Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 33

Thread: New Bluetooth TPMS in Development

  1. #11
    Lok
    Lok is offline
    VENDOR - Portal Media Lok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by steven765 View Post
    I think its just a new receiver.

    Lok the one complaint i have is there is no time stamp when the last pressure reading was taken. Dosen't have to be clock time, relative would be great, A more sensitive receiver would be great. Also many new cars have tpms systems, removing them would cause problems, are you thinking of doing a mulit prorocol receiver?
    We will redesigning the firmware from the ground up so this may be something we can do. From what it sounds like you are basically looking for a data parameter that logs when the last data packet is recieved from each sensor for error checking and also to ensure good data transmission. We are also looking at other tweaks to help improve the firmware.

    As far as reciever sensitivity, our new model will have an MCX style connector to allow for high gain antennas to be hooked up directly if needed.

    As far as a multi protocol reciever goes, from my understanding every car manufacturer uses a different type of sensor.
    The two major differences are:

    1. The RF transmission frequency, our particular sensors operate on the 433.92 MHz and our reciever is tuned to pick up transmissions on that frequency only.
    2. Sensor Logic, the data packets being sent in the tranmissions can vary, for example our sensors measure both temperature and pressure, other sensors may only measure pressure.

    For us to be able to make something that works universally, we need to know all the different frequencies sensors operate in and we would also have to deciper the data packets from various sensors to figure out what type of logic is being used. Correct me if I am wrong but I belive there are far too many varieties out there to be able to make something that is universal across the board. We could consider adding some protocols that use the same frequency, but I am sure there is extra work involved there as well.

  2. #12
    Lok
    Lok is offline
    VENDOR - Portal Media Lok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by ndabunka View Post
    I now see from the clarification that the sensors in this thread are NOT bluetooth sensors so they would not do any good for my applicaiton. In fact, so far it appears that nobody makes BT TPMS sensors (at this time). It sure would be a LOT more convenient to simply allow handheld devices to leverage a signal that they already receive (such as BT) rather than having to route the signals through soem 3rd-party box (like in this thread) but that isn't the way of this world (apparently).

    If anyone here learns of a BT-enabled TPMS, please message me.
    Your solution sounds great as it would reduce the number of devices you need for the whole system to work but from what I know I think the limitiation manufacturers are facing is that Bluetooth requires a lot more power than RF. Also bluetooth communication typically requires pairing, most of your handheld devices can usually pair to only one device at a time.

  3. #13
    Lok
    Lok is offline
    VENDOR - Portal Media Lok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    152
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonicxtacy02 View Post
    To make sure i understand this, the new system will use bluetooth to communicate to the app, but the sensors will still utilize RF in the manor the USB kit does?
    That is correct, sensors will still communicate to the reciever via RF as they have in the past. Reciever will communcate to the app via Bluetooth.

  4. #14
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bend, OR
    Posts
    232
    Quote Originally Posted by Lok View Post
    We will redesigning the firmware from the ground up so this may be something we can do. From what it sounds like you are basically looking for a data parameter that logs when the last data packet is recieved from each sensor for error checking and also to ensure good data transmission. We are also looking at other tweaks to help improve the firmware.

    As far as reciever sensitivity, our new model will have an MCX style connector to allow for high gain antennas to be hooked up directly if needed.
    To me, this is the bigger issue. The 3rd eye seems to have trouble receiving the data and so it can be stale for 15 minutes I've noticed sometimes. Just a time stamp or have the firmware report a zero if the data is grater then x seconds old.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lok View Post
    As far as a multi protocol reciever goes, from my understanding every car manufacturer uses a different type of sensor.
    The two major differences are:

    1. The RF transmission frequency, our particular sensors operate on the 433.92 MHz and our reciever is tuned to pick up transmissions on that frequency only.
    2. Sensor Logic, the data packets being sent in the tranmissions can vary, for example our sensors measure both temperature and pressure, other sensors may only measure pressure.

    For us to be able to make something that works universally, we need to know all the different frequencies sensors operate in and we would also have to deciper the data packets from various sensors to figure out what type of logic is being used. Correct me if I am wrong but I belive there are far too many varieties out there to be able to make something that is universal across the board. We could consider adding some protocols that use the same frequency, but I am sure there is extra work involved there as well.
    As an engineer, it's always funny to see how quickly we go into explanation mode. I would guess there's only two or three manufacturer's out there, but the cost of dealing with that might be too steep. I really meant it as more of a btw. I don't care I'm keeping my car around for another decade after the new engine goes in.
    Last edited by steven765; 03-12-2012 at 12:43 PM. Reason: Spelling: Do you have it ************

  5. #15
    Confusion Master
    Auto Apps:loading...
    Enforcer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    If you go down to the woods today, You're sure of
    Posts
    14,581
    Note to Lok: If a post is yellow it means it needs approving.

    If you quote a yellow post your post will then also need approving.


    No-approved posts can't be seen by general users, only Mods and admins.


    /note to Lok.

  6. #16
    Lok
    Lok is offline
    VENDOR - Portal Media Lok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    152
    Hello Everyone,

    I just wanted to give you guys an update on our development. We have some prototype hardware that we were able to get to communicate with a PC. This is really good progress as now we have a solid hardware platform for which we can develop the software on. My engineer found that Robby's design was picking up a lot of static and thus was producing very inconsistent results. We were able to start from scratch and come up with a good way to recive the data with virtually no errors! Also we found that the chip has a way of determining the signal strength of each sensor individually (You can see in the attached picture that the RSSI for each sensor currently reading 0). We still have to implement this in the hardware but it is very simple to do. Also what you see in the picture is the exisiting TPMS with the bluetooth board hardwired to bypass the old microcontroller. The bluetooth chip we plan on using has its own microcontroller so we don't need an additional one. All in all we are making good progress!Name:  100_1793.JPG
Views: 547
Size:  1.04 MBName:  100_1795.JPG
Views: 523
Size:  1.04 MBName:  100_1796.JPG
Views: 495
Size:  1.73 MB

  7. #17
    North of the land of Hey Huns
    Auto Apps:loading...

    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Westminster, MD
    Posts
    2,144
    That looks really awesome, so am I right in assuming because this is bluetooth, it will simply show up as a bluetooth COM port (Perhaps with the displayed output, or something similar)? This would make writing software for it on multiple operating systems (see: Linux,OSX) really fast and easy!
    "stop with the REINSTALLS, what do you think we got some lame-o installer!!!" - mitchjs
    RevFE
    My Shop

  8. #18
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bend, OR
    Posts
    232
    Just a suggestion, but please use the same plugin protocol so you don't break other skins which exist and leave the option for the rssi for debugging. With the decline in usage on the forums, it is difficult to get things fixed anymore.

  9. #19
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bend, OR
    Posts
    232
    Any status update?

  10. #20
    Variable Bitrate
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Bend, OR
    Posts
    232
    hey lok any word?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. OEM TPMS integration?
    By Wayne613 in forum TPMS Technical Support
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-28-2011, 05:17 AM
  2. Usb tpms
    By riv in forum Portal Media Car PC Gadgets and Accessories
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 12-11-2010, 11:55 PM
  3. Usb tpms
    By alexanderfoti in forum General Hardware Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-26-2010, 07:16 AM
  4. Win A USB TPMS Kit!!
    By Lok in forum Portal Media Car PC Gadgets and Accessories
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-21-2009, 09:27 AM
  5. TPMS Resources
    By Lok in forum Portal Media Car PC Gadgets and Accessories
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 10:45 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •