WSN Wiki

User Tools

Site Tools

You are here: Wireless Sensor Networks » proiecte » Environment monitoring using Sparrow and ESP8266
proiecte:environment-monitoring

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision 		Previous revision
proiecte:environment-monitoring [2018/06/07 16:32]
cristian.cocioaba [ESP8266 measured power consumption] 		proiecte:environment-monitoring [2018/06/07 16:37] (current)
cristian.cocioaba headers
Line 60: Line 60:
  
 ===== Gathering data ===== ===== Gathering data =====
-=== Temperature and humidity ===+==== Temperature and humidity ====
  
 <code cpp> <code cpp>
Line 79: Line 79:
 </code> </code>
  
-=== Battery ===+==== Battery ====
 <code cpp> <code cpp>
 typedef float sensor_battery_t; typedef float sensor_battery_t;
Line 85: Line 85:
  
 ===== Usage === ===== Usage ===
-=== Software serial example on Sparrow ===+==== Software serial example on Sparrow ====
 <code cpp> <code cpp>
 #include <SoftwareSerial.h> #include <SoftwareSerial.h>
Line 134: Line 134:
 Although both protocols operate at 2.4 GHz frequency, 802.15.4 is low-speed and low-rate and ATmega128RFA1 has Ultra Low Power consumption as we can see below. Although both protocols operate at 2.4 GHz frequency, 802.15.4 is low-speed and low-rate and ATmega128RFA1 has Ultra Low Power consumption as we can see below.
  
-== ATmega128RFA1 power consumption ==+=== ATmega128RFA1 power consumption === 
 {{:proiecte:atmega128rfa1_power_consumption.png?500|}} {{:proiecte:atmega128rfa1_power_consumption.png?500|}}
  
-== ESP8266 power consumption when radio is on ==+=== ESP8266 power consumption when radio is on ===
  
 In contrast, ESP8266 has more processing power and together with the power required by the bandwidth and data rate of Wi-Fi, it utilizes almost 10 times more energy, as we can see below. In contrast, ESP8266 has more processing power and together with the power required by the bandwidth and data rate of Wi-Fi, it utilizes almost 10 times more energy, as we can see below.
Line 162: Line 163:
 The final power peak is the HTTP request, which varies between 90mA to 200mA. The final power peak is the HTTP request, which varies between 90mA to 200mA.
  
-{{ :proiecte:screenshot_11.png?500 |}}+{{:proiecte:screenshot_11.png?500|}}
  
 The average current consumption for the ESP when running this test program in different states can be seen in the table below: The average current consumption for the ESP when running this test program in different states can be seen in the table below:
Line 184: Line 185:
  
 This a good improvement over the previous consumption when running continuously, but it can still be improved. This a good improvement over the previous consumption when running continuously, but it can still be improved.
 +
 ===== Optimizing power consumption ===== ===== Optimizing power consumption =====
  
Line 221: Line 223:
 As we can see in the figure below, the first peak was eliminated, and the connection time was reduced. As we can see in the figure below, the first peak was eliminated, and the connection time was reduced.
  
-{{ :proiecte:screenshot_15.png?500 |}}+{{:proiecte:screenshot_15.png?500|}}
  
 The total power consumption for a cycle is now down to: The total power consumption for a cycle is now down to:
proiecte/environment-monitoring.1528378329.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/06/07 16:32 by cristian.cocioaba

Page Tools

Except where otherwise noted, content on this wiki is licensed under the following license: CC Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International
CC Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 International Donate Powered by PHP Valid HTML5 Valid CSS Driven by DokuWiki