This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

TM4C129XBLE - PoE Power Convertor and Power Consumption

Other Parts Discussed in Thread: PMP10812, CC2650, PMP9068

Hi,

Im studying the http://www.ti.com/tool/TIDM-TM4C129XBLE#descriptionArea'

  • Im looking to know what the Power Consumption of this setup is and what PoE Power Splitter can be used with this board?
  • Hello Morgan,

    The TI Designs using connected launch pad do not have a direct point for current measurement. You may have to modify the setup to be able to get the current consumption the 3.3V and 5V power rails.

    Regards
    Amit
  • Okay what PoE Splitter can be used with this Launchpad?
  • Hello Morgan

    PMP10812 and PM9068 are both equally usable. However one is isolated and other is not. So that is a decision that you have to make based on the isolation requirements of the design.

    Regards
    Amit
  • Thanks Amit,

    What is the proper link to the FORUM for this design - TM4C129XBLE ?
  • Do you have a link for these products please? Google cant find them
  • Hello Morgan,

    Any question regarding TM4C comes on this forum. Any question regarding the BLE (CC2650) goes to SimpleLink Forum

    Product pages are

    www.ti.com/.../CC2650
    www.ti.com/.../overview.page

    Regards
    Amit
  • The products I was referring to were " PMP10812 and PM9068 are both equally usable" - I cant find links to these products?

    Thanks Amit
  • Hello Morgan,

    Sorry for the typo on PMP9068

    http://www.ti.com/tool/PMP9068

    As for PMP10812, it is still in the process of publication (I had some data on it). It should be online in a few weeks. There are other designs for non-isolated PoE designs on TI Web Site.

    Regards
    Amit
  • Thanks for the quick replies Amit
  • Hi Amit,

    I don't know if you can answer or if you forward onto one of your colleagues who maybe be able to answer?

    I would like to daisy chain such Launchpad boards(described in the diagram below as BLE Anchors) off a single  Port from an Switch using something like a 2 Port Ethernet Switch module that would be on the Launchpad board ?  Would there be such a Booster Pack for that?

    Can someone advise me  for this new project I am starting ? Thanks

  • Can you share a little more about what you are doing locally? Something like CAN may be a better choice for the local communication at the endpoint rather than Ethernet. It depends on a number of factors including how much data you are passing.

    It's fairly common to run one network for supervisory access and another for local control. There are a number of benefits to doing so.

    Robert
  • Robert Adsett said:
    It's fairly common to run one network for supervisory access and another for local control. There are a number of benefits to doing so.

    So true - and indeed so useful...

    As always - when such designs are contemplated - it so often proves immensely useful to "investigate" the approach of the most successful "commercial operators."   Frequently their "system descriptions" will alert you to items you may not have considered - or weighed improperly.   Reinventing the wheel - unless your wheel rolls truer/faster - may not make full sense...

  • Hello David,

    TM4C129x devices have a single Ethernet MAC and PHY. So packet forwarding via a single physical connector is not possible. I am not sure if there is a TI Design for the same. From the switch to each of the units instead of daisy chain a star configuration would be the viable option

    Regards
    Amit
  • Here is some more information on my application - it is a localization project I am working on:

    Each user wears a Tag .. Each Tag is a TI SensorTag CC2650 Advertising BLE Packets ....

    Each TI Tag (CC2650) is Broadcasting Advertisement packets 10 times a second - each advertisement is 30bytes.

    In our floorplace of 500m^2 there are 30 anchors ...

    There can can be 100 users(Tags) active on average...150 peak

    The 100/150 Tags need to be observed per Anchor (placed on the celing) at known reference points ... per second...

    Probably a min of 3 advertisements/Tag needs to be observed per second to calculate an average RSSI per Tag on the anchor...

    so if we take 150 Tags that's - 30 bytes * 3 * 150 = 13500 bytes (13.5kBytes) / per second / per anchor

  • OK, an internal GPS. Bandwidth requirements are small, timing requirements are not particularly stiff.

    Strawman architecture to consider
    - local processors read tags and calculate RSSI
    - avg RSSI is sent back to an aggregator via CAN. bandwidth is (1 or 2 two bytes of RSSI plus a ID (say 16 bits)) --> 4 bytes *150 = 1000 bytes/sec You have a lot of room to grow.
    - Aggregator communicates via Ethernet as before perhaps after calculating positions.

    By calculating average RSSI locally you reduce the bandwidth and computation requirements on the aggregator (not that either seems high). CAN is lightweight compared to Ethernet and you can probably have one for each anchor (or for a few anchors). If you use something like standard devicenet cables you eliminate any wiring other than network wiring since the power requirements are handles in the network cable. Downside is you need to set your terminators properly. there are pros and cons for multiple vs. single aggregators.

    Personally I'd really strongly consider one inexpensive processor per anchor and put everything in one package with minimal wiring. Wiring labour is a big cost. But there are may alternatives and that gives you ideas on what is possible.

    Robert
  • Hi Amit,

    The website www.ti.com/.../PMP9068
    tells me that the Voltage Reference is not available to purchase at the moment ? What is the ETA to purchase this?

    Thanks
  • I think you'll find it will not ever be for sale

    "Fully assembled board (shown above) developed for testing and performance validation only, not available for sale."

    I would expect the documentation and maybe the design files are all you will get.

    Robert
  • Hello Morgan,

    Most of the TI Designs are not available for purchase. That is why design files are released for customers to manufacture them

    Regards
    Amit
  • Hi Robert,

    Some questions for you...

    "Personally I'd really strongly consider one inexpensive processor per anchor and put everything in one package with minimal wiring. Wiring labour is a big cost. But there are may alternatives and that gives you ideas on what is possible. "

    1. Which Processor would you refer me to? Is there an example with the Central/Peripheral CC2650 Radio?
    2. All Anchors would have to be wired by to the central aggregator by DeviceNet
    3. Each Anchor needs 3W of Power .. is it possible to strip the power off the cables like POE ?

    Thanks
  • 1. Well there's always the TM4C123 series. If you look on Digikey, Mouser and Newark they have selection guides that can help make a selection. As far as an existing board with a radio integrated, I don't know.

    2. CAN is a bus configuration rather than star so the devices are wired in series (perhaps with short stubs). There are length limits based on communication speed. BTW, I was suggesting devicenet cable, not necessarily the protocol. Other cables are possible

    3. That was one of my reasons for suggesting devicenet cable. In addition to the data pair of wires it has a power pair. The Devicenet protocol specifies these are to carry 24V. The size of the wire varies with class. Thin is 22AWG, Mid is 18AWG and Thick is 15AWG (Yes 15AWG, that's not a typo). AB says you can carry 3A on thin for a little over 70W total but you have to watch for voltage drops. Obviously mid and thick classes have higher capabilities. I use a mid thickness cable myself in a design.

    Robert