usb wireless ethernet adapter interface

xplod1236 · 5th January 2006, 08:10 PM

Is it possible to get a usb wireless ethernet adapter to work without a computer to control something remotely?
What I'm thinking is connecting a microcontroller to the usb adapter, and then sending signals to the micro wirelessly from a computer. Is this possible, or would it require more processing power than a micro can provide?

sagarverma · 6th January 2006, 05:42 AM

using ucontroller is a good idea.
but it will also depend on the data packet size that u want to send for control.the packet size must be within max data capability of ucontroller.
moreover DMA might have to included.

i dont see any reason y it shouldnt work(provided there r no other serious issues)

//////////////////////////////////////////////
isn't this topic for digital?

Schaef · 6th January 2006, 03:06 PM

It all depends on the microcontroller. If you're looking at PICs or AVRs, good luck. The biggest challenge you'll run into is having to implement a USB bus master. From what I have read, that alone can consume most of the processing power/memory of standard 8 bit microcontrollers. Oh and before you think of maybe using one of those USB->serial adapters, they won't work in this case, as they're USB devices as well, and not bus masters.

Its do-able, just not as easy as you think it will be.

dangus · 9th January 2006, 11:27 AM

I don't think it is impossible... there's microcontrollers that are ready to connect up as USB devices. This thread says that the PIC usb-enabled micros can't act as USB hosts: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.asp?m=...&anchor#119376

PCMCIA or CF WiFi adapters might be easier to interface.

xplod1236 · 10th February 2006, 03:45 AM

Does anyone have schematics of a USB wifi adapter? Would it be possible to bypass the usb? I'm guessing that the data from the receiver will be serial, so it shouldn't be too hard to interface it. Am I even close or way off?

Spasticteapot · 11th February 2006, 05:10 AM

Seeing as how you're only going to be controlling something, a simple wireless module set should work fine, and be much cheaper. Spark Fun Electronics carries quite a few of these; a 2400 baud module transmitter/reciever pair (suitable for a hundred or so commands a minute) is only 12$, wheras a ~200kbps module pair is 26$. They also have 2.4ghz transciever modules which can transmit and recieve up to 1mbps simultaneously. (These are very useful if you want to get any information back from the controlled device.
They also work very nicely with PIC microcontrollers; you can find some tutorials at rentron.com
http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/cat...hp?cPath=16_79

davidsrsb · 11th February 2006, 10:17 AM

802.11 adapters push a lot of their function onto the host cpu these days. The older pcmcia cards like the Lucent Orinoco were more stand alone.

This means that you would need to get enough information for the driver, not easy as the Linux driver writers have found out, which is why ndiswrapper was written to just encapsulate the binary and closed source Windows driver.

There are some legal reasons for this situation - some chipsets are really generic software radios and could be reapplied to military frequency bands by simple driver changes, something the FCC is understandably not happy about.

I agree with the above recommendation to use the <1mW wireless control modules instead

xplod1236 · 13th February 2006, 06:02 AM

It looks like the wireless modules are the way to go.

Thanks for all the help.

6th January 2006, 05:42 AM	#2
sagarverma diyAudio Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: NEW DELHI	using ucontroller is a good idea. but it will also depend on the data packet size that u want to send for control.the packet size must be within max data capability of ucontroller. moreover DMA might have to included. i dont see any reason y it shouldnt work(provided there r no other serious issues) ////////////////////////////////////////////// isn't this topic for digital? __________________ Never Underestimate The Bandwidth of A Station Wagon Full Of Magnetic Tapes Hurtling Down The Highway...................Andrew S Tanenbaum

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Die, SPDIF ! Design of the Ethernet DAC	peufeu	Digital Source	212	18th May 2012 09:25 PM
A SD/USB/Ethernet transport	jkeny	Digital Line Level	8	25th September 2009 12:20 PM
SMCWAA-G wireless audio adapter - Squeezebox substitute	tubesguy	Swap Meet	0	28th February 2009 04:33 PM
SACD/DVD-A to Ethernet Project	bob1029	Digital Source	5	8th December 2008 02:48 PM
Ethernet with cat5E to USB-Dac ?	lykkedk	Digital Source	0	1st May 2007 06:15 PM

New To Site?	Need Help?
Register to Participate Search Privacy Statement Contact Us	Frequently Asked Questions Did you forget your password? Mark Forums Read


	Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you. Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving

5th January 2006, 08:10 PM	#1
xplod1236 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the couch	usb wireless ethernet adapter interface Is it possible to get a usb wireless ethernet adapter to work without a computer to control something remotely? What I'm thinking is connecting a microcontroller to the usb adapter, and then sending signals to the micro wirelessly from a computer. Is this possible, or would it require more processing power than a micro can provide?

6th January 2006, 03:06 PM	#3
Schaef diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cuyahoga Falls, OH	It all depends on the microcontroller. If you're looking at PICs or AVRs, good luck. The biggest challenge you'll run into is having to implement a USB bus master. From what I have read, that alone can consume most of the processing power/memory of standard 8 bit microcontrollers. Oh and before you think of maybe using one of those USB->serial adapters, they won't work in this case, as they're USB devices as well, and not bus masters. Its do-able, just not as easy as you think it will be.

9th January 2006, 11:27 AM	#4
dangus diyAudio Member Join Date: May 2004 Location: Vancouver Island	I don't think it is impossible... there's microcontrollers that are ready to connect up as USB devices. This thread says that the PIC usb-enabled micros can't act as USB hosts: http://forum.microchip.com/tm.asp?m=...&anchor#119376 PCMCIA or CF WiFi adapters might be easier to interface.

10th February 2006, 03:45 AM	#5
xplod1236 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the couch	Does anyone have schematics of a USB wifi adapter? Would it be possible to bypass the usb? I'm guessing that the data from the receiver will be serial, so it shouldn't be too hard to interface it. Am I even close or way off?

11th February 2006, 05:10 AM	#6
Spasticteapot diyAudio Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Wisconsin....what did you expect?	Seeing as how you're only going to be controlling something, a simple wireless module set should work fine, and be much cheaper. Spark Fun Electronics carries quite a few of these; a 2400 baud module transmitter/reciever pair (suitable for a hundred or so commands a minute) is only 12$, wheras a ~200kbps module pair is 26$. They also have 2.4ghz transciever modules which can transmit and recieve up to 1mbps simultaneously. (These are very useful if you want to get any information back from the controlled device. They also work very nicely with PIC microcontrollers; you can find some tutorials at rentron.com http://www.sparkfun.com/commerce/cat...hp?cPath=16_79

11th February 2006, 10:17 AM	#7
davidsrsb diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Kuala Lumpur	802.11 adapters push a lot of their function onto the host cpu these days. The older pcmcia cards like the Lucent Orinoco were more stand alone. This means that you would need to get enough information for the driver, not easy as the Linux driver writers have found out, which is why ndiswrapper was written to just encapsulate the binary and closed source Windows driver. There are some legal reasons for this situation - some chipsets are really generic software radios and could be reapplied to military frequency bands by simple driver changes, something the FCC is understandably not happy about. I agree with the above recommendation to use the <1mW wireless control modules instead

13th February 2006, 06:02 AM	#8
xplod1236 diyAudio Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: On the couch	It looks like the wireless modules are the way to go. Thanks for all the help.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)