Issues with power consumption and Spark.sleep()

It can be any other BT device and you don't need an AP to talk to it (which is my interpretation of "being tethered" in contrast to peer-to-peer connection - neither is "disconnected").

That's correct, but there are not many devices which can act as BT LE master other than computers, smartphones and tablet... Nonetheless you are right, it doesn't have to be a smartphone, but if you want to have cloud access it is still tethering (address translation), it doesn't matter if it occurs on BT, WiFi or USB.

And also an "alternative" does not need to be equivalent in all respects to still be a valid alternative for a given purpose.

I'm definitely with you on this, it is an alternative with it's own range of applications, especially those battery powered.

Furthermore "completely different" is definetly not true - since there are similarities (e.g. API, high grade code compatiblity, ...).

Well, I believe we might talk about this for long without getting to an agreement: let's just say I believe the differences are greater than similarities.

But foremoste, what does this comment have to do with the OPs question? How does it help the OP?

Since the reply I quoted was suggesting to use a BT connection as an alternative to WiFi I wanted to state, hopefully with some benefit to the OP, my opinion about considering the proposed alternative.

In my opinion, if the OP wants to control something from the internet or from from than a few meters the BT suggestion is not a viable alternative.

Are you suggesting I should avoid posting my opinions next time?

1 Like

It is funny, actually, as I just wrote a blog post last week about how Bluetooth LE can be used as a WiFi alternative, and what the benefits are. You can see it here:

It is true that BLE devices require something to be tethered to for cloud connectivity, but so does every other wireless technology. But there are many options out there now for cloud connecting BLE devices without a smartphone.

And the “only a few meters” comment is just completely untrue. Indoor range for BLE devices can be up to a 100 feet, or possibly even more. And with certain deployment scenarios or using things like mesh networking, the range can be nearly unlimited. You should check out the blog post if you want more details.

1 Like

@eely22 I will have a look at that post, but my personal experience with BLE devices is quite disappointing so far: I have a few different tracking devices, a a litlle drone and other home automation devices and they all have a range of maximum 10 meters toward my iPhone 5. Only one device has so far shown a 30m (100 foot) range, but it’s not BLE, it’s actually a BT headset.

On the other hand I’m experiencing 40 to 50 meters range with WiFi like with my Parrot AR2 drone so, as I said, my personal experiency is quite disappointing. Not that I don’t believe BLE is valid, just I don’t see it applicable as WiFi alternative without compromising.

Regarding the tethering and connectivity you are definitely right, but that type of consideration might be applied to practically anything, nonetheless my consideration was regarding WiFi AP is usually provided by an ADSL router in homes (at least here in Europe) and by WiFi routers in offices, which implies you get somewhat connected to the Internet once you get onto the WiFi. If you are using a smartphone as WiFi AP then you problaly get tethering toward 3G/4G network as well.

Doing the same through BLE is not as immediate as for WiFi.

I wouldn’t start going into mesh networks, that would open a whole range of scenarios, like using nRF24 radio transceivers with one or more routing nodes: that would be a lot cheaper, it can actually wake up your remote devices from the network and it’s really sensitive on power consumption and thus really battery friendly. Would I advice the OP to go down that route? Probably not as it is much more complicated, even if I succedeed at it already.

I hope this clarifies my position.

1 Like