• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


chicken last won the day on August 3

chicken had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About chicken

  • Rank
    Level 4

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    Redmond, WA
  • Github
  1. This is the relevant line in radio_config.h: #define RF_GPIO_PIN_CFG 0x13, 0x1A, 0x00, 0x11, 0x14, 0x1B, 0x00, 0x00 ..which in the M4463 branch looks like this: #define RF_GPIO_PIN_CFG 0x13, 0x11, 0x00, 0x21, 0x20, 0x14, 0x00, 0x00 I have a few bare boards of the booster pack laying around. Happy to solder them up if there's interest.
  2. Hi Sven, I think the MSP430 side is ok. It looks like your setup is able to configure the radio, and something is received. Sync indicates, that the packet handler ISR found preamble and start flag. Did you already try the regular branch? The 4463 branch is quite stale, and it looks like I did a few changes to radio configuration and packet handler on master after the branch. Regards, Adrian
  3. Yes, message type 24 is supported. dAISy itself is not really aware of the AIS message contents. It will forward all valid AIS messages it receives. You may see fewer Class B messages than expected because: Class B transponders are much weaker than Class A, and therefore more prone to noise interference. Especially for long messages like static data. Class B messages are typically sent less frequently than Class A
  4. Happy to hear that, and thank you for the review on Tindie! I had to lookup how a Jon boat looks like With that low height, I'm surprised of the 7 miles range.
  5. Here's something new in the "I would like to play with that" category: A pico-projector in the form factor of a BeagleBone Black cape. At $99, the price isn't too bad either.
  6. @nazmibojan your radio IC may be toast by now, so you may have to replace it. @longjohn119 thank you for the detailed report. My own knowledge about antennas is very basic. It's definitely much noisier around here in suburban Seattle. Also always interested how the receivers compare to SDRs, as basically it's a very specialized SDR. For a fairer comparison, you could try to add a bandpass filter in front of the SDRs. My 1-channel dAISy has a discrete LC filter built from SMT components, and it holds up surprisingly well to the SAW filter used on other models. In real world tests the advantage of the SAW was maybe 10% more messages. An external filtered preamp can help. I observed better range when adding this one in front of the HAT: Adding a preamp on-board is still on my to-do list. I did early experiments which resulted in worse reception. However by now I know that the small dAISy is limited by noise from the USB side. I may give it a try with the HAT, which despite the integrated splitter performs as good as the single-channel dAISy, i.e. the design likely has a lower noise floor.
  7. I usually have the check for the CCA condition turned off as well. It only did make sense for single-channel receivers where RSSI level can be used for more intelligent channel hopping (didn't make much of a difference). I still suspect noise to be your main issue.
  8. Excessive power would be my guess if the receiver doesn't work anymore. The radio IC is only rated to an absolute max of 10 dBm, equivalent to 10mW. You can somewhat protect the radio with two parallel PIN diodes from RF to ground. One with cathode to GND and the other the opposite way. This clamps the signal to a maximum of less than +/- 0.7V, the equivalent of 10dBm. Though not sure how long that would help when directly connecting the receiver to an AIS transponder.
  9. Hi Rian, Is this repeatable? I.e., when you reboot dAISy it works again for a few minutes?
  10. Regarding your range problem: I program the firmware on my HATs with the debugger on the MSP430F5529 launchpad. If I don't power cycle (unplug and reconnect USB) after programming and before testing, I see elevated noise levels. I don't know the exact reason, but suspect that the JTAG traffic on USB introduces noise. Maybe there's a similar issue with the Discovery boards.
  11. Hmm, it's a while since I looked at it in detail. Channel spacing is 50KHz. If I remember correctly, bandpass was set to 20 or 15KHz. I stay away from building a transponder as there's a real risk of disrupting AIS traffic if done wrong. But if you want to go down that avenue, check out this project:
  12. I apologize for the slow response. Besides configuration, severely limited range can be a noise issue. You may introduce noise to the radios with the wires connecting over to the STM32. The radio_config.h for the Si4362 should be a good starting point as the EzRadioPRO chips are compatible. You can generate the radio_config files for the Si4467 with the WDS tool from Silabs: Seems like they changed the file format since the last time I used it. The attached project file can be loaded with the latest version of WDS. I also attached a radio_config.h for the Si4467 that I created with this project file. I haven't tested the results though. WDS3211_si4362_revb1_direct_rx.xml radio_config_Si4467.h
  13. Hi John, Quite an impressive setup you have here. I will have to dig through your blog when I have more time. As for your questions: You are correct, the HAT can be run standalone and connected to a PC with a FTDI cable. You also can power the HAT over USB by connecting the respective wire to a 5V pad on the HAT. Serial 1 duplicates the connection that goes to the Raspberry Pi and you can connect it to any other "host" device, including an Arduino. The baud rate of Serial 1 is fixed to 38400 baud. And you are also correct regarding the I2C header. It's a straight breakout of the Pi's I2C port, without any connections to the rest of the HAT. I expected that some people want to hook up sensors, as this seems to be supported by projects like OpenPlotter. Regards, Adrian
  14. Look at the pinout in the datasheet. With the G2553, TAxCLK is only available on P1.0. I compiled a table for a few MSP430s for my CounterLib here:
  15. Good progress and tidy prototyping. Interesting observation about the beam being too narrow. I wouldn't have expected that problem with bare LEDs. Angling will be tricky without visual verification.