Yes. And I emailed them too. I received their publicly available technical documentation. I look forward to more information. I look forward to receiving more detailed information as well.
@descartes
Small correction: He wasn’t referring to Eastron’s support, he was referring to the Vega sensor alternative.
I might have realised something about the fourth package. Might it be the one setting the number of variables to be reported in each message/uplink? I increased it to 06 and it’s reporting 24 bytes of data (6 variables).
I’ll try and let you know if it does make sense to me
Just to contribute to the discussion…
I have added a device to my RAK gateway.
I cannot see the device online from the Application session of TTN, but i receive data from the meter with the proper schedule.
Here i have the message coming:
{
"name": "gs.up.receive",
"time": "2023-05-03T08:19:58.858936307Z",
"identifiers": [
{
"gateway_ids": {
"gateway_id": "eui-dca632fffed0c736",
"eui": "DCA632FFFED0C736"
}
}
],
"data": {
"@type": "type.googleapis.com/ttn.lorawan.v3.GatewayUplinkMessage",
"message": {
"raw_payload": "gHYgkiEAnRMBfKf3paxubGHuB9YXeof5voZSESuZLMhYk065EICNhnav2tF5zswJpw==",
"payload": {
"m_hdr": {
"m_type": "CONFIRMED_UP"
},
"mic": "zswJpw==",
"mac_payload": {
"f_hdr": {
"dev_addr": "21922076",
"f_ctrl": {},
"f_cnt": 5021
},
"f_port": 1,
"frm_payload": "fKf3paxubGHuB9YXeof5voZSESuZLMhYk065EICNhnav2tF5"
}
},
"settings": {
"data_rate": {
"lora": {
"bandwidth": 125000,
"spreading_factor": 12,
"coding_rate": "4/5"
}
},
"frequency": "867100000",
"timestamp": 369087932
},
"rx_metadata": [
{
"gateway_ids": {
"gateway_id": "eui-dca632fffed0c736",
"eui": "DCA632FFFED0C736"
},
"timestamp": 369087932,
"rssi": -47,
"channel_rssi": -47,
"snr": 10.5,
"uplink_token": "CiIKIAoUZXVpLWRjYTYzMmZmZmVkMGM3MzYSCNymMv/+0Mc2ELyr/68BGgwIrrLIogYQq+6+mQMg4Mzr+t4K",
"channel_index": 3,
"received_at": "2023-05-03T08:19:58.858765099Z"
}
],
"received_at": "2023-05-03T08:19:58.858765099Z",
"correlation_ids": [
"gs:conn:01GZGASHZKW1JBN2P0W2J0ZV2Q",
"gs:uplink:01GZGB4QRAGB2ZKP0T3T11Y86J"
],
"crc_status": true
},
"band_id": "EU_863_870"
},
"correlation_ids": [
"gs:conn:01GZGASHZKW1JBN2P0W2J0ZV2Q",
"gs:uplink:01GZGB4QRAGB2ZKP0T3T11Y86J"
],
"origin": "ip-10-100-6-158.eu-west-1.compute.internal",
"context": {
"tenant-id": "CgN0dG4="
},
"visibility": {
"rights": [
"RIGHT_GATEWAY_TRAFFIC_READ"
]
},
"unique_id": "01GZGB4QRAHRMEYNX4C9N7ER5W"
}
From the raw payload i can detect the serial number, but the message is much longer then expected and i’m unable to understand it.
Anyone?
Does this mean you filled in a form on the RAK GUI?
As normally you’d register the device on the TTN console.
Can you clarify please?
I note you are using confirmed up - I think this is a foible with this meter but if you can turn it off that would be great - Fair Use Policy restricts you to 10 downlinks a day.
It’s encrypted!
Nope, i just added the RAK device on TTN network and it is there and shown as connected.
Then i added the Eatron 630 as a device in Application from TTN website.
From the Gateway webpage on TTN i can see the device sending messages (because i see this frame on the interface
Now…clearly is encrypted.
But by doing something like
decoded = base64.b64decode("gHYgkiGACQABAn/nugyYloIML7sEmRto3n3h+psk/9C+Zb6GUNyO0aAxZoZzmhxLXg==").hex()
print(decoded)
print(decoded[:12])
>'807620922180090001027fe7ba0c9896820c2fbb04991b68de7de1fa9b24ffd0be65be8650dc8ed1a0316686739a1c4b5e'
>'807620922180'
in which 21922076 is the serial number (as expected) but i’m totally unable to detect what is the rest of the payload and i have no clue why the serial stays is between two 80s.
I managed to decode registers from the SDM230 a year ago, but the payload message was much shorter.
Realise I may be a little late to the party but here goes.
Our meter communicates just fine with the gateway albeit the only value that changes is the Total kWh. Other information including line-n voltages and current have all stayed the same value since joining the network. Whether that be a believable value (240.6V eg) or a flat 0.
has anybody else encountered similar?
am using a ug56 gateway btw