[TowerTalk] Rotator Controllers

[jimlux]

On 12/18/18 1:30 PM, Charles Gallo wrote:
> On Tue, December 18, 2018 3:25 pm, Wilson  Lamb wrote:
>> All that big rotator stuff is more work than I would do.
>> However, If I were doing it and had long runs I'd look into using 120V for
>> the long runs, with appropriate transformers at the ends. I can even
>> imagine using one run to a tower and then relays to distribute it to
>> various rotators. Overcoming cable drop by increasing gauge gets expensive
>> quickly. I HAVE used long low voltage runs for other purposes.
>> In those cases I used a power supply with plenty of headroom and remote
>> sensing. It worked well and assured proper voltage at the remote device
>> under all operating conditions (of current requirement) WL
> <snip>
> 
> I've always thought that the future of rotors was that we feed power up
> the tower, and use say TCP/IP to the rotor, and put the brains up there.
> Before Phillips co-opted the Zigbee standard, I thought that Zigbee would
> be a good way to get the command up the tower
> 
> I mean, at how low the prices are for embedded controllers (face it, a
> ATMega - the chip in a Uno is under $2) Wouldn't it just be nice to
> calibrate the rotor once, then be able to tell it "Hey, turn  315 degs",
> and it does it, no muss, no fuss

WiFi is your friend - it's already setup for networks

There's arduino, Rpi, and Beagle.


> 
> If the ARRL really wanted to be proactive with the hobby, they should get
> together with RSGB and JARL (and the others) and promulgate a standard for
> TCP/IP control of devices
> 
> "Hey, rotor, do this", hey amp, do that, hey antenna switch, do the other"
> Do the Mfgs HAVE to follow it?  Nope.  But I'd bet if the ARRL/JARL and
> RSGB all got together and agreed on a standard, you'd see some falling in
> line
> 


I totally agree..

I propose that it use ascii strings that are human readable. Probably 
the cleanest way is to implement a simple webserver that supports 
compact URL strings, but also does a decent UI.  That's what my WiFi 
smoker temperature controller does.
You can either use the "web form" interface from any browser, or you can 
send properly formatted URL strings to it.


There is a cost issue - hams are perceived as being exceedingly cheap - 
Let's say the "parts cost" for your wireless rotator interface is $10 - 
that turns into  $50 or $100 at retail - My smoker controller is a $250 
item, and that's without the "power amplifier" to interface to the 
smoker heat control.

I'll bet there's a lot more smoker controller buyers than ham rotor buyers.


You'll get abused on eham, etc. and people will talk about all the great 
things they can do cheaper with this box they got at a hamfest in 1975 
with just a bit of modification, and since they got 1000 ft of 
multiconductor cable at a surplus auction, ...you get the picture.