RI-TRP-R9BK - Same package replacemant

Alessandro - 

we will fix the frontline support issue. My apologies to you on behalf of TI. 

Regarding the device issue you have...would either the RI-TRP-M9WK or the TMS37145 device suit your application? 

both are also 12mm wedge transponders. Please advise. 

thanks. 

Dear Alessandro,

sorry for the inconvenience. I can support you on this subject and discuss your possible options.

We may want to take this discussion offline though.

Klaus

Hello Josh.

It's good to finally have some support.

We have a read only application for Vehicle identification.

M9WK would be a replacement, but we will have to do firmware modifications.

TMS37145 could also be a replacement.

Searching in the TI forum, I found the Klaus comments that even the W9WK is End-Of-Life.
He also says that TMS37145 is not backward compatible. So, in order to use it, I will have to change the firmware.

We are not planning to change the firmware, so only full compatible transponders would suit us.

If there is no wedge transponder full compatible with R9BK, please let me know. This will produce a huge review in our whole solution.

I'm also seeking for ATEX/IECEx transponders compatible with TMS3705. I would like to know if any HDX transponder will work with TMS3705.
If you already have some ATEX/IECEx certified transponders to indicate me, I would be pleased.

Thanks.

Alessandro - 

i mentioned the -M9WK...depending on which command you are issuing, it depends on what might need to change in the software. It really should not be that big of a deal. For example, you might be doing a charge only read at the moment, you could change to general read and then cover both old and new devices. 

all the HDX transponders work with the TMS3705 (this part was specifically made for using them)

regarding ATEX - we won't certify the transponders, its fairly ridiculous as by their very nature they would/should be exempt anyway...by the way our LF readers and tags have been used in explosive environments for almost two decades with not one incident, so, i am pretty confident if someone has gone and gotten a certification for passive LF or HF RFID tags, then they had no trouble doing so, mainly because the technology is based on load modulating a magnetic field and there is no energy (from the tag) to limit.

maybe someone takes our tag and repackages it and makes ATEX cert paper available when you buy it from them, i'm not sure. That sounds like it could be another small business in and of itself.

Hello Josh.

My issue about the firmware change is because we already have a lot of those equipments installed.
We have clients with 1000 transponders installed, and once in a while the transponder need to be replaced in the client. If 1 of those 1000 is M9WK, all equipments installed in the client must read the M9WK transponder.
So in order to the client to use this M9WK, we will need to promote a firmware update in the equipment.

The equipment would need to be brought to our technical assistance in order to update the firmware.
This will have to be done for 700 equipments.

That's the reason we would need to review our whole solution. Or we buy a huge amount of R9BK to supply old customers for a long date. Or we will have to promote this firmware update.

About the certification process.

I agree with you that a passive transponder should not be an issue, however, IEC 60079 says that I can't install any device in an explosive environment without the certification.
That's what we will do, we will take Texas transponders and certify them so we can use in explosive environment.
We have to keep in mind that some project documentation, like electronic schematic and layout would need to be available to my certification body.

And here we go again with the story of my life asking TI collaboration. If It's hard to get some support, I can't imagine how hard would be to get those documents to be provided to the certification body.

We will not be able to certify Texas transponder if TI denies to provide information about the transponders.
Can I count with TI collaboration in this certification subject?

Thankful.

Alessandro - 

what i was attempting to convey is that it might be possible you don't need fw update - so please tell me which command(s) you are issuing currently.

i will talk to the product manager about the ATEX stuff and see if we can help you out or find some solution, somehow.  

Josh,

Our firmware uses the default configuration of TMS3705.

The TXCT remains HIGH the most part of the time.

When the transponder need to be read, the TXCT is driven LOW for 50ms, then set HIGH again.

I'm not writing any command to MCR.