Hi, I have only a few days experience with Arduino so please bear with me
I used a UNO R3 clone.
The project logs the 433 mhz radio traffic of remotes and sensors with 433 connection.
It was done in three steps: first connect to a 433 receiver to decode and visualize the 433 traffic.
This was done with the rc-switch library ( GitHub - sui77/rc-switch: Arduino lib to operate 433/315Mhz devices like power outlet sockets. ) (attached)
The library comes with examples among which ReceiveDemo simple and ReceiveDemo advanced.
The second and third steps consisted in adding a RTC to timestamp entries and a datalogger to write data to an SD card.
All this work as expected and the attached photo shows the completed project.
The RTC/Datalogger shield is on top of the UNO R3 and the small bradboard has the receiver.
The SD card is missing in the photo.
This done, i wanted to replicate the feat with a Nano clone. The one i got comes with the old bootloader.
So i started connecting the radio to the Nano. Using the rc-switch library example "ReceiveDemo simple" works as expected.
You receive the decimal code, bit width and protocol, something like: 658734 24 bit protocol 5.
Using the ReceiveDemo advanced of the rc-switch library you get more data (in the UNO R3):
Decimal code, binary code, tri-state (if applicable), bit width, pulse lenght (in microseconds), protocol and raw data.
The raw data looks something like: 567, 432, 975, 766, ...(not real)
The same library example do not work with the Nano, what i get looks like partial raw data but is missing all the rest.
(The attached photo shows the Nano connected to the radio)
The radio has only three wires. In addition to 5V and ground, the data is conected to pin 2 in the UNO R3 and to D2 in the Nano (hopefully you can see that in the photos).
QUESTION: why is the Nano not bahaving like the UNO?
(tried with two different Nanos)
QUESTION: why is the Nano not bahaving like the UNO?
Although the processor is identical, some other components are different. For example the power circuit is completely different and the chip used to connect the ATmega328p to the USB interface is also another one on the two boards.
On the software side the two boards should be identical.
Have you tried to use only the base board of the UNO withouth the SD shield on it? Does that work too?
pylon:
Have you tried to use only the base board of the UNO withouth the SD shield on it? Does that work too?
Yes. I started that way and added the shield only after the receiver was working.
I have an additional UNO with only the receiver and a trasmitter (no shield) that i use to emulate a remote or sensor (with the trasmitter obviously). So no surprise with the UNO with or without shield!
Since the Nano Is able to run the simpler program correctly, the hardware Is obviously working since the software decodes the signal properly.
However the more complex program runs on the UNO but not in the Nano.
Being new to the Arduino i am short of ideas. I tried also changing the receiver
with the one working on the UNO to no avail.
A program running on the UNO but not in the Nano is something very unusual or not?
May both Nanos I have be faulty?
Paul__B:
You did test your jumper wires, didn't you?
As newcomer was excited by the novelty so i have not been as meticulous as i should have.
I had not checked the wires, but the simple receving sketch was working so i assumed wiring was ok.
However you are right. I checked them and they were ok. You triggered some doubts however.
I changed the breadboards and jumpers using different pinholes. No change.
The Nano works perfectly with the simpler sketch but fail with the more detailed one.
I do however get some output with the more detailed one.
It looks like the end of the output i get with the UNO.
May the Nano be too slow?
There is no additional antenna.
The UNO is tested with a 433 remote a few cm apart.
It receives and decode properly with the simpler sketch but fails with the more detailed one.
I have noticed that the same receiver works better with the UNO than with the Nano.
With the UNO i can receive and decode a 433 sensor burst 3/4 meters away while with the Nano i can not.
The power supply is the same in both cases (an android tablet with OTG cable) hooked to the usb of the UNO or Nano.
May be, as PYLON suggested, the power circuit difference the culprite?
It should not be a great difference, but note that powering through the USB port, you have a lower voltage from the "5V" pin on the Nano clone than the UNO.
You should probably have a 0.1 µF and a 47 µF capacitor across the 5 V and ground connections on the 433 MHz module.
Wawa:
Looks like the Nano pins are not soldered to the board.
Is hard to know from the original posted photo, but YES, they are soldered.
It is difficult to show it in a picture being pretty small, but the attached photo is my best effort
hammy:
On one photo , it looks like , you have power from 3v3 to the rf board on the other 5v .
You are right.
But the photo perspective is misleading.
It Is connected at the 5V. The receiver will not work at 3.3 at all.
Attached Is the side view.
Paul__B:
Hey! "Huesillo" may be new to this but I don't think he is that stupid!
The photos (contrary to the common practice on these forums) are actually quite well taken, just a little short on resolution.
A) I'll rather have an obvious suggestion that none at all.
Simple suggestions can be expanded.
Have you checked jumpers? can be expanded to Have you checked ALL connections? And that may include the breadboard itself.
Are your pins soldered? Can be expanded to Are ALL your soldering OK? So i checked ALL soldering with a 10x loupe.
I welcome any suggestion.
B) From "How to use this forum":
"As a courtesy to other forum users, images should be no more than a couple of hundred K bytes."
I have been folowing that suggestion.
Can you suggest a different pixel resolution and/or a file size?
A 200KB .jpg on average is a 600x800 pixel resolution with moderate compression.
Paul__B:
while the 47 µF electrolytic buffers longer surges and demands.
I assume by that, that you think that the Nano may possibly have not enough power at times to handle the receiver.
I have no capacitor at hand but figured how to test this assumption.
I used a bigger breadboard with power rails and its own power supply.
Powered the transmitter from this bradboard and left only the data pin of the trasmitter conneted to the Nano.
The Nano was powered by the usb port.
No change. Same as before.
So is not the power from the Nano but something else the problem.
The UNO is tested with a 433 remote a few cm apart.
It receives and decode properly with the simpler sketch but fails with the more detailed one.
I have noticed that the same receiver works better with the UNO than with the Nano.
With the UNO i can receive and decode a 433 sensor burst 3/4 meters away while with the Nano i can not.
The power supply is the same in both cases (an android tablet with OTG cable) hooked to the usb of the UNO or Nano.
May be, as PYLON suggested, the power circuit difference the culprite?
With no antenna, you are much more likely to be receiving noise from the power supply - probably there is more noise on one board than the other one.
Why, with so much mystery around your problem, do you insist on not performing the simple, obvious step of adding antennas. Radios don't work well without them. In the worst possible case, it doesn't help and you have to try something else. But it's crazy to keep charging ahead with testing, using a compromised circuit.
aarg:
Why, with so much mystery around your problem, do you insist on not performing the simple, obvious step of adding antennas. Radios don't work well without them. In the worst possible case, it doesn't help and you have to try something else. But it's crazy to keep charging ahead with testing, using a compromised circuit.
"Some people may benefit from vacations as may those around them" M.G.
Stating "you have no antenna" is stating the obvious.
You may as well say "the receiver has 4 pins"
So what? What is the information carried?
You should be explicit and state clearly what you are thinking since not all are mind readers.
If you think that an antenna may improve S/N ratio, state so.
I may be a farmer with knowledge about tractors but no clue about receivers.
A subtle hint may be missed.
I soldered the antenna that comes with the receiver kit (see attached photo).
With the UNO the range is somewhat better but less than expected, say roughly 20/30% better.
With the Nano a signal that was not detected at 3 meters is now detected.
I am using for testing a PIR detector that is already installed as part of a burglar alarm system.
The detector when activated will send several times a signal that when received and decoded by tha Arduino is in the form of:
Fixed string "Received " followed by a decimal code, bit width, protocol number.
It looks something like this: Received 567432, 24 bit, Protocol: 1
This is repeated several times as the sensor send them in a fast sequence, so you see 4 or 5 times the same line.
Occasionally, but quite often, the Nano (but never the UNO) will truncate a line and show only the end of the line.
Instead of Received 567432, 24 bit, Protocol: 1 you get instead "ol: 1". The last 5 characters of the complete line.
The pulse lenght is, depending on the sensor, from 200 to 400 microseconds.
The more complete sketch that runs on the UNO but not on the Nano (described in the initial post) output a much more detailed report several lines long.
The last part is the raw data that is presented as a sequence of decimal numbers separated by commas.
This sketch when run on the Nano will always show only the ending part of the report, that is the incomplete raw data, missing always the preceding part.
