Is if feasible to include the electronics for both ZBT-2 and ZWA-2 into the same enclosure? They are different frequencies and the large antenna post can fit both easily. The base has plenty of PCB real estate to place both circuits.
If possible, then perhaps three devices: two parallel ZBT-2’s (for Matter and Zigbee) and a ZWA-2?
It would be more expensive, but it would be an all-in-one device many newbies ask about. Other companies have attempted such a thing, but they didn’t have the built-in user base as HA and Nabu.
Curious if this has been discussed. I didn’t find anything in the search results.
Only three antennas: Zigbee, Thread, and Z-wave. Z-wave is at a completely different frequency, so it’ll coexist fine. Zigbee and Thread share 2.4GHz, but they can be configured so they never use the same channel.
Those antennas both fit into the larger of the two existing housings (z-wave). They still benefit from the extra long antennas, especially compared to the thumb-sized skyconnect dongle.
Several antennas in one package are commonplace: If Asus packs 16 antennas into a router, then Nabu can do 3.
Price would be higher of course. But call it “pro” and include an ethernet port for reduced latency (maybe POE as an additional cost). Leave wifi off by default as far as I’m concerned (but can be turned if customer wanted).
Finally, paint the monstrosity some eye-catching color, triple the price, and name it “ZZM-2”. Those letters are easier to remember: Zigbee, Z-wave and Matter. Of course, it’s followed by “2” because why not?
Wouldn’t be high volume, but that’s the point. Show it next to whatever Nabu replaces HA Yellow. It’s a thought.
I do not need to replace three networks when one radio fails. I do not need a single mediocre device that does three things kinda OK. I want purpose built devices with a definite expected lifespan so I can plan deployment and not have to upend my life if it goes sideways.
Just imagine… oh ZWave crapped out so I need to move my zigbee network to another radio after I finish moving ZWave.
Or you’re in the spot that gives perfect central coverage to build out a ZWave mesh but that same exact spot is a dead zone for 2.5Ghz
So many problems.
Different infrastructure (radio) different box for me. PERIOD. I think that statement from the philosopher ‘the Offspring’ applies, “You gotta keep em separated…” (as far as I’m concerned)
Backing up and migrating for all three ZZM controller pairings has become fairly reliable in the last year or two. I’m fairly confident that I could restore a controller from backup if it was necessary.
And controller hardware itself is fairly reliable, so long do not update firmware for at least 6 months to ensure you won’t have trouble. I’ve had many endpoint devices fail me, but never the controller’s hardware. Besides, even if it lasted 10 years, most people would have already replaced by whatever new, shiny protocol comes along between now and then.
My point is you should NOT have to. And relying on a backup restore for an unrelated system because a third party system failed is a recipe for disaster… This is the same argument against Samsungs (2020?) matter hub when they originally put it out. They had matter zigbee Bluetooth and wifi all inthe same box. Ask me how well it worked. (didn’t work)
You will never convince me to put then in one enclosure. Good ops dictates otherwise… Do not artificially entwined unrelated systems. Full stop. You can if you want but… Definitely not the best idea.
Reminds me of the 70th, when it “was” popular (for very few years), HIFI System.
Radio//Receiver/Vinyl-Player/ & Tape-Recorder (All in One) System … Well Well
Not the first or only time in History, " All in One " Is a plague . Period
Monitor, PC, DVD-Player ( Touchscreen Ofcause ! ) ehhh … Well Well
EDIT: And in particular this case Protocols/Signals ( Cool then we just Place it in the middle of the house, and fill the Surroundings With all our Device in a vast random Mix )
And for sure !, all Updates/Patches/Enhancements/etc comes in a “packet” right , scheduled , 2 Weeks after HA’s Monthly
Aside from the price of 2 additional radios, you need to factor in other stuff like additional certification costs (at least for Thread & ZWave) and FCC testing.
That’s not to mention a smaller production run which brings much higher costs, since the Venn diagram of people running all 3 protocols is a tiny sliver compared to those who run any of those protocols individually.
Basically, few people run Zigbee AND Thread. Only a small subset of these also run ZWave. Who’s gonna shell out 3x the price if they’re using 1/3 of the functionality?
I understand that such a device would not be profitable. I wanted to understand if it were technically feasible. Would there be any RF issues, HASS software roadblocks, etc.?
For example, let’s say if Elon Musk told SpaceX to drop everything and make a ZZM-2 for him. Is there any physical or technical limitation preventing it from working just as well as the three separate devices that non-billionaires must purchase today?
WiFi + thread/bt/zigbee 2.5 ghz wifi is a bullhorn ad drowns the other three radios. At thay distance power overcomes channel and even wifi ch1 can blast zig20… (ask Samsung about this one…)
Thread zigbee Bluetooth. Would require three separate sdr chips and antennae (else the time sharing will absolutely suck, it can be done esp32 does it.but it’s purpose built to do only that and usually not handling Marshalling three frequencies while juggling child parent relationships and retransmits. Mitigation very good engineering and lots more $) but then because physics and RF bands you now have actual physical limits on how close the chips traces and antennae should be apart (somewhere inthe 2cm range at that freq I think…
The list goes on and on… And on.
Standard usb /network chassis frame with pluggabke sdr modules MAAAAAAYBE. Rhys the only way I’d consider even building one but the price. She gonna be chonky. This thing doesn’t exist because it would be an absolute fortune to engineer correctly (mostly the radio interference problems) and still be operationally sound. Sure I can throw the electronics ina box. But I highly doubt you’re going to like the outcome
Not to mention our dear bellowed 4G signals Phones
NOTE: For a Period i was testing various Phone-Providers, as i live in “a kind of Shadow” , made my Choice, but i just found it getting worse and worse, Had to go out of the House to even call.
Then one Day, there was a Major Power-Loss in the Area, And Suddenly i had 4G signals inside of My House
Many chip vendors can put more than one radio on their chip design. Silicon real estate is cheap and the cad options allow it. The fabs will do whatever you demand. This is a low cost method of producing a versatile chip - a Swiss Army Knife solution. Adding another radio on your slice of silicon will increase the end price of a $3 chip by only a few cents, and maybe add a pin or two - often not.
It is how it is harnessed by circuit and firmware designers is where it gets interesting.
If the multi-radio option is not available, then you are forced to utilise multiple chips. Compare an Espressif ESP32 (with just one chip containing a dual Xtensa CPU core and dual radio, balun and amp) with a Raspberry Pi Pico W (that uses a separate Infineon CYW4343 chip) to provide WiFi and BlueTooth functionality. The cost in circuit board space and added circuit traces is a design choice, and will be changed in subsequent designs as the silicon fab offers the radio functionality onboard a new generation of chip to support new technology like Thread on top of WiFi 4/5/6/7, BlueTooth classic, BLE, ESPNow, ZigBee and 5Ghz in addition to 2.4Ghz.
Nabu Casa has packaged Silicon Labs chips to offer their Z-Wave products. Other vendors use exactly the same chip, and their product differentiation comes from how they package it - does it have a LED on top, and a phallic shape? Certainly the firmware is the same, but the end product that flies off the shelves is not.
Phone chip manufacturers such as MediaTek and Qualcomm do this routinely, each generation adding more functionality as the chip space gets tighter. The secret sauce is the firmware, something even NASA knows, having retrospectively repurposed their Mars helicopter processor and Rover for a vast productivity boost - something the original designers had not envisaged in their wildest dreams, turning an unfortunate accident into a navigational boost. Read and grin at man’s ingenuity - this is a neat hack!
Dunno, maybe shoot him an email & ask him? Pretty sure you’re comparing apples to oranges with a potential trillionaire Vs a not for profit organisation here.
Who knows? Maybe you’ll get lucky and he’ll get right on it as soon as he’s done with the stuff he promised but still hasn’t delivered. He might even let you preorder it today if you send a deposit.
An antenna like I’m suggesting wouldn’t be groundbreaking or even high-tech. But it would require hiring a team of specialists with the engineering education, tools, and experience. That’s why specialty firms exist to do antenna designs for manufacturers that don’t have this skill as their core competency.
For example, automakers have been designng far more complicated antennas for over 15 years. The diversity antenna on every modern car must combine far more frequencies and spectrum in a constantly changing environment. Imagine if every smart device moved around every few minutes into different EM environments. Here is an example of the crazy number of requirements they handle. It makes a zigbee/thread/z-wave/bluetooth/wifi gizmo look like child play: 3-D twelve-port multi-service diversity antenna for automotive communications | Scientific Reports
Yes, it is strictly financial why such tech cannot be leveraged here. The smart home market is small and not very profitable, at least not profitable enough to justify paying for such an engineering service. I wish that wasn’t the case. But I’m cool with that too.
Did you really read the article You Just Posted ?
What do You actually mean with Your “Statement” Above ? ( crazy number of requirements )
?
Here is a Topic-Header taken from the Article
" Integration of bluetooth and GSM bands "
2 Bands , 2 Totally Different Frequencies … Peace of cake.
It’s Nothing but a Radio/TV Antenna !. , Or a 2G-4G Antenna
Are You actually familiar With Frequencies/ Signals/ Protocols Etc , And know the Differences ?
That Antenna is no different Than 2 Cars Driving alongside On a 3 Lane HighWay, 1 in Inner-Lane the Other in Outer-Lane.
Beside Signal Traffic , To/From such an Antenna. IS as It Sounds ! A 1 to 1 Point i.e
GSM: 1 Signal From Antenna To 1 Receiver, A freaking Phone-Tower
Bluetooth: 1 Signal From Antenna, To i.e Your Phone/Key-Pad/Or Similar
( No Bluetooth wont reach to the end of the parking lot ! )
1 <> 1
Im Baffled , that You keep Posting more and more, Which Clearly States You Should Read Upp.
(as far as I’m concerned)
