Hi all,

I'm looking for a 802.11b module to embedd into a wearable mobile system.
The system architecture
has no PCI controller thus no miniPCI (or similar interface) are
interesting. There is no need to
remove the wi-fi engine so I'm looking for a fixed mounted solution (also,
all the solution on a
card are not the best in many extreme environment) letting me to connect
the RF antenna outisde
the box.
What I need could be a module with USB interface (not a USB dongle) or CF
interface on a SMD mount
package. Any suggestion?

Ciao,Stefano

********************************
To answer me please remove the good no-spam information from the address.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:02:40 +0100, Stefano Adami
<s.adami.xxx@exadron.com.nospam> wrote:


will a 2"x2" pcb with a pll, vco, amp, and pic12c508 do? puts out +15dBm at 2.35
to 2.65ghz channel spacing 125khz...

I may have some extra boards...if interested












[]


Remove "HeadFromButt", before replying by email.

maxfoo wrote:
Is this device 802.11b compatable, or just uses 2.xxghz freq ??
If you have boards, do you have a schematic also ??

In data Mon, 16 Feb 2004 17:01:23 GMT, maxfoo
<maxfooHeadFromButt@punkass.com> ha scritto:

configure it for 802.11b standard by myself. Is it a certified wi-fi board
or a general purpose one?

Stefano

********************************
To answer me please remove the good no-spam information from the address.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:02:51 +0100, Stefano Adami
<s.adami.xxx@exadron.com.nospam> wrote:

Sound an interesting board for experimentation, but impossible to make
802.11-compatible, If you want to use a standard WLAN card, take a
look at our PICmicro product, www.iosoft.co.uk/wlan2.php

Jeremy Bentham
Iosoft Ltd.

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 20:58:11 -0700, hamilton <hamilton@deminsional.com> wrote:

No it is not 802.11b... it's a PLL fractional synthesizer LO uses National semi
PLL lmx2353 chip phase noise is 85dbc/hz at 10khz offset...















Remove "HeadFromButt", before replying by email.

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 14:02:51 +0100, Stefano Adami
<s.adami.xxx@exadron.com.nospam> wrote:

no, it is just a very stable LO you would have to modulate/demod the data
yourself...







Remove "HeadFromButt", before replying by email.

In data Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:33:38 +0000, Jeremy Bentham
<jben@iosoft.nospam.uk> ha scritto:


looking for a module to integrate in my system with the RF connector for
the antenna.


--
********************************
To answer me please remove the good no-spam information from the address.

Stefano Adami wrote:
You can buy Wi-Fi PCMCIA cards with an RF connector for an external
antenna, they're just not as common.

Even major manufacturers take this approach - for a long time (and maybe
still) Cisco's access points used PCMCIA cards for the radio portion,
with diverse antennas even.

Even the big manufactures, who build the chips, use existing
PCMCIA Wi-Fi cards within their products. For example, take
a part a Lucent USB client, or a Lucent RG1x00 base station.
Inside, you will find a PCMCIA Wi-Fi card with a "glue" chip
controlling it.

Stefano Adami wrote:

Stefano Adami <s.adami.xxx@exadron.com.nospam> wrote in message news:<opr3j38cb6sufdhg@news.interbusiness.it>...
Take a look at MAXIM WEB site. They recently sent me their journal explaining
a two-chips solution to provide for 802.11b interface

Best Regards

/Alessandro

In data Thu, 26 Feb 2004 15:45:10 -0500, Walt <NoSpamForWalt@Early.com> ha
scritto:

case of a metal box (as it is in my case). A sub-optimum solution could be
a pcmcia card with a RF connector instead of the antenna on it. Do you
know anything like this?

Stefano

--
********************************
To answer me please remove the good no-spam information from the address.

They could be more difficult to find, but they exist:
http://www.seattlewireless.net/index...wareComparison


Moises Cambra

Stefano ads <s.adami.xxx@exadron.com.nospam> wrote :

Orinoco card like the one i this RG1x00
or Senao 200mW

Pozdrawiam.
--
RusH //
http://pulse.pdi.net/~rush/qv30/
Like ninjas, true hackers are shrouded in secrecy and mystery.
You may never know -- UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE.

I'm looking at adding a wireless link to a Palm device or WinCE
handheld that will communicate to my embedded controller. Here
is the criteria
- around the house range is good enough
- low data speed, even 20-50kbps is good enough.
- off the shelf module for the embedded side with interface to micro
without buying/developing complex protocol stack.
- Method of writing software for the handheld, Appforge, VB etc
that handles protocol issues and allows (relatively) simple access to data.

Is there a clear pro/con between going Bluetooth vs. 802 for this
use? What if I want the handheld device to also talk to a PC running a
..net application, does that make a difference in the decision?

Thanks for any comments or suggestions,
Steve

"Steve Letkeman" <usenetpost2@zanthic.com> wrote:

The Bluetooth Personal Area Network (PAN) was designed as a wireless
replacement for simple point-to-point links, so if you only need
RS232-type functionality, then that might be the direction to go.

If you require true networking, then you're better off with an 802.11
WLAN, since it is efficetively a wireless version of Ethernet. The
embedded 802.11 market is relatively new, so you don't have a wide
range of options to choose from, and at present the embedded system
might require a bit more effort to set up, but soon it'll be a lot
easier.

The success of 802.11-type WLAN technologies does suggest that slow
point-to-point links are inadequate for the wireless home or office,
so a WLAN solution should be more future-proof.

My company has pioneered embedded 802.11 technology, and has no
Bluetooth products, so I must admit to some commercial bias in
this....

Jeremy Bentham
Iosoft Ltd.

For this application, plugging an RS-232 to BT adapter into the
embedded side of things would work quite well. Using BT
allows an off the shelf equipped PDA to talk to it. I wonder
if it is as easy as programming eVB on the PDA to talk over
a serial channel?

"Max" <mtj2@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:606940lgs2lft1g73rf1fots2g51gs833d@4ax.com...

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 14:33:39 +0000 (UTC), Max <mtj2@btopenworld.com>
wrote:

Maybe, but it is much more complex.

Perhaps this is the central problem of Bluetooth - it is used as a
simple data transport, when it is actually a complicated aggregation
of many protocols, with configuration profiles to customise its
behaviour to a variety of perceived communication needs.

I don't understand the benefits of this bloatware; whatever happened
to the idea that a network transport is simple and unreliable, with
the higher-layer protocols adding reliability and functionality?

Jeremy Bentham
Iosoft Ltd.