Yes, but it won’t mine anymore as this is TTN, not Helium.
It’s going to be a gateway, not a node / device.
That’s for you to take up with Helium.
1 Like
thank you Nick !
I’ll build gateway to connect the sensor…
Nick another think … how the miner send and receive signal and sensors can’t use the device to connect to lora network ? I’m new to that …
It sounds like you need to review the concepts, check out the docs:
1 Like
No you can’t. A RAK helium miner (unless a V1 type) cannot be reconfigured to connect to both Helium and TTN. When it is a V2 type a software replacement is required that will allow connecting to TTN but you will loose Helium connectivity.
3 Likes
Thanks!
1 Like
Hi, is there a manual or a description how to convert a rak Wireless Helium Hotspot V2 to send data to ttn.
You wrote that there is a software replacement required but i can’t find some details about it.
Can you provide more information?
Thanks!
This is how I have my TTN gateway set up using a second hand rak miner.
1 Like
Sorry for the Question, because I’m new to the whole LoRaWan and TTN “thing”. But is it somehow possible to set up a gateway to use both, TTN and Helium?
No, you want your bread buttered on both sides?
Having a GW share networks (not just H +TTN) has been discussed many times on the forum - forum search is your friend! Technically (almost) possible to get illusion of sharing but technically not practical! 
Do not attempt with a GW connected to TTS(CE) (TTN).
It can be done, however it’s like having a car with one car and two steering wheels, two throttles and two break pedals which are operated by entities that do now know they share the car or what the other one is doing.
This could result in a gateway that violates local laws and exposes the owner to fines.
Yes it can be done. Look for the Balena fleet solution from Nebra for your hardware type.
Although you are technically correct, I see no ethical reason that would keep him from doing so. I passed that point a long time ago.
The ethical reason is a technical one - if network A is ‘operating’ the GW then network B is not able to - this then represents a Denial of Service attack by A on B, Also even if Network A isnt actually using the GW it may have exhausted the available duty cycle airtime limit so again Network B cannot function, again a DoS. and so on for many other scenarios. In addition if the GW isnt locked out and monitoring its own duty cycle (a function typically taken care of by the LNS in control) then network B may still go ahead and push a Tx…this then changes an ethical and technical dilema into a Legal issue! I know from discussion you have done this, and on low traffic shared private networks it may be done, if owner keeps eye on activity to ensure legal compliance and is willing to accept packet loss or need for retry’s in their own application BUT it is not something supported or encouraged by TTN/TTI & community and as above
Technically, I can go say 3 pints over the legal alcohol limit - my personal ethics will decide if I can/will or not, society’s (communities) group ethics will decide if I ‘should’ do so or not and Legal limits will decide the punishment! 
If you want to make GW infrastructure available between more than 1 network - peer using established LoRaWAN peering/roaming specifications and ageements or use e.g. Packet Broker…
TTI explicity asks not to do it as it might well impact the user experience on the community network.
There are already users with simple gateway setups complaining about downlinks not arriving, would it be ethical to push the limits and expose the community and forum to complications resulting from such a setup?
Again technically correct. This is how the world should behave.
Unfortunately there are parties that will not talk to each other (TTI vs Helium for example).
Why should only the user behave and choose party while being kept from other features and possibilities when they act different than they preach?
I prefer to do it in a technical correct way but sorry, I am not interested in such moral knighthood when patronized.
1 Like
IIRC there was even an invitation from TTI for a Helium presentation at one of the TTConfs - forget which one - so the not talking idea doesnt sit well, ah well…do they really not talk? Guess need to pay HNT may be a barrier vs normal peering via packet broker etc which is common for most other networks - so guess any traffic for TTN/TTI over H GWs the H users expect and are conditioned to receive a micropayment which wont happen, therefore, I would suspect put blame on H side vs TTN/TTI and fact H then wont play ball would not give you or anyone else the right to say screw you TTN I’m not playing ball…
Because they are part of the community and by default agree to follow manifesto and play by the rules…if users arent willing to play by the rules or prefer to set up a commercial option then I am sure TTI willing to talk about what can be done instead…