Obdii Scanning To A Pda
#1
Posted 23 January 2005 - 11:47 AM
#3
Posted 23 January 2005 - 08:06 PM
The OBD Bluetooth transmitter with s/w Cd is quoted at £199. Plus PC interface £249. Which all seems reasonable. the kit requires formal OBD-II compliance. Anyone know if the VXT achieves that cos, if so, these chaps probably have a sale....Looks interesting.
Did you see the bluetooth ODB2 connector HERE
I might email and find out how much it is.
It would be great to have the PDA in car with the sat nav and detailed engine diagnostics.
Regards - Ian
#4
Posted 23 January 2005 - 08:45 PM
#5
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:07 AM
#6
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:20 AM
Edited by garyk220, 24 January 2005 - 09:21 AM.
#8
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:26 AM
#9
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:31 AM
AIUI yes, thats exactly right. ianSounds good - is the deal to buy the connectors then use the freeware software
#10
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:31 AM
Edited by cyberman, 24 January 2005 - 09:36 AM.
#11
Posted 24 January 2005 - 09:36 AM
Most Bluetooth PDAs have a serial port client. Non-bluetooth tooth PDAs would need the additional hardware/interface I presumeNot knowing much about PPC PDA PC's can you still synch with a serial cable?
#12
Posted 24 January 2005 - 10:45 AM
I think the bluetooth ODB2 connector comes with software anyway.AIUI yes, thats exactly right. ianSounds good - is the deal to buy the connectors then use the freeware software
Does anyone know if the NA is fully ODB2 compliant?
Edited by AmazingMonkey, 24 January 2005 - 10:45 AM.
#13
Posted 24 January 2005 - 10:59 AM
#14
Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:09 AM
#15
Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:13 AM
I have been doing a bit more research on OBD stuff and it turns out that data is available from the port in a fairly straightforward form. Conversion to asynch serial data interfacing to a PC is pretty simple and a program for a PIC which is supposed to do this is available as freeware.
Say you had a PIC programmer, and lashed up a suitable i-face cable, how easy/hard would it be to interpret the incoming data? Also, is it a stream that can be picked off at will or do you have to poll the ECU for specific data? Or is this something the PIC interface does?!?
#16
Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:39 AM
The way I understand the limited number of documents I have scanned this am is that:[Say you had a PIC programmer, and lashed up a suitable i-face cable, how easy/hard would it be to interpret the incoming data? Also, is it a stream that can be picked off at will or do you have to poll the ECU for specific data? Or is this something the PIC interface does?!?
(a) the freeby PIC software acts as a relatively dumb asynch data / OBD data converter. It probably does any framing needed etc but I am pretty sure thats your lot. 19K2 is the defined baud rate but this may be a PIC implementation issue. Its hard to bit pick much faster than that with a dumb PIC.
( depending on the protocol in use (there seem to be at least 3) you either specifically request individual or block data items or can get a frame dump (which may be everything available).
The impression I got from a US website is that OBD / ANSI supports the frame dump. I think you have to poll for a dump. I think you have to wait no data transfer delay to know the frame is complete (sets a maximum refresh rate).
© The standard codes are defined and the non-standard ones are documented somewhere (the Bluetooth chap has a list I think). Once these are known and the data is in asynch form interpretation is a defined problem.
Defined problems may be tedious / trivial to handle. I expect it will be relatively trivial and that the maximum needed will be (a) field extraction ( data format conversion © scaling and (d) range adjustment.
If that doesn't make much sense then frinstance: the data for an item might (I don't know) be in the 12 bits following the Esc * sequence, may be in BCD, may be in some strange floating point format, may be based at 47 instead of zero and may have a range of 47 to 319 when one wants 0 - 100. All of that is very straight forward to deal with in a little piece of code although its a bugger to pick out by eye and with the forebrain only...
Best I know at this time.
#17
Posted 24 January 2005 - 11:59 AM
After reading Ian's last post so do Ibut I do like the idea of bluetooth.
#19
Posted 24 January 2005 - 03:39 PM
Good infoThe way I understand the limited number of documents I have scanned this am is that:
....Best I know at this time.
I expect it will be relatively trivial and that the maximum needed will be (a) field extraction ( data format conversion © scaling and (d) range adjustment.ÂÂ
And this is trivial?!? Would the bluetooth chap be willing to provide a list of codes FOC to random 3rd parties?!?
Edited by caleebra, 24 January 2005 - 03:40 PM.
#20
Posted 24 January 2005 - 03:53 PM
Ah, yes. If you want to handle any sort of process data then these are the minimum 4 manipulations you have to expect. It can get worse.... If execution time isn't critical you would probably write (or use a library of pre-written) generalised functions which will do all the twiddly bits if just given the minimum parameters for each operation.And this is trivial?!? Would the bluetooth chap be willing to provide a list of codes FOC to random 3rd parties?!?
As to willingness to provide list of codes I don't know. I have just purchased a unit and asked for any extra information (including codes) he can provide. I expect I will see it before the end of the week. I'll let you know what I find.
The standard codes are I think publicly defined. I haven't had time to look but I think the Society of Automotive Engineers (or whatever) have the relevant standards and will be glad to supply them (no doubt for a fee). A more extensive websearch might be useful too.
Ian
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users