• Receiving (downlink) messages using Sigfox

    FiPy sigfox downlink
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    22 Views
    G
    I don't know anything about sigfox, but I know a fair bit about radios. If operating from other locations which are a similar distance from the peer sigfox device is successful, then there is a good chance that, all other things being equal, you have a local noise source that is decreasing the signal to noise ratio in your sigfox receiver below that at which the modem works. Options to mitigate this might include some combination of: Operating from a different location Using a directional antenna pointed at the peer node. This may increase received signal and reduce pickup of local noise. Identify and remove the noise source, or if very localised, move your device a bit further away. Operate on a different frequency or an entirely different frequency band. You could try using some sort of communications receiver or scanner to listen to the operating frequency, but these days using something like an RTL-SDR with suitable software defined radio software should allow you to see the state of the appropriate part of the radio spectrum and ascertain what kind of problem you may have. As a radio ham, with lots of radios, I find that they have a high tendency to interfere with each other, even when operating in separate bands, as they are usually harmonically related, thus transmissions around 145 MHZ interfered with stuff around 435 MHz, whilst stuff on 434MHz hit stuff in the 868MHz ISM band. Note that USB cables have a tendency to radiate strongly around the 430-440MHz band and may affect the 868MHz band quite strongly too, so you might have some luck in avoiding proximity to USB cables and perhaps also monitors or TV screens.
  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    72 Views
    D
    Another solution to this which seems a lot cleaner IMO is to change the antenna gain in the config.json file such that when the system substracts the commanded TX power (coming from the server) with the antenna gain, it finds a valid RF power in the lookup table. So in my case, if I set the antenna gain to 8 dBi, then the server would go and find the parameters corresponding to 20 dBm (which is tx_lut_11): "tx_lut_11": { "pa_gain": 3, "mix_gain": 9, "rf_power": 20, "dig_gain": 0 } This was suggested to me by Tony over on the Chirpstack forum: https://forum.chirpstack.io/t/configure-gw-tx-power-on-a-per-gw-basis/8997/9?u=danalvarez Thanks Tony!
  • LoraWAN downlink problem with large packets

    Issues & Bugs downlink
    15
    0 Votes
    15 Posts
    2k Views
    V
    I was having similar issues with Multitech gateways in combination with TheThingsNetwork's recommended packet forwarder (from kersing). Updating to the latest packet forwarder from Multitech the legacy UDP format solved the issue. Bytes past 66 seemed to be garbage and therefore the MIC/crc would fail
  • Downlink to Lopy

    LoPy lopy4 otaa downlink lorawan lorawan otaa
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    568 Views
    bmarkusB
    @harish-kumar Is it a 'Class-A' device? RX window timing can be an issue.
  • 0 Votes
    6 Posts
    2k Views
    E
    @dmnk Sorry dominik, i have emergency on other projet and cannot do some test with my lopy4. In fact, as i previously said i work with sigfox on my company product. We send setting via downlink on our device to start them when necessary. For a 10K fleet device, 95% of them have receive downlink after 3 downlink (and aprox 50% one first downlink), so definitly for me downlink is more weak than uplink. As i understood the ohter post from xorlover and answer from seb, it's sigfox FSK ptp that is not yet present in firmware.
  • Sigfox downlink and callback

    Discussion sigfox downlink blocking
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    600 Views
    No one has replied
  • 0 Votes
    10 Posts
    3k Views
    bmarkusB
    @jcaron said in LoRaWan receive window for downlink is mandatory for node ?: @bmarkus At least in the EU region, RX2 on the standard frequency has the advantage that it allows for a much higher use (10% duty cycle vs 1% in most other bands), and much higher power (if the gateway allows it). Depending on your data rate mix, you might be better off in RX2 than on RX1 RX2 is using a single channel with low data rate. It is obvious, that RX1 using 8 channels and various data rates, specially set automatically by the ADR algorithm offers much higher througput than RX2. Why to demage network performance if not necesary? It could be even better if the gateways allow higher transmit powers and you can use faster data rates than the default on RX2. Not sure I see the link between RX2 and 3G backhaul, unless you mean you need the additional time, but one could set RxDelay to a higher value for that (though that is definitely not a good thing for battery life) rather than pick one window over the other. 3G connections typically offering longer latency than 1s which makes RX1 unusable, and usually changing rapidly even going up to 3-5s. In a production environment it is not a good practice to change RX1 timing anyhow.
  • [SOLVED]No downlink

    Issues & Bugs ttn gateway gateway ttn downlink
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    920 Views
    No one has replied
  • 0 Votes
    3 Posts
    2k Views
    P
    Thanks Meirssv for posting a solution. Had the same problem. Funny thing is that TTN only repeats the downlink payload on my LoPy module and not on my Microchip RN2483 module. It's like a downlink handshake from LoPy is missing, so TTN repeats queueing the payload. Can't find any documentation on downlink acknowledgements though. Anyway it works now thanks to your reply.
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    959 Views
    No one has replied
  • 0 Votes
    4 Posts
    2k Views
    F
    @jmarcelino As you suspected, I was implicitly using: s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_LORA, socket.SO_CONFIRMED, False) So I explicitly added s.setsockopt(socket.SOL_LORA, socket.SO_CONFIRMED, False) to my script, and now the network server returns a downlink, and I am able to access the [LoRa instance].stats(). Thank you very much for taking the time to help me out. A+ :) Frank
  • Waiting for Downlinks

    LoPy lopy downlink lorawan
    1
    0 Votes
    1 Posts
    745 Views
    No one has replied
  • How to implement downlink messages

    LoPy lopy lorawan downlink api
    16
    0 Votes
    16 Posts
    6k Views
    D
    @jmarcelino wow, thanks a lot for that find. explains the headaches I've been having :)
  • Downlink message port.

    LoPy downlink port lora
    4
    0 Votes
    4 Posts
    1k Views
    D
    For the record, there is now a socket.recvfrom(bufsize) method that will return a (data, port) tuple.
  • 0 Votes
    1 Posts
    873 Views
    No one has replied
  • Attempt to implement a personal downlink mode

    LoPy lopy lorawan ic880a downlink
    6
    0 Votes
    6 Posts
    3k Views
    bmarkusB
    @jmarcelino said in Attempt to implement a personal downlink mode: and then maybe dive into the whole thing https://www.lora-alliance.org/portals/0/specs/LoRaWAN Specification 1R0.pdf This version is outdated, current is 1.0.2
  • Downlink Messages

    LoPy lorawan gateway downlink
    2
    0 Votes
    2 Posts
    1k Views
    B
    Hi @athtest800 Yes! You can do both uplink and downlink messages with the LoPy as a LoRaWAN nano-gateway. You'll see that in the examples, within the docs, there is a method for the device to connect via OTAA. This method of connection requires the gateway to send an ACK, message back to the device, confirming that it's connected. This is a form of downlink message! If you're using the Things Network, you can set up your downlink messages using their backend platform. Thanks, Alex