peer modules are almost impossible to get unless you are a Fortune 500
> company, and the time required for a BT node to wake up, authenticate, and
> transmit data is very long. BT is also overly complex for most embedded or
> robotic applications. The range of 30 feet is not great either.
>
> So what is OK?
>
> Zigbee is much newer and is designed for use with embedded and robotic
> applications. The time required for a Zigbee node to wake up, authenticate,
> and transmit data is very short - less than 1/10 that of BT. Power
> consumption is much less, and range can be 100 feet or more, depending on
> antenna design and other factors. Tools are very affordable (sometimes
> free) and dev kits are $300 or less.
>
> There is a Zigbee alliance with a lot of major companies such as Motorola,
> Samsung, Philips, etc:
> http://www.zigbee.org/en/about/members.asp
>
> Also get this white paper: "ZigBee and Bluetooth: Competitive or
> Complementary?" at
> http://www.zigbee.org/en/resources/#WhitePapers
>
> We are designing a Zigbee node for use with JCX, (which will finally start
> shipping this June/July after almost 4 years of development and testing).
> We are planning on using the Freescale Zigbee chip MC13192. We have a
> couple of their dev kits which were about $300.
> http://www.freescale.com/webapp/sps/site/prod_summary.jsp?code=MC13192&nodeId=01752003088166
>
> Properly designed Zigbee nodes can interoperate. What about BT? Vendors are
> deliberately designing some BT products (such as cell phone headsets in
> particular) so they don't interoperate for "competitive reasons". Pretty
> dumb, huh?
>
> The "BlueTooth" serial adapters which are available, and which most people
> point to as BT for embedded use are a very hacked-down subset of BT and are
> not generally useful. They support only two devices per network, with only
> serial conversion. They are only useful for short range serial comm between
> two devices, nothing more.
>
> You can get started with Zigbee nodes from Mouser:
> http://www.mouser.com/dlpdesign/
>
> So to sum up, forget BT for robotics. Use Zigbee.
>
> Regards
>
> Bruce
>
>
> ------- WWW.SYSTRONIX.COM ----------
> Real embedded Java and much more
> www.jrealtime.com and www.tstik.com
> +1-801-534-1017 Salt Lake City, USA
>
>
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | BlueTooth bad, Zigbee good
|
| (...) Bluetooth is actually very poor for embedded or robotic applications. It's a power hog, development tools are expensive (try $5000 minimum), true peer to peer modules are almost impossible to get unless you are a Fortune 500 company, and the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Jun-05, to lugnet.robotics)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
