<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Hi<div><br></div><div>regarding the open energy system, i had to copy off their system since it did not support my heat meter.</div><div><br></div><div>i started out with onboard serial but i decided against it, major reason is that it takes up to much space, you need a 2nd iso connector to program it. What i did in the end was a FTDI connector and a FTDI programming cable, the usb plug has the chip built in.</div><div><br></div><div>also in this way it allowed me a 5*5 cm board. </div><div><br></div><div>i can make a zip and send it to you all if interested. it should be ready for pcb fab put waiting for mike to get an extra set of eyes on it</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>/bo</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>Den 01/04/2013 kl. 12.10 skrev Stuart Poulton:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>So, the question here, in my mind, is what is the power overhead of having a USB interface as "dead weight" in the AVR as opposed to perhaps an FTDI chip that's only powered from the USB bus when connected?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I know you can get the ATMEGA32U4 (same chip as a lenoardo) down to 0.04mA<br><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><blockquote type="cite">Unfortunately all three radio modules now seem to be end of life.<br></blockquote><br>Hmm. will have to keep an eye out for an alternative.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Some details about the EOL of some RFM products here </div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://blog.homelabs.org.uk/rfm12b-end-of-life/">http://blog.homelabs.org.uk/rfm12b-end-of-life/</a></div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><br>1) AVR with built-in USB<br>2) AVR with USB-to-Serial chip<br>3) AVR only, and use a cable containing a USB-to-Serial chip<br><br>Option 1 being preferable, IMHO, especially as it opens up the possibility to do more with the USB interface. Maybe a PC application to program the schedule on the device, for example?<br><br>I've heard the AVRs with built-in USB can be a pain during development, though, because the USB interface goes down every time you reset the CPU after a download. This is the reason devices like the UNO have a separate CPU to provide the USB link, so both of your modules sound useful, perhaps at different stages in the development.<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>I've been thinking about this, USB adds to the cost of a chip, yet allows for more configurability, I think I'm moving toward a model where USB and RF are used, so USB + Power for those TRV's where it's possible to cable, RF + Battery for those where cabling isn't possible.</div><div><br></div><div>Stuart</div></div>_______________________________________________<br>OpenTRV-dev mailing list<br><a href="mailto:OpenTRV-dev@lists.opentrv.org.uk">OpenTRV-dev@lists.opentrv.org.uk</a><br>http://lists.opentrv.org.uk/listinfo/opentrv-dev<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>