NUS How complicated can it be...

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Monolit — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 20:11:18 GMT

>500 kbaud for Range below 25m.

Or >250 kbaud for range 25-200m

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

awneil — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 19:56:29 GMT

[quote userid="76700" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42861/nus-how-complicated-can-it-be/167467"]nRF52810 [/quote]

So not BLE 5.

EDIT: sorry, it is BLE 5 !

[quote userid="76700" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42861/nus-how-complicated-can-it-be/167467"] I need more[/quote]

How fast do you need?

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Monolit — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 18:26:27 GMT

Yeah! Very "refreshing" :)

I have been in Daily Contact with Fanstel for some weeks now. They have a "SPP" clone with AT-Control for Nordic chipsets nRF52xxx. They have been very helpful, but seem to have some time still to get it finished. There was no RTS/CTS handshake put they are implementing it soon.

I found a similar RAYTEC Product and have contacted them. I hope to get faster access to a proven Product there…

One of their Products contains a test report which is quite interesting. It is using a nRF52810 so it is not the sharpest knife, but interesting Reading.

They have reached 16.3 kbyte/s at PHY 1MHz and 8ms scanning intervals. 244 bits/frame.

Best I have seen so far. But I need more.

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

awneil — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:53:08 GMT

OK - thanks.

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

awneil — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:51:52 GMT

[quote userid="76700" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42861/nus-how-complicated-can-it-be/167456"]companies that do develop these devices (SPP clones) come up with very consevative results. (=bad designers)[/quote]

I think I'd rather call that "refreshing honesty" !

But I'm still not clear where this "160kbps" comes from? Again, if it's for BLE 4.1 then it is pretty good!

Or if it's representative of achievable, practical rates with Android or iOS or whatever (note that those Nordic figures are between Nordic chips - not to a phone, tablet, or computer)

Have you contacted Raytak and/or Fanstel for their comments ?

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Nguyen Hoan Hoang — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:41:09 GMT

SPP is BT2.0. BT2.0 EDR is removed from the standard in 2019

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Monolit — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:36:32 GMT

Yes I have seen that report earlier and it strengthen me in my belive that companies that do develop these devices (SPP clones) come up with very consevative results. (=bad designers)

Give me a reference to a Company with a commersial Product offering >500kbit/s and I will kneel and kiss your feet.
I allow you to pick ANY BLE-chip. Not just Nordic!

And I repeat: If there is no good solution, there should at least be a good excuse or explanation to why all perform so much less than theoretical!

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

awneil — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:23:13 GMT

[quote userid="3482" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42861/nus-how-complicated-can-it-be/167443"]SPP ... is going to be removed from the standard completely[/quote]

Have you got a reference for that?

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

awneil — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:22:09 GMT

Well, as that page demonstrates, the throughput very much depends on what spec you're using.

So what spec was used for the "160 kbps" figure? If it was BLE 4.1 then it is, indeed, "not bad" !

Note also that those figures are "maximum theoretical" - perhaps the "160 kbps" is an estimate of what's likely to be achievable in practice ?

Did you also see the link to the BT SIG's figures: https://blog.bluetooth.com/exploring-bluetooth-5-how-fast-can-it-be

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Monolit — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:29:56 GMT

160 kbit not so bad??

If we look at what Nordic claims in their own report we should do much better than that.

"The throughput measured may vary depending on the environment, but the maximum throughput should be around 1365 Kbps for BLE 5 High Speed, 775 Kbps for BLE 4.2, 128 Kbps for BLE 4.1 and 21.3 Kbps for BLE 5 Long Range. Be aware that there may be some inaccuracies in the measurements."

So the question remains, why so sluggsh throughput for real UART implementations?
I mean, if there is no good solution, there should at least be a good excuse or expalnation! Right?..

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Nguyen Hoan Hoang — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 16:22:38 GMT

You are going to need to talk to BluetoothSIg for the SPP because it is going to be removed from the standard completely.

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Monolit — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:46:10 GMT

Well - I am a bit surprised that this transparent SPP-like profile doesn't already exist as a standard Soft-device.
I Think it would definitley be a "bestseller". After all, this was the reason why Bluetooth was developed once upon a time. To replace physical wires over short distances…

Is there anybody out there with nRF52 experience who would be willing to write such an app?
I have no deside to put resorces on this her, as it is not part of our business idea to design Bluetooth Modems.

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

awneil — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:30:19 GMT

It does seem odd that the Bluetooth SIG chose not to include anything like SPP for BLE.

😞

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

awneil — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 14:27:03 GMT

[quote userid="7377" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42861/nus-how-complicated-can-it-be/167385"]For instance, the capabilities of mobile phones vary greatly, and many will not be able to achieve a particularly high bitrate over BLE[/quote]

And both Android and iOS put limits on the "acceptable" connection parameters - so that the theoretical limits cannot be reached.

Also remember that a phone is a complex multi-tasking system - so it has to balance its resources amongst all the different tasks, and not let any one "hog" the system. I suspect this has something to do with why, even on the same phone, you can get different connection parameters each time you connect!

[quote userid="7377" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42861/nus-how-complicated-can-it-be/167385"]You develop it[/quote]

Or you pay someone to develop it for you ...

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Einar Thorsrud — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 13:43:05 GMT

Hi,

[quote user=""]Can I use Nordics UART application NUS to circumvent these speed issues?[/quote]

Generally a practical bitrate of 160 kbit/s does not sound so bad. Theoretically you should be able to get a higher throughput, but it is affected by many things so it is difficult to say. For instance, the capabilities of mobile phones vary greatly, and many will not be able to achieve a particularly high bitrate over BLE.

[quote user=""]How do I set up the NUS communiction parameters without having to deal with SDK, compilers,Debuggers and other stuff that i'd rather not want to deal with.[/quote]

The SDK provide a NUS peripheral and central example, but that is exactly what it is. It is intended as a starting point so that you can develop your own application. We do not provide a production ready UART over BLE tunneling system (we might have customers who make it and sell it, but I don't know of any such end product).

[quote user=""]How do I let a Nordig chip act as a wireless Cable. Nothing more , nothing less![/quote]

You develop it 🙂

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Monolit — Wed, 23 Jan 2019 10:12:49 GMT

This is not an option for us since we need to be able to reach Three platforms: Windows, Android and Iphone.

The only UART profile for Classic Bluetooth EDR is SPP, which is not supported in an Iphone.

RTS/CTS handshaking is also an obstacle in many HCxx devices since often a Firmware setting is needed to turn it on.
That parameter cannot be reached from the AT command set.

Current drain is also rather high for HCxx

RE: NUS How complicated can it be...

Turbo J — Tue, 22 Jan 2019 19:47:36 GMT

[quote userid="76700" url="~/f/nordic-q-a/42861/nus-how-complicated-can-it-be"]Providing wireless serial port emulation.[/quote]

Then I would recommand buying other 3rd party BT classic modules, since you won't get a COM Port for BT LE devices (at least out-of-the box w/o special drivers). These modules are off topic here, unfortunaltely.