Member Since: February 19, 2013

Country: United States

  • My point was that I'm not sure what would be a secure implementation and what wouldn't. Yes, I can (and will) just read up on it on my own, but some links or suggestions on improving security would be a neat bonus for a security-minded product like this.

  • This kind of thing, while cool, makes me a little nervous from a home security standpoint. Does this basically just give an additional point of entry to your home if someone manages to get hold of your phone (or whatever wireless-capable device can access it, depending on user implementation)? Maybe include some tips on maximizing security in a future hookup guide or something.

  • I guess you missed this part:

    The goal of this project is not necessarily to have you build your own turkey timer, but rather to show you how you can use the new Intel Edison to connect your project with Twitter!

  • For the reference voltage issue: Microchip sells DACs with dedicated VREF pins that could be connected to a stable voltage reference. The MCP4726, for example, is pin-compatible with the 4725 except the I2C address pin is replaced with the VREF pin, so swapping out the ICs and doing some green-wire modding to the breakout board might be feasible. If you don't mind changing the firmware to use SPI instead of I2C, there's also the MCP4921 in PDIP-8 form, which would be even easier hardware-wise.

  • This is common shorthand for motion sensors, even though it's not technically correct. The extra three "degrees of freedom" are actually just absolute rotation via the magnetometer. In my experience something marketed as a "6-DOF" sensor will only have linear and rotational acceleration.

  • The BBB technically can be powered directly from a single-cell LiPo, but it's not ideal: not considering the high power consumption, one of the 3.3V rails is driven by an LDO with 500mV dropout at peak load, and AFAIK you have to directly solder the battery leads and safety thermistor/resistor to the board, so swapping out different-sized batteries isn't practical.

  • Well, Intel seems to be claiming that's the intended application. I assume they have some logic behind the price point.

  • Number of PWM outputs isn't exactly the benchmark by which SBC utility is measured. Is there a reason you need so many? Keep in mind this was meant for wearables and IoT devices. If you need more, expand the functionality with a dedicated PWM generator or use a different board with a different target application.

  • Smaller and also uses a lot less power. Honestly the size and power consumption thing was my biggest turnoff with the RPi and BBB, and Edison is the first offering I've seen that fits the feature set I want. Edison may have some of the same functionality as other SBCs, but it's meant for a different set of applications—wearables and deeply embedded IoT devices—and those often need no on-board video support of any kind.

    As far as speed goes, you can't actually compare that kind of thing based just on MHz. Edison is a dual-core x86/Atom device and has an on-chip microcontroller in addition; RPi is a single-core ARMv6/ARM11 device. Edison also has 1 GB of RAM whereas the Pi has 256 or 512 MB depending on version. All this means that actual performance is going to vary heavily based on the application (memory-intensive or not, parallelizable or not, etc.) I'd like to see benchmarks for the Edison, though.

    Finally, re: the price, I think $10 more, including Sparkfun's markup for both devices, is a pretty reasonable price to pay for something that can feasibly be run off-the-shelf directly from a LiPo for multiple hours, plus has a footprint about 20% the size of the Pi's (and that's neglecting vertical space). I'll grant that it's a bit expensive objectively speaking, though.

  • If I understand correctly, it basically means you can't program the Edison with the Arduino IDE, but you can use any shields designed for the Uno R3 pinout and the hardware should work. You just have to know how to program the Edison to take advantage of that. Code gets uploaded over the USB port, but you won't be able to use Arduino sketches directly.

    EDIT: Okay, looks like I was wrong about the software bit: you should also be able to use sketches directly from the Arduino IDE? I'm also confused now.

No public wish lists :(