Hello,
I am doing an IoT object which aims to take some measures about the water quality in a well.
This object will float on the water and send measures periodically via LoRa.
But my problem is that the well is from 15 meters to 30 meters depth.
Thank you !
Do you know if LoRa would work in such a deep place ?
It will work, but whether you receive anything depends on where the receiver is, but you did not tell us that very important bit of information.
I suspect if LoRa won't work then nothing will.
Do some tests - you are the guy with the well. I don't have one.
What diameter is the well and what are the walls of the well made from?
...R
Thank you for your answers.
I will not exactly use LoRa but SigFox, an alternative technology using the same frequencies. That's why I didn't talk about the receiver.
SigFox have robust gateways.
The diameter of the well is about 2 meters large and the walls are in dirt.
flavbleach:
Thank you for your answers.I will not exactly use LoRa but SigFox, an alternative technology using the same frequencies. That's why I didn't talk about the receiver.
SigFox have robust gateways.
The diameter of the well is about 2 meters large and the walls are in dirt.
LoRa and Sigfox are completely different systems, why say your using LoRa when your not !!!
Sigfox do have robust gateways but if your out of reach, which sounds very likely, then it can be pricy setting up your own gateway.
I suspect you may be confusing LoRa and LoRaWAN (The Things Network), LoRaWAN has much the same restrictions as Sigfox in that you really need to be near a gateway for it to work.
OK I understand so it may not work in the well directly with SigFox or LoRaWAN
So the idea might be to put a box on top of the well with a big antenna, and a LoRa receiver.
From the sensor side,in the well, the LoRa emiter sends the data to the receiver so the big antenna can send the data to the SigFox / LoRaWAN network.
Does it seem OK ? Or do you see an alternative ?
How do you propose to power the unit in the well? It seems to me that either:
You have cable hanging down the well to provide the power, in which case the cable can carry the signals as well.
You have batteries in the unit, in which case you have to keep fishing it out to charge the batteries. If you do that you will eventually decide to have a rope or string attached to it to pull it out, in which case you might as well have a cable, in which case you are back to the signals going up the cable.
Did I miss something?
PerryBebbington:
How do you propose to power the unit in the well? It seems to me that either:You have cable hanging down the well to provide the power, in which case the cable can carry the signals as well.
You have batteries in the unit, in which case you have to keep fishing it out to charge the batteries. If you do that you will eventually decide to have a rope or string attached to it to pull it out, in which case you might as well have a cable, in which case you are back to the signals going up the cable.Did I miss something?
Both units (the receiver unit (on top of the well) and the sensors unit (the emiter, floating down in the well)) will be battery powered.
Yes no problem for the ropes. This is a water well in Africa so we use a bucket to get the water. And so we can get the sensor too with that bucket.
flavbleach:
So the idea might be to put a box on top of the well with a big antenna, and a LoRa receiver.
From the sensor side,in the well, the LoRa emiter sends the data to the receiver so the big antenna can send the data to the SigFox / LoRaWAN network.Does it seem OK ? Or do you see an alternative ?
Depends entirely where you are, you, knowing where you are will have to check if your within reach of a gateway.
Be aware that in most cases the nodes are transmitting the maximum legal power possible into an omni-directional antenna. Adding a 'big antenna' to go further would then be illegal.
flavbleach:
This is a water well in Africa so we use a bucket to get the water. And so we can get the sensor too with that bucket.
It's far more likely that someone will accidentally hit the sensor with the bucket and destroy it. My guess is that would happen on day 2 (and this has nothing to do with Africa or Africans - it would be the same everywhere).
Why not just get the person lowering the bucket to tell you how much string they had to let out to reach the water?
...R
one way:
HC-12 in the well talking to
HC-12 on top of the well talking to a
NANO which repeats the signal to the SigFox
where is it written that a radio signal link can not be vertical?
flavbleach:
Hello,I am doing an IoT object which aims to take some measures about the water quality in a well.
This object will float on the water and send measures periodically via LoRa.But my problem is that the well is from 15 meters to 30 meters depth.
- Do you know if LoRa would work in such a deep place ?
- What are the alternatives ?
Thank you !
The major worldwide water quality problem is bacteria. You have an open, hand dug well, so any bacteria contamination is probably already there. There are no electronic sensors to detect various types of bacteria, harmfull or not. What exactly are you testing for?
Paul
When the sender has sunk to the bottom of the water in the well 
...R
Assuming you want to place the sensor at the bottom of the well (under water) your best bet is probably a long wire to the top. Makes changing batteries easier, too, as those are at the top. The top side has the radio communications to your local SigFox link, and reads the sensors at the bottom through a wired link. RS485 comes to mind, but maybe TTL Serial will still work. Low baud rate will help at these distances.
Add a pipe around that wire to protect it from the bucket.