UDP does not have a frequency. It might also happen that you have other LoRaWAN nodes around, or LoRa, or even non-LoRa transmission around you. However, looking at numbers, this seems not the case (random counters, as one example). 7 meters is not bad.
I suddenly remember to have had some similar problem with the same gateway software; did you try to restart it?
By the way, I went with a different version of the same software that also should allow for downlinks (the Hallard one does not).
1 Like
Just disable, in your LoRa device, frequencies not received by gateway
LMIC_setupChannel(0, 868100000, DR_RANGE_MAP(DR_SF12, DR_SF7), BAND_CENTI); // g-band
for (int i = 1; i <= 8; i++) LMIC_disableChannel(i); // Only channel 0 is enabled
I am sure the messages come from my node because i see it in real time appearing in my terminal and if you look carefully i noticed that every DevAddr has the form XX XX 26 01 or XX XX 19 08 ! And the real DevAddr is 26 01 19 08. What can produce this kind of mistake ?
Yes but this other version is using 2 RFM95W ? i would like to use only one
Regarding the errors, try restarting the gateway, and also to stay far if possible (but 7 meters should be ok). Regarding the other version, read carefully the linked post.
1 Like
Thank you so much i restarted my gateway and now everything is working fine !!
For everybody whoâs interested:
I have compared a single channel gateway with a very expensive commercial one.
1 Like
Both âGatewaysâ are using the same LoRa device in effect, you would expect the range to be the same, no surprise there at all.
Thatâs a very suggestive description.
A single channel gateway is of course not a LoRaWAN compliant gateway.
Therefore the âwhether worthwhileâ is quite misleading.
Initially a LoRaWAN gateway was relatively expensive, but these days a TTIG can be bought for less than ⏠100 and a RAK concentrator board based DIY gateway can be build starting for around ⏠125 (and up). With these prices and an assortment of available gateways there are currently no good reasons for having Single Channel âgatewaysâ anymore.
Single Channel âgatewaysâ actually negatively impact proper operation of regular LoRaWAN gateways.
So there is no case of âwhether worthwhileâ here.
6 Likes
From the article linked to;
âBut Iâm not a radio expert. Iâve heard that at least with Wifi you can say that 3 dBm more can double the rangeâ
Why would WiFi be different to all other RF protocols ?
Perhaps you can correct that false impression your giving, as to double range you need a 6dBm advantage.
Indeed, and as the article specifically does not detail advantages\dissadvantages, readers are very likely to assume that as the range is similar (exactly as expected) then the extra expense of a compliant gateway is not worthwhile.
1 Like
Mmm⌠if you add the legend for interpreting colors in the charts, it will become clear that the SCG is inferior, and likely you could reach a better range with the Lorix, at least because of the better antenna - by the way, it is not clear how far you moved from the gateways and where they stopped to receive.
However, I must say I reached better ranges with both SCGs and Lorix 
Hi,
I designed my own node/forwarder hardware, see:
ESP12_RFM95
As end node it works perfect. Next step is to use it as single channel packet forwarder conform de software of Maarten Westenberg (6.2.0). After a lot reading, configurating and testing I came to the conclusion that the forwarder runs (not tested with end nodes yet) but the www-server gives me a lot ascii text in the browser (see next image)
Who can help me???
Thanks and regardsâŚ
The ASCII text is HTTP Response headers followed by the HTML for the page, but for some reason it is not being correctly displayed. That c3 at the start looks wrong to me. Have you tried clicking on refresh or using another browser?
Please donât add more single channel packet forwarders to the network. They are harmful when it comes to the correct working of the LoRaWAN network.
@kersing
I have a real (Lorank8-868) gateway running and a Raspberry Pi + RAK833 is in the make!!! For me itâs a challenge to look what my combination of an ESP12 + RFM95 can do. A link with TTN is not always obvious.
@tlu
Browsing from 192.168.178.43: Firefox shows only ascii, Opera only a white screen, Explorer comes up with an error. Strange is, when I save the page and browse to that saved page, it works (also withe the c3 on top). OK, I am going to search deeper.
ThanksâŚ
@Wijnand feel free to experiment with the hardware as long as you do not connect it to TTN. Once you do you are crippling the functionality of your full gateway(s).