Solutions for Honeywell®

PORTSMITH EUROPE

A DIVISION OF

Solutions for

SAMSUNG

Some devices do not have a means of communicating via a cradle as unlike other handheld devices, they do not have any USB contacts suitable for use in a USB cradle.

Some installations use a mix of devices and physical connection is not possible or practical.

 

Why not use cabled USB to ethernet?

Inability to ensure a USB cable is plugged in by operator as well as docking the device to charge.

Devices such as the MC40 and MC45 cannot charge and communicate at the same time due to the nature of the USB port.

ET1 has a second USB port at the top of the device that could be used but is very difficult to manage.

 

We currently have a Bluetooth to ethernet adapter available NOW.

 

To ensure you can give your customers the connectivity they require we would like feedback on a few points.

 

What kind of solution do they want ? :-

Five devices to one ethernet warmspot - First development

 

We need to establish whether customers would accept a (Bluetooth) system where when a device comes near enough to a PBW (Portsmith Bluetooth WarmSpotTM ) it registers that it MAY be able to communicate, If the channel is busy it waits until a channel is free. When one becomes free it connects, transmits and disconnects, freeing up the channel for another device. This would be unlimited in the number of devices that could eventually communicate. It would be ideal in a standard batch environment. If this was not acceptable the customer would really need WiFi as he presumably needs real time communications.

 

It should be remembered that with WiFi the more devices you load onto it the slower it goes. It only has a certain bandwidth, so put 2 devices on that are continuously transmitting they get half each (nearly!). If you connect 100 then comms will take 100 times longer. Motorola’s super Access points use many channels to achieve higher throuput.

 

A single Bluetooth channel runs at a certain speed, depending on which type of BT is used. SO if you had 5 devices using the above sequential comms it would take 5 times longer for the last device to finish its communication. If this is NOT acceptable time it could potentially be halved by introducing another PBW.

 

Many systems go totally over the top with real time comms and send far more messages than are actually needed. Example If a fork lift driver picks up a pallet, it may take him 5 minutes to  load, go to the location specified, drop off, scan the location and goods to prove he put them where he was supposed to and another 5 minutes to return back to the dock. Does anybody actually need to know the exact route he took or precisely where he is every second which they would with real time location? All they actually need to know is the goods arrived and where they got stored.

 

 

 

Why MC45 and not say MC2100 – or MC?? purely cost or form factor

 

What price would they pay for such a solution:-

Per terminal

Per Site

Per Installation

 

Why do they NOT want to use WiFi ?

WiFi is very pervasive and  difficult to limit its range. Mostly you try to get the longest range possible, leaving the system open to hacking.

Low power Bluetooth can have a range as small as 1m, This is 10m. It would be very hard to snoop a network without being noticed.

Wifi can usually be accessed outside of the building making it easier for hackers to hide and not be noticed.

Bluetooth can still use similar encription as WiFi.

 

Why would they NOT consider Bluetooth ?

 

 

Mobile Phone, Datacapture and Motorola MC40 / MC45 / TC55 / TC75

Ethernet Connectivity Solution