Related
There are loads of major manufacturers all planning to launch Wireless USB devices later this year.
Intel have thrown themselves heavily behind this new standard, or rather this extension of the existing USB standard. USB is already the most popular and pervasive interface in the world.
Who thinks this will kill Bluetooth ?
Personally I can't see bluetooth lasting for long once there is an alternative that actually works properly. It's hard to think of another technology that has promised so much and delivered so little and been so full of bugs, glitches, incompatibilities etc.
I think the Wireless USB will appear, having learnt from all of Bluetooth's ghastly mistakes, and take the industry by storm. Bye bye bluetooth.
ozymandias said:
There are loads of major manufacturers all planning to launch Wireless USB devices later this year.
Intel have thrown themselves heavily behind this new standard, or rather this extension of the existing USB standard. USB is already the most popular and pervasive interface in the world.
Who thinks this will kill Bluetooth ?
Personally I can't see bluetooth lasting for long once there is an alternative that actually works properly. It's hard to think of another technology that has promised so much and delivered so little and been so full of bugs, glitches, incompatibilities etc.
I think the Wireless USB will appear, having learnt from all of Bluetooth's ghastly mistakes, and take the industry by storm. Bye bye bluetooth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My last three phones were bluetooth, my last two handhelds, my curent phone/handheld, my gps, my PC, all my current gear works as expected.
What was your point again?
Read this and many other forums on bluetooth related topics.
All you read is problems with pairing, problems with sound quality, problems with compatibility, dopped connections, things either not working they way they should or not working at all.
Bluetooth, in general, is flaky.
ozymandias said:
Bluetooth, in general, is flaky.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wireless USB isn't even here yet, thus hasn't been tested properly yet, and you're sounding the death knells of BT.... you're certainly an optimist!
I also have no problems with bluetooth; certainly no more than I do with USB devices any way.
For one thing, in the very begining, people were saying that BlueTooth doesn't stand a chance because of it's short 10 meter radius. Well have you seen an 802.11b Wi-Fi headset? If there is I bet it costs a lot.
Everyone was skeptical but look at how technology is with regards to the phones, having BlueTooth is important when selecting a phone. Transfering small pictures, having printouts or even on your BT headsets. Wifi coss too much and I think Bluetooth will evolve into something that IR could not.
In my opinion it will stay for the next 5 years and then a better version will be out.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm not against BlueTooth.
I think bluetooth is quite well conceived as a technology, but disasterously implemented by a lot of manufacturers.
I understand and agree with the points made about the usefulness of short-range wireless and personal area networks etc etc. I think there's a great future in it.
My point is, that Wireless USB is quite clearly going to be stepping on BlueTooth's toes in a way that Wifi does not. We've seen it happen in the past with other standards like Betamax and VHS, even ethernet and token ring (although token ring still exists in various forms).
I'm not sure the various industries will stand for two such similar technologies and the way the players are lining up at the moment I think WUSB will have the edge.
Hi,
I miss the USB-Host on all of our slick new Devices!
Only the very BIG HTC has an USB-Host.
The only "small" WM5, GSM,GPS and USB-Host Device ever made was the FJS Loox T830.
I think this is not right! What's your opinion?
An Usb-Host gives you endless possiblities!
BR
Daniel
yeah..
but there's really no way to do it?
yes, definately would be great to have!!
Yes i am agree with you
What's the point? A WM device can't provide enough power down the USB port to power most devices, so you'll have to use a powered hub anyway. Unless you WANT to kill the battery in 10 minutes flat.
Need a keyboard? Get a BT one.
Need a mouse? Get a BT one, though why you need a mouse when you have a touchscreen device, I don't know...
Need a memory stick? Get one that takes mini-SD cards. I have one, they're very useful!
Need a printer? Why? You've got some printer drivers and a print option in your WM programs? Didn't think so...
Wifi dongle? Get a device with wifi built in...
Etc etc...
my mine use case is Various FTDI based Hardware to Control or Measure stuff.
e.g UniLog. one of the things we did:
http://blog.lieberlieber.com/2009/0...-flying-uniglide-a-solution-for-hang-gliding/
and some more
FloatingFatMan said:
...Need a memory stick? Get one that takes mini-SD cards. I have one, they're very useful!
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What happens if the SD slot is behind the battery?
What happens if the memory stick isn't yours
I found it extremley usefull on my Toshiba G900. I would often have work colleages giving me memory sticks out "in the field" (actually a very big automation site in Langley - HWDC) and ask me if I could email/keep something for them during our integration testing. I also took photos of stuff and put it straight onto there memory sticks.
So you might not see any reason to have it but, some of us do.
edit: not to mention the really coool - when they said "oh yeah I have that on memory stick but my latops back in the office", you can imagine how I could act all geek then and say "you got it on you? is it in that Excel file? Let me have a look now mate"
doesn't tv-out is a usb host question??
if it is so i like it .
i would really like to have tv-out on my htc wizard
FloatingFatMan said:
What's the point? A WM device can't provide enough power down the USB port to power most devices, so you'll have to use a powered hub anyway. Unless you WANT to kill the battery in 10 minutes flat.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First, this is untrue. And if you think using your wifi or BT connection in a "constant" way doesn't blow through your battery, you've never done it
Second, I want to plug in an ultrasound probe:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MNQmD_Jtco
Can't do that with BT (too slow) or WiFi (too power hungry and I cannot tolerate unknown latency or dropped frames in by wireless medical device connection).
USB Host is terribly useful and not only for the "obvious" things listed. Let the users/developers find interesting uses. They are out there!
Hi,
Can you please let me know which android phone has the most powerful GPS chip?
I want to develop a custom android navigation system and I want to deploy on a phone with very powerful GPS chip so it work everywhere.
thanks.
legolas.w said:
Hi,
Can you please let me know which android phone has the most powerful GPS chip?
I want to develop a custom android navigation system and I want to deploy on a phone with very powerful GPS chip so it work everywhere.
thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don’t know... But I would think if you are developing an app you would want to target the most sold/prolific android phones... regardless if they are the "most powerful" or not.
What if the most "powerful" is a phone that doesn’t sell much?
The solution is GPS and positioning centric. At first I looked for Navigation devices but none of them is based on Java or Android so I can not develop my application for them.
I decided to use Android based cell phones as they both have GPS chip and I can develop application for them easily.
Thanks.
Ok cool... So focus on all the newer Android phones? HTC, Motorola... LG has a low end now...
You really want to just develop for the HD2 or Droid X? Would that even be practice or possible?
The customer will buy any device I ask for his employees, so I will have no problem regarding the application being locked for only one type of devices.
The only thing that I need is a Android based device with good GPS capability.
Thanks
Ok.....
Well I find it hard to belive older devices would have better GPS...
I think all new phones probably have the same GPS capibilities?
Or look at the Garman?? Wouldn't the phone made by a GPS compnay have the best GPS?
I actually have a pretty good background in GPS. I can’t imagine what you are getting at. Either it’s just another GPS app that most phones can do or you are talking about an app that would do survey level GPS. That of course would require a base station and no phone would have that because it would be ridicules for any manufacture to make.
So what is it you are you trying to do?
I need to develop a software in which the office sends a coordinate to the phone via USB cable or bluetooth, the employee take the phone or the GPS device and then move to the location specified by the office and deliver a package.
When delivered the package, employee need to fill in a form about the package delivery conditions. The application must not allow the employee to fill in the form unless he is in a proximity of the delivery point. for example 50 meters away from delivery point.
I can only develop software in Java and so far I was not able to find a dedicated GPS device capable of running an android of Java application. So I thought the Android phones are the best options.
thanks.
legolas.w said:
I need to develop a software in which the office sends a coordinate to the phone via USB cable or bluetooth, the employee take the phone or the GPS device and then move to the location specified by the office and deliver a package.
When delivered the package, employee need to fill in a form about the package delivery conditions. The application must not allow the employee to fill in the form unless he is in a proximity of the delivery point. for example 50 meters away from delivery point.
I can only develop software in Java and so far I was not able to find a dedicated GPS device capable of running an android of Java application. So I thought the Android phones are the best options.
thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So... dont you know.. Almost all new phones have the same GPS abilities? You think one is going to be better than any other? Again... GPS is pretty basic.. Blackberry, iPhone, Android... They are all using the same chip...
Come on... You think HTC is going to say "we will show you 2' closer than the other guys!!! Buy us!!"? Who the hell cares?
And 50 meters?! Almost all phones on the market do way better than that! My Droid not only finds me within a few feet but even know what direction I’m facing standing still!!
Well,
It is correct that all new phones do GPS better than older phones. But a dedicated GPS device lock in less than 10 seconds in-door while a cell phone may not lock the position in 30 seconds.
I am mostly looking for a better GPS support for locking and reception reasong.
Thanks.
legolas.w said:
I need to develop a software in which the office sends a coordinate to the phone via USB cable or bluetooth, the employee take the phone or the GPS device and then move to the location specified by the office and deliver a package.
When delivered the package, employee need to fill in a form about the package delivery conditions. The application must not allow the employee to fill in the form unless he is in a proximity of the delivery point. for example 50 meters away from delivery point.
I can only develop software in Java and so far I was not able to find a dedicated GPS device capable of running an android of Java application. So I thought the Android phones are the best options.
thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok I think your best bet would be to ask around on some actual programming forums because it seems like half the people that are responding to you aren't even reading your post fully.
As far as GPS signal strength and accuracy goes:
All HTC devices within the past 2 years...
The upcoming Samsung device line...
And Motorola devices STARTING from the original Droid...
Anything after that will more than likely have very low quality parts, meaning very shoddy GPS chips as well.
Good luck on that program, bud.
hi Legolas
did you end up developing this program?
Hi all.... this is not your usual "I want to listen to FM on my otherwise unsupported ROM" request. What I'm requesting I think would be far more interesting, and if applied properly, could benefit many makes and models of phone. For that reason, maybe this belongs in an even more general forum, but I'm starting here because this is the phone I have and I don't know just how many other models use this same hardware.
I see that the HTC Doubleshot / T-Mobile MyTouch 4G Slide, along with several other phones, has a BCM4329-B1 radio chipset. This chip is reported in many places to be capable of not only FM Radio receive but also transmit. Unfortunately, that's as far as anyone goes with listing what it's capable of doing. Partly because of this (and partly because of search overload or maybe me not knowing what terms to use in my search), I can't find specs enough on the chip to know the full range of frequencies it receives. I have seen enough to imply that the same chip handles bluetooth, wifi, as well as FM broadcast band. Something as widespread as that might just be capable of extending receive capabilities outside of the usual broadcast band (for instance, maybe it can be used as a "police scanner" of sorts).
If nothing else, I think it would be fantastic to have an APK that can take MP3s or perhaps any kind of streaming media and retransmit it, low-power of course, to a nearby FM radio set to receive on the same frequency (much easier to get e.g. Pandora into every room in my house this way). I just figure if I'm going to ask for this I may as well ask for the world, right? Of course I don't expect a multiband ham radio to pop out of my phone, but if I could use it to maybe pick up a wireless microphone at 181 MHz, or act as a frequency meter (similar to WiFi Analyzer apk) for low-power transmitter troubleshooting, that would be phenomenal. Icing on the cake would be the ability to record what it receives, assuming it receives outside of band (record-to-file equals record-to-stream, here, meaning also record-and-serve-on-a-wifi-or-4G-link).
Any takers?
I wish I could offer time and skill but I just don't know enough about development nor does my life lend much in the way of free time for hobbies... I'm hopeful someone else has already thought of this.
Regards and TIA
cj chitwood said:
I'm hopeful someone else has already thought of this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a unique position on this, because it's a problem I run into consistently.
When i'm doing this and can't hear anything around me, and the camera gets no music when it records.
The only good way to deal with this without getting a noise disturbance violation at night is to use a couple of androids to sync all the music up - person(s) on camera has a device with headphones, sync up with the one playing music next to the camera.
There is no smooth way to handle that in random locations all over the place, way out of wifi range and possibly with no cell service as well.
There is no easy answer but there are ways of making it work. I'd write up a guide on how we do it now, but being down to only one device I can't run through it in front of me now, i'll have to wait until I see my friend again so we have two or 3 machines to use at once or I get my hands on another one (hopefully soon - this is my biggest aggravation with being temporarily down a device, no bluetooth or interacting with another device testing)
Since someone else in interested in the exact same issue here i'll take the time at some point to sit down and recap what worked or didn't work and link to the things that did. Have to be another day though, i'm pretty tired now and gonna catch some sleep soon.
Anyone else put effort into something like this?
Blue6IX said:
I have a unique position on this, because it's a problem I run into consistently.
When i'm doing this and can't hear anything around me, and the camera gets no music when it records.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ah HAH! I WONDERED what you had for a "day" job!
Joking aside though, I'm surprised out where there's no cell signal they worry about noise violations... Here, there's a time limit (15 minutes at a time with at least I think a 5 minute break IIRC) but you can make noise pretty much any time at night. Just don't wake the neighbors up and nobody complains
Thanks for posting your thoughts. I'm willing to test insomuch as it won't risk the device. I just don't know enough to program my own app for this...
...if it's even possible: a guy at work reminded me today that just as CPU manufacturers use the same chip designation to indicate a CPU with and without features like L2 cache, phone mfgrs like Samsung (he has a not-so-new Galaxy phone) have been known to use this same chip with the FM radio capabilities completely absent to the point that someone in the know actually removed the chip from his device, hooked it up on a bench, and was completely unable to get it to do anything FM radio related. It may be that while some iterations of the chip overall are capable of being made with transmit, that it's quite likely transmit itself was left out of the hardware itself.
I'd still like to see if it's possible. Maybe if the chip identifies itself in the OS, we can see how it does, and maybe it will hint at whether transmit was included or not.
Found this:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1042094
Which implies this was originally touched upon before the Evo... However, it also provides enough info as to say the only FM receive/transmit this chip will do OOB is FM broadcast band (76-108 MHz). Still, it can transmit...
Bump!!!!
That would be ill if you could transmit on FM band ...... anyone make any progress?
Although why not just stream via bluetooth? what would the advantage to transmitting on fm band be other than epic nerd street cred
Some_dude36 said:
Bump!!!!
That would be ill if you could transmit on FM band ...... anyone make any progress?
Although why not just stream via bluetooth? what would the advantage to transmitting on fm band be other than epic nerd street cred
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not all devices support a2dp
Sent from my RubiX ICS Infused using Tapatalk
Fm xmit might go farther, especially if the right antenna can be made.
Fm can be simultaneously received by multiple devices. Think here tv-out to a small portable projector showing the latest theatrical releases in full composite glory and stereo sound out of the viewers' battery operated headphone radios all while offering 4g data hotspot... :~/
Honestly, the real reason for me is the fm radios in the garage are louder than the portable computer speakers I've been playing Pandora through and I hate the dinky transmitter that came with my wife's ipod because it only does 4 stations high in the band. This would make that much easier (and I'm sure many others would find a use for this).
--
Sent from my Android ”phone”:
HTC DoubleShot /T-Mobile MyTouch 4G Slide running Bulletproof
FM Transmit:
I get asked this question regularly, and my response is generally: "Forget about it, almost no Android phones connect the FM Transmit pins anywhere useful".
But a few months ago a helpful person sent me an HTC FM transmit app. Apparently it was meant for the T-Mobile/HTC Mytouch 4G, and apparently that device is supposed to have the transmit pins connected.
I have no idea (yet) if that is true or if this also applies to the "Slide" variant.
I'm sure this will only work on ROMs that use the Broadcom proprietary Bluetooth stack and that have sufficient parts of Sense present. IE, a stock or stock derived ROM. It probably requires Froyo or GingerBread.
If anyone has or can load such a ROM and wants to try, and will commit to reporting their results, email me at mikereidis AT gmail.com and I'll send the APK.
Thanks...
mikereidis said:
FM Transmit:
...
But a few months ago a helpful person sent me an HTC FM transmit app. Apparently it was meant for the T-Mobile/HTC Mytouch 4G, and apparently that device is supposed to have the transmit pins connected.
I have no idea (yet) if that is true or if this also applies to the "Slide" variant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had one tester who reported success, but on the non "Slide" version. Details and a link to the app are here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=31328070&postcount=4391
mikereidis said:
I had one tester who reported success, but on the non "Slide" version. Details and a link to the app are here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=31328070&postcount=4391
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I installed it on a stock sense rom on the MT4GS and the app loads, but when I press transmit it just stays on the "FM Transmitter turning on" so I'm guessing that means that it won't work...
marc12868 said:
I installed it on a stock sense rom on the MT4GS and the app loads, but when I press transmit it just stays on the "FM Transmitter turning on" so I'm guessing that means that it won't work...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for trying.
That's exactly what happens on my Desire HD and Desire Z running stock derived Gingerbread.
The success report for the non-slide phone was on Android 2.2.1. I don't know if 2.3.x is possible, but I'll find out when I get my myTouch 4G HD hopefully by the end of the week.
I expect to add a transmit test function to my FM app Spirit at some point, and it will then likely work on any ROM, though audio routing could be a challenge.
marc12868 said:
I installed it on a stock sense rom on the MT4GS and the app loads, but when I press transmit it just stays on the "FM Transmitter turning on" so I'm guessing that means that it won't work...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I get the same exact scenario myself. I even went to the extent of making sure I had some audio playing to make sure that it wasn't just the fact there was no audio and it might have been waiting for it. still no joy. It appears that the slide variant of the MyTouch 4G does indeed not have the Fm transmit pins connected. then again, I have not looked at my logs yet, so I do not know exactly what it has been doing.
--
Sent from my Bulletproof Swiss Army Doubleshot using the XDA app and stock voice to text.
Hope this lolcat helps
https://www.box.com/shared/6parlnbt3j3y6o5fgopq
--
Sent from my Bulletproof Swiss Army Doubleshot using the XDA app.
The logcat doesn't show any errors with executing the FM Transmitter app. What I can see is the FM Reciever gets activated on the logcat. I should say that FMTx & FMRx cannot be run in the same time.
1. So the error could be the FMTx got killed by the FMRx intentionally.
2. BCM4329 driver doesn't have the code to interact with the FMTx chipset.
If the mt4gs does indeed have FMTx on it's chipset then I'm sure it's working/connected on the board else we wouldn't have any FM Radio on our device.
Bluetooth, FMTx & FMRx is located in the same part of the chipset. One dies then all of them dies.
Now anybody here could link me to the stock kernel of the device which made this work? I could look at the bcm driver on that kernel and maybe I could hook it up on the mt4gs kernel to make it work.
---------- Post added at 11:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:23 AM ----------
Ok guys confirmed! Hardware should be capable of transmitting fm frequencies.
Looking at the data sheet FM Tx & Rx are bidirectional which means as long as FM Rx is working so will be Tx.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Now the problems left would be the driver & the Hardware Abstraction Layer(HAL). Since we already have an FM Tx app.
LOLcat ?
Yes, the 4329 has TX inside, no problem, but I'm pretty sure it can only transmit or receive at one time, never simultaneously.
Every time I've looked at the internals of the Broadcom proprietary Bluetooth stack I've seen the transmit function, and HTCs implementation tends to include that, and their own mods.
The biggest issue should be whether or not the Transmit pins are connected to the headset. Heck, most of the phones with this chip don't even connect the receive antenna pins. (IE no FM radio whatsoever, grrr, what a waste.)
That said, I'm not quite sure why the TX app hangs on most phones, other than the plain myTouch 4G. There might be some difference and I hope to get to the bottom of it.
And eventually, I should be able to make Transmit work on any BCM4329 device with the transmit antenna pins wired, but there will likely be very few such devices.
And before anyone asks, it will likely be completely infeasible to make the hardware mod needed, same as for FM receive antenna pins.
I see 28 downloads of the FMTx app now.
mikereidis said:
LOLcat ?
Yes, the 4329 has TX inside, no problem, but I'm pretty sure it can only transmit or receive at one time, never simultaneously.
Every time I've looked at the internals of the Broadcom proprietary Bluetooth stack I've seen the transmit function, and HTCs implementation tends to include that, and their own mods.
The biggest issue should be whether or not the Transmit pins are connected to the headset. Heck, most of the phones with this chip don't even connect the receive antenna pins. (IE no FM radio whatsoever, grrr, what a waste.)
That said, I'm not quite sure why the TX app hangs on most phones, other than the plain myTouch 4G. There might be some difference and I hope to get to the bottom of it.
And eventually, I should be able to make Transmit work on any BCM4329 device with the transmit antenna pins wired, but there will likely be very few such devices.
And before anyone asks, it will likely be completely infeasible to make the hardware mod needed, same as for FM receive antenna pins.
I see 28 downloads of the FMTx app now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi! As I said if FMRx works then should be FMTx. So it's clear now that hardware wise FMTx should be fully working. Now software wise that I still don't know.
Regarding antenna I'm not quite sure if it's really necessary? You see I have a device here Nokia N900 which has a built in FMRx & FMTx feature which was really implemented by nokia. And I already dissassembled it alot of time to the point I know each and every part of it And I can activate it's FMTx without the need of a headset. I just need to play the music player select the Transmit FM option and select the frequency I want then I can channel the music to any radio reciever 1 to 2 meters away from me without the need of an antenna.
http://wiki.maemo.org/N900_Hardware_FM_Radio_Transmitter
Riyal said:
Hi! As I said if FMRx works then should be FMTx. So it's clear now that hardware wise FMTx should be fully working. Now software wise that I still don't know.
Regarding antenna I'm not quite sure if it's really necessary? You see I have a device here Nokia N900 which has a built in FMRx & FMTx feature which was really implemented by nokia. And I already dissassembled it alot of time to the point I know each and every part of it And I can activate it's FMTx without the need of a headset. I just need to play the music player select the Transmit FM option and select the frequency I want then I can channel the music to any radio reciever 1 to 2 meters away from me without the need of an antenna.
http://wiki.maemo.org/N900_Hardware_FM_Radio_Transmitter
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the CHIP has all the hardware needed. But the most important "hardware part" is the connection of something to the FM Tx antenna pin. Even if the pins aren't grounded (Which tends to kill all chance) and left floating, the chips are inside "RF shields" will just about kills any chance of reception/transmission.
Every radio receiver or transmitter MUST have an antenna. On some devices it may be internal and you don't see it, but it's definitely there. On old AM radios internal antennas were a LONG piece of wire wrapped around a bar (ferrite?).
In some cases, an antenna is just circuit board traces. For high frequencies, such as cell or GPS or Bt/WiFi only very small antennas are needed. For lower frequencies, like FM around 100 MHz, the best antennas are roughly the length of headset cables.
This could possibly be coiled and wrapped around something and hidden inside the phone. But it's there, no way around needing an antenna.
I have some phones that do remarkably well with no wired headset for an antenna. But an "antenna" of sorts is still there, even if it's only several millimetres to centimetres of circuit board traces meant to connect the antenna pins on the chip to the headset.
Yeah, LOLcat. when you go into command prompt, "adb lolcat" is the same as "adb logcat". Apparently, the team at Google said "logcat" so often and so fast it sounded like "lolcat" to them.
Mikereidis is correct, you do need an antenna, even if it's hidden. Otherwise you have extremely high standing wave ratio (SWR) that will eventually fry your transmit amplifier. This is basic radio theory at play, that one learns when becoming FCC licensed radio operators like General Radiotelephone Operator or Amateur Radio Operator (I'm the latter of these, KE4EDD, though I haven't picked up a transceiver in about a decade).
Like he said, it's not as critical at higher frequencies because wavelength (and therefore necessary antenna length) is shorter and can be hidden inside the device (take the cover off your MT4GS and you'll see three separate antennae all up around the camera lens -- they're just thin sheets of metal on this phone).
Still, the pinout of the chip itself is important. This I know nothing of as I haven't seen it. either way, if the spec sheet says Rx and Tx work on the same connections (e.g., they both require the same pins to be "high" in order to physically activate either mode) then all we need is to get the HAL and driver set up. I know nothing of this as well. Wish I could help. All I can do is offer my phone's lolcat services.
On that note, I received a <sisa:###:##:#::#> text message this morning, appears that it's a T-mo thing, that T-mo is trying to update my phone (which is running a custom ROM), and now my digitizer doesn't work, so I may need to hold off on even the lolcat until I get it fixed.
cj chitwood said:
"adb lolcat" is the same as "adb logcat". Apparently, the team at Google said "logcat" so often and so fast it sounded like "lolcat" to them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Learn something new every day. But I think it was more a joke about the very popular meme than mis-hearing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolcat
cj chitwood said:
you do need an antenna, even if it's hidden. Otherwise you have extremely high standing wave ratio (SWR) that will eventually fry your transmit amplifier. This is basic radio theory at play, that one learns when becoming FCC licensed radio operators like General Radiotelephone Operator or Amateur Radio Operator
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know the theory, but I've never believed that low power, under 100 mw transmitters get damaged too often. But I imagine a final output transistor on a chip can't take as much abuse as an external one.
cj chitwood said:
Still, the pinout of the chip itself is important. This I know nothing of as I haven't seen it. either way, if the spec sheet says Rx and Tx work on the same connections (e.g., they both require the same pins to be "high" in order to physically activate either mode) then all we need is to get the HAL and driver set up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Documents about these chips are "very secret". I can't even find much on Chinese sites that specialise in proprietary documents. The official vague block diagrams can't be trusted either.
But if the transmit and receive pins were the same pins, I'm pretty sure we would have achieved FM transmit long ago on the most popular Broadcom chips, on devices that support receive. That said, I think the much rarer Qualcomm Tavarua chips use the same pins, and there are no transmit reports on them.
I've looked at schematics of some phones, and I've seen FM antenna pins specifically labelled as "Rx", so that's another clue in favor of the idea that Rx and Tx pins are different. This might also be easier to achieve on the chip.
I wonder too if it's easier to achieve FCC etc certification if the hardware design specifically makes FM transmit impossible.
I'm certain it is easier to achieve, as long as they can certify to the FCC that no more than so many milliwatts will be pushed out. Then again, with as many transmitters as there are that are available to the public, it can't be that hard to do.
We keep talking about Tx and Rx pins. In my limited experience with chips, I'm wondering if these are antenna pins, or activation pins. I also wouldn't be surprised if it was that some chips have a mode select pin (high is one mode, low is another) that could be labeled both as Tx and Rx, and each mode requires a separate other pin to have a certain voltage on it to provide power for that section of the chip. Alternatively, to have two mode select pins, again whichever one is hot selects the mode, and the third pin provides power for both modes, and thus is labeled Tx Rx even if the mode select pin isn't attached.
Either way, if pinouts are so secretive about this, it's pointless to discuss pins because they literally could be anything. I think however that you having seen the innards and/or schematics of these devices means that you would know more than I as I have yet to even crack mine open
Oh and the lolcat thing... no, you really can type "adb lolcat" in command prompt and it runs a logcat. The explanation for this was literally that they said "logcat" so fast it sounded like "lolcat". I am fully aware of the meme, http://icanhascheezburger.com and have forwarded quite a few on to the wife even.
Myabe this is silly question, but in my opinion they are just same with the new name, as two device need to be close to transfer data just like old Infrared.
Kir3 said:
Myabe this is silly question, but in my opinion they are just same with the new name, as two device need to be close to transfer data just like old Infrared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Someone else can answer much more fully, but I can understand how you would imagine the two being similar in purpose. Two devices communicating over short range, right? Whether it be phone to phone, or phone to checkout machine, its just short range communication. But the beauty comes in when you use them with NFC Tags. Think like.. RFID tags, only re-programmable, with re-writable memory on them.
These tags are cheap for consumers and cheaper for manufactures. They have no batteries, and are powered by the device reading them.
So the use comes in kind of like QR codes only easier, you could put them on a poster just like a QR code, but instead of having to turn your camera on and focus and decode, you just hold your phone up and the data is sent to your phone and you are whisked away to a web page, without ever touching a button.
There are lots of other uses too, I currently have 10 coming in the mail for my Galaxy Note
I plan on putting one on my nightstand that will automatically put my phone in silent mode and open my alarm dialog.
I plan on putting one in my church bag that will automatically put it in silent mode as well.
But these are the only things I've thought of to use them for.
Hopefully I've helped you a bit and not just rambled. I'd post links to help explain and whatnot, but I'm too new yet, sorry :/
By any other name
Kir3 said:
Myabe this is silly question, but in my opinion they are just same with the new name, as two device need to be close to transfer data just like old Infrared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, there are 3 key differences between NFC and IrDA.
Speed: IrDA-Giga-IR tops out at 1,024 Mbit/s, though the more common IrDA-VFIR which runs at 16 Mbit/s is more likely to be used.(3) Compared to NFC which has a top transfer rate of 424 kbit/s, it blows it out of the water.(2)
Security: IrDA does not have security built in, and does not support encryption technologies such as SSL to cover that, where NFC at least supports SSL.(2)(3)
Range: IrDA has a max range of 1-2 meters, while NFC is measured in centimeters.(3) IrDA is a line of sight technology. If you do not have line of time, you cannot connect.(1)
1 http : //trace.wisc.edu/docs/ir_intro/ir_intro.htm
2 http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication
3 http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_Data_Association
Compared to the two above posts, my answer is dumb. Lol
Im not sure about this, but I believe infrared is light at a frequency humans can't detect. (Wait isn't infrared used in night vision goggles?)
NFC is "some other type of wave" that travels a short distance
Sent from my DROID2 using xda premium
gagdude said:
NFC is "some other type of wave" that travels a short distance
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
NFC is radio at 13.56 MHz.
Search it on Wikipedia, you'll find more than you want to know. (can't post a link, still a noob here).
IrDA-Giga-IR difficulty sending file
I agree with you! IrDA-Giga-IR difficulty sending file
universeman said:
Actually, there are 3 key differences between NFC and IrDA.
Speed: IrDA-Giga-IR tops out at 1,024 Mbit/s, though the more common IrDA-VFIR which runs at 16 Mbit/s is more likely to be used.(3) Compared to NFC which has a top transfer rate of 424 kbit/s, it blows it out of the water.(2)
Security: IrDA does not have security built in, and does not support encryption technologies such as SSL to cover that, where NFC at least supports SSL.(2)(3)
Range: IrDA has a max range of 1-2 meters, while NFC is measured in centimeters.(3) IrDA is a line of sight technology. If you do not have line of time, you cannot connect.(1)
1 http : //trace.wisc.edu/docs/ir_intro/ir_intro.htm
2 http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_field_communication
3 http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_Data_Association
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ron917 said:
NFC is radio at 13.56 MHz.
Search it on Wikipedia, you'll find more than you want to know. (can't post a link, still a noob here).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can still post links, you just have to space them out somehow, like I did with my links above.
universeman said:
Actually, there are 3 key differences between NFC and IrDA.
Security: IrDA does not have security built in, and does not support encryption technologies such as SSL to cover that, where NFC at least supports SSL.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As there is Bluetooth 2.0, BT 3.0, they can updated IrDA to 2.0, 3.0 with added security or some other things...
Kir3 said:
As there is Bluetooth 2.0, BT 3.0, they can updated IrDA to 2.0, 3.0 with added security or some other things...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very true. I was thinking about including Bluetooth, but the original post didn't mention it. Bluetooth is definitely a contender and is more practical than IR, and the new Bluetooth does include some security enhancements.
But these technologies have different uses and purposes. @Kir3, what type of use were you referring to? Because aside from low energy BT devices that can last for months, the other technologies mentioned are not suitable for long term, near-indefinite, use in embedded use cases similar to QR. Or am I incorrect as to your thinking?
As far as data speeds and transmission distance are concerned, each technology also has their own pros and cons. Personally I like NFC because you can leave it on all the time and it only works when you bring it incredibly close to the device you wish to communicate with. IMO that in itself is a security measure.
but still, just my $0.02