[TriEmbed] Remote lock control

Glen Smith mrglenasmith at gmail.com
Mon Dec 15 22:35:58 CST 2014


Shane sent me another link to the LightBlue Bean that Chip has talked about
a couple times, so I looked a little deeper into what hardware can program
it. On the web site, I found the information cut and pasted below, to
summarize, iPad 2 is no good, and even when the Android support gets firmed
up, my Galaxy S3 is not going to be supported. (This may be due to hardware
limitations on the phone, I'm not sure.) I have read more than one
complaint about people who got excited about the Bean, got them in the
mail, and then found out they could not use them.

Q: What platforms are supported?
A: We have released software with support for the following platforms:

*iOS devices:*

   - iPhone 4S and above
   - iPad 3 and above
   - iPad Mini and above
   - iPod Touch 5G and above

*OS X devices (NOTE: Bean support is limited to OS X 10.9 and above)*

   - MacBook Air: Mid-2011 and above (with Intel Core i5/i7 processors)
   - MacBook Pro: Mid-2012 and above (with Intel Core i5/i7 processors,
   both Retina and non-Retina models)
   - Mac Pro (the new model, arriving in December 2013)
   - Mac Mini: Mid-2011 and above (with Intel Core i5/i7 processors)

We will be supporting the following devices in the future (check our
Development
Schedule page <http://punchthrough.com/bean/development-schedule/> for more
info):

*Android devices:*

   - Samsung Galaxy S4
   - Nexus 7
   - Nexus 5
   - Any other phone with full support for the Android 4.3 Bluetooth Low
   Energy API


On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 6:37 PM, Glen Smith <mrglenasmith at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have not seen this particular design, though I have been anxiously
> awaiting the Android interface with the LightBlue bean. We do have an iPad
> 2, but my 14 year old uses it for school so my access to it is limited. I
> would really rather not learn another interface that I won't use much
> either. The bean looks like it would be perfect otherwise.
>
> Thanks for the poster though.
> On Dec 15, 2014 12:51 PM, "Shane Trent" <shanedtrent at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Glen,
>>
>> I suspect you have already seen this, but thought I would send it anyway.
>> The LightBlue bean is Arduino based and has an iOS app that uses BlueTooth
>> Low Energy (now known as Smart BlueTooth) to talk to the Arduino and turn a
>> lock using a tiny h-bride driver.
>>
>> https://punchthrough.com/bean/examples/smartphone-controlled-lock/
>>
>> Here is a summary of the resources available via the Arduino code.
>> https://punchthrough.com/bean/the-arduino-reference/
>>
>> Later,
>> Shane
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 1:47 PM, Shane Trent <shanedtrent at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Just saw these. They look cheap and easy. I have wanted to try something
>>> with a Nordic Semi chipset. Would they fit your application?
>>>
>>>
>>> http://smile.amazon.com/nRF24L01-Wireless-Transceiver-Arduino-Compatible/dp/B00E594ZX0/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1416421962&sr=8-4&keywords=electric+imp
>>>
>>> http://arduino-info.wikispaces.com/Nrf24L01-2.4GHz-HowTo
>>>
>>> Shane
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Shane Trent <shanedtrent at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Glen,
>>>>
>>>> Glad to hear your mood improved with respect to the wireless Moteinos.
>>>> I have never purchased one but have started to many times!
>>>>
>>>> I think having a motor turn the deadbolt would be awesome.  I have used
>>>> the motors below, they had plenty of torque.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.ebay.com/itm/Faulhaber-Motor-Gearhead-Encoder-70-RPM-Right-Angle-1524-006-HES164A-/281204866848?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41791dbf20
>>>>
>>>> http://www.robotroom.com/FaulhaberGearmotor.html
>>>>
>>>> Later,
>>>> Shane
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Glen Smith <mrglenasmith at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Shane,
>>>>>
>>>>> Reading your "rant" makes me feel better about the Moteinos, thank
>>>>> you.
>>>>>
>>>>> Depending on what you are looking to do with the lock and what the
>>>>> TinyTx units are capable of, they may be perfect for what I came up with.
>>>>> Some reverse engineering of the lock indicated that simply by grounding an
>>>>> input to the onboard uP you can make it think it is unlocked. There is a
>>>>> micro switch inside the lock that the uP uses to determine which way the
>>>>> inside mechanical lever is turned. Switch open - Lever in locked position.
>>>>> Switch closed (and input to uP grounded with uA of current flowing (on
>>>>> board pullup?)) indicates the lever is unlocked. This is important because
>>>>> the lock is designed to allow you to lock it without entering the code.
>>>>>
>>>>> In the simplest iteration, once the signal is sent to the added
>>>>> circuit and shorts the switch, the wet-ware (human) still needs to push a
>>>>> button and twist the lever, but a key or code is no longer necessary.
>>>>> Buuuuttt... wouldn't it be neat is we added a servo and got the device to
>>>>> retract the deadbolt? Or instead of a servo, a small motor driving a worm
>>>>> gear plunger - this would allow the controller to prevent turning the lock
>>>>> at all regardless if you picked the lock, bumped the lock or even had the
>>>>> correct key. (Vacation house, concern about keys being copied say.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Dang it Shane, now I want to get back on this project, I'll see what I
>>>>> have at home tonight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Glen
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Shane Trent <shanedtrent at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Glen,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I went on a full rant about the use of the HopeRF modules in the
>>>>>> Moteino. I sincerely believe FCC worries are a non-issue. I would love to
>>>>>> see anything (napkin sketches in crayon) you have have on the lock. Reading
>>>>>> about your hardships can put me steps ahead if I try to build one myself. I
>>>>>> have parts for 3 TinyTX boards that I would like to build and need a
>>>>>> project. I hope you enjoy my tirade.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://nathan.chantrell.net/tinytx-wireless-sensor/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Shan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the concerns expressed over the Moteino were way overblown. I
>>>>>> poo-poo on concerns of the legality issues of the Moteino and FCC
>>>>>> licensing. I apologize for not being more vocal on calling bullshit when
>>>>>> the concerns were raised. I assumed that everyone else was dismissing the
>>>>>> concerns as I was. There are people that get their nickers in a twist over
>>>>>> selling things like AC power cords with bare ends (or TRIAC's!) because
>>>>>> someone could electrocute themselves. Just post something on an Arduino
>>>>>> forum or Instructables about using TRIAC's for power control and the
>>>>>> crazies come out of the wood work ranting about your project not meeting
>>>>>> OSHA standards or National Electrical Standards. You might as well outlaw
>>>>>> any number of products that some Darwin Award candidate misuse every year.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are purchasing prototype tools for prototype development. This is
>>>>>> the REASON that the FCC recognizes non-registered devices under Title 47,
>>>>>> CFT Part 15, Subpart C.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Subpart C is for intentional radiators. The various types of
>>>>>> intentional radiators covered by Subpart C include cable-locating
>>>>>> equipment, cordless telephones, remote control and alarm transmitters,
>>>>>> field-disturbance sensors for opening doors, and spread-spectrum systems
>>>>>> for wide-band data transmission. Intentional radiators governed by FCC Part
>>>>>> 15 Subpart C must either have a permanently attached antenna or provide a
>>>>>> unique coupler to prevent the use of unauthorized antennas."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, try to use the minimum power needed toward keeping the power
>>>>>> below 200uV/m when measured at 3m (FCC power limit for non-registered, Part
>>>>>> 15, Subpart C devices).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The FCC expects people to be building their own and experimenting in
>>>>>> these bands. We are innovators. The rules are simple. First, try not to
>>>>>> cause interference. Two, stop if you find you are causing interference. Even
>>>>>> then the FCC typically issues a warning for the first time a complaint is
>>>>>> filed and you are found to be causing interference.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More below from the interwebs about the operation of non-registered
>>>>>> devices in approved frequency bands. Summery, do not transmit for more than
>>>>>> 5 seconds continuously and do not transmit at
>>>>>> regular, predetermined intervals (and even this requirement has exceptions).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <<p.4: *2.2.1 Control Applications*
>>>>>> Control applications must meet the conditions that are listed in FCC
>>>>>> paragraph 15.231(a). These conditions are summarized below.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> • The transmitter must be used to transmit a simple control signal,
>>>>>> like an alarm system, a door opener, or a remote switch. Data may be sent
>>>>>> together with the control signal.
>>>>>> • If the transmitter is operated manually, an automatic switch must
>>>>>> cease the transmission within five seconds after releasing.
>>>>>> • If the transmission is started automatically, it must not last
>>>>>> longer than five seconds.
>>>>>> • Continuous transmissions, voice, video and radio control of toys
>>>>>> are not allowed.
>>>>>> • Periodic transmissions at regular predetermined intervals are not
>>>>>> allowed. The only exception is integrity testing in security or safety
>>>>>> applications. In these cases, the total duration of transmissions for each
>>>>>> transmitter must not exceed two seconds per hour.
>>>>>> • Transmitters used to signal a fire, security or safety of life,
>>>>>> alarm may operate while the alarm condition exists without time limitations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good read on getting maximum legal power and range in a 915 MHz
>>>>>> system.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.semtech.com/images/datasheet/fcc_digital_modulation_systems_semtech.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Coup de grâce. In essence, you can build 5 for yourself for
>>>>>> non-commercial development (just for reference, how many RF projects have
>>>>>> you built and marketed commercially in the US?). And you can be fined if
>>>>>> the FCC tells you to stop using your home build devices and you keep using
>>>>>> them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet63/oet63rev.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Home-Built Transmitters that are Not for Sale
>>>>>> Hobbyists, inventors and other parties that design and build Part 15
>>>>>> transmitters with
>>>>>> no intention of ever marketing them may construct and operate up to
>>>>>> five such
>>>>>> transmitters for their own personal use without having to obtain FCC
>>>>>> equipment
>>>>>> authorization. If possible, these transmitters should be tested for
>>>>>> compliance with the
>>>>>> Commission's rules. If such testing is not practicable, their
>>>>>> designers and builders are
>>>>>> required to employ good engineering practices in order to ensure
>>>>>> compliance with the
>>>>>> Part 15 standards.
>>>>>> Section 15.23
>>>>>> Home-built transmitters, like all Part 15 transmitters, are not
>>>>>> allowed to cause
>>>>>> interference to licensed radio communications and must accept any
>>>>>> interference that
>>>>>> they receive. If a home-built Part 15 transmitter does cause
>>>>>> interference to licensed
>>>>>> radio communications, the Commission will require its operator to
>>>>>> cease operation
>>>>>> until the interference problem is corrected. Furthermore, if the
>>>>>> Commission determines
>>>>>> that the operator of such a transmitter has not attempted to ensure
>>>>>> compliance with the
>>>>>> Part 15 technical standards by employing good engineering practices
>>>>>> then that operator
>>>>>> may be fined up to $10,000 for each violation and $75,000 for a
>>>>>> repeat or continuing
>>>>>> violation.
>>>>>> Section 15.5
>>>>>> 47 U.S.C. 503>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:41 PM, Glen Smith <mrglenasmith at gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shane,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have not written anything up on it at all. Other more pressing
>>>>>>> things things have come up, like finishing the two and a half year long
>>>>>>> ongoing reside the house project. I do want to get back to it. I was also
>>>>>>> very discouraged by the discussion during meetings regarding legality of
>>>>>>> the Moteino and FCC licensing rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me look for some of my notes this evening and I may be able to
>>>>>>> give you an EXTREMELY rough draft.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Glen
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Nov 17, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Shane Trent <shanedtrent at gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Glen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The topic of remote control door locks came up and made me think
>>>>>>>> about the in-progress demo you had at one of the meetings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Have you written up any of your development effort on the lock
>>>>>>>> project? Or can you recommend a few good links to help me come up to speed?
>>>>>>>> I apologize if you posted a blog link and I missed it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Later,
>>>>>>>> Shane
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.triembed.org/pipermail/triembed_triembed.org/attachments/20141215/bf23ced5/attachment.htm>


More information about the TriEmbed mailing list