Okk thank you Mike I’m curious, 🧐 have
Okk thank you Mike I’m curious, 🧐 have you encountered any specific challenges or drawbacks when compared to LoRa? I’m always interested in learning from others.
1 Reply
Each technology has its own "best fit" applications. LoRaWAN is effectively a network so has a number of networking related functions that wouldn't be necessary for point to point communications, which means the receiver is actually a "gateway" so has more hardware and software involved. You can also just use the physical layer, "LoRa" without using the LoRaWAN network stack, but that becomes a more proprietary solution. Bluetooth with the coded PHY feature is likely the easiest integration and lowest hardware costs for your point to point needs. At 2.4GHz, it will be more affected by the trees in your signal path than LoRa will. It should still have enough margin tomeet your range needs - but good to test that in the field first!