I apologize in advance for perhaps trivial and stupid questions I started with LoraWAN a few hours ago.
I installed the drivers and if I run sudo on both GWs sudo ./util_pkt_logger creates cvs in which I see some capture of packets from foreign transmitters
If I run sudo ./util_tx_test -f 868 -r 1257 I see the LED on the iC880 flashing and the utility write Send packet OK
Where is the problem?
If I run util_pkt_logger on GW1 and use util_tx_test -f 868 -r 1257 on GW2, I would assume that I will see packets sent by my GW2 in cvs on GW1 it will not happen
What am I doing wrong?
Second question
Can a GW with an iC880A be used to receive Lora transmissions from a Lora E220-900T22D?
it’s simple, we have about 10 sensors equipped with these transmitters and it would be easier if one gate could receive them.
It is secondary whether a script would move the data from them to our internal server or just add information and send it to the Internet as a pseudo-TNT.
YES I can connect one module with the antenna to receive data from these modules to the same PBPi2, but they come as an impractical solution.
Therefore, I would be pleased if the iC880A could receive data from these transmitters.
In any case, I’ve been playing with it for a few hours and so far I can’t receive a test packet sent to the GW1 from GW,2 it is between the two iC880A
NEVER going to happen - they are not LoRaWAN compliant.
What’s that?
What sort of Pi is that?
If you read the instructions for that script, you’ll see that it just broadcasts some ‘stuff’ and all you’ll see on the other end is an incoming radio transmission that will then promptly fail as an uplink because it is not formatted as an uplink.
1. Real
Soil moisture sensor on the garden
as a transmitter, LoRaWAN module E78-868LN22S
as gateway my ic880A with Raspberry Pi 2B
internet
2. Pseudo
same Soil moisture sensor on the garden
as a transmitter only LoRa module E220-900T30D
as gateway my ic880A with Raspberry Pi 2B
the gateway knows from which module it received data
data can be wrapped in a LoRaWAN frame and forwarded as if sent by a sensor with a LoRAWAN transmitter behind my gateway no one knows the difference
Why?
Price
LoRaWAN E78-868LN22S 5,5$ on Aliexpress
LoRa E220-900T22D 4.0$ on Aliexpress
Range
LoRaWAN E78-868LN22S have 21bBm outputpower
LoRa E220-900T30D have 30bBm outputpower
wider offer and ease of implementation
Ebyte offers many LoRa UART, SPI modules, but only one LoRAWAN module.
The thing can be seen as an internal LoRa network and the Internet with a NAT router and a firewall on the gateway
In general, I understand the mobile or unknown gateways with which the communication modules are LoRaWAN, but for stationary modules such as the soil moisture sensor in my field communicating with my gateway, I could easily receive and send LoRa modules, which would add a LoRaWAN framework and information passed on to the internet.
Yes, it’s the view of a person who deals with LoRa for less than 24 hours, maybe wrong.
in short, I see a much higher offer in the LoRa area, lower prices and in many cases an unnecessary ditch between LoRa and LoRaWAN.
As suggested above, it can’t receive non-LoRaWAN transmissions without you re-writing the whole software stack for the concentrator. And would be off topic for this forum.
Which would be illegal.
You have a perfectly good gateway card, why not spend the $1.50 more on a LoRaWAN module and just get on with the project rather than trying to invent some Frankenstein system.
By your own admission this is your first foray in to LoRa/LoRaWAN - when learning something new do you start at the very beginning, a very good place to start, or do you try to leapfrog over the base knowledge and go for something that requires you to ask a question.
You can use the E220-900T30D to do point to point LoRa but that would be off topic for this forum with is only about LoRaWAN on TTN. Please consider this point carefully if you wish to post any further questions.
Which is illegal for use in the bands used by LoRaWAN.
That won’t make the sensor LoRaWAN compliant causing all sorts of issues for TTN. Or are you going to implement a translation layer for the mandatory MAC layer as well?
Given the small difference in price and the huge effort involved to make sure you are a good citizen on the community network I would strongly suggest to not to go that route.
Hmm, are you sure you understand the difference between just a radio protocol and the standard for an end-to-end encrypted application stack?
There are people on here giving advice for free, who have be working with TTN for years, maybe reflect on why they are suggesting your plans are unworkable or illegal.
