2

I am creating a board with the following components:

Inputs: Momentary button Reed switch Rotary Encoder with 24 detents

Output: Bluetooth

The idea is to have it connect to a mobile device, such as an iPhone or iPad, and transmit the data to an application that I'm writing.

All's going well with my prototype. I would want to have someone create a proper PCB that could go into some sort of commercial production.

The question I have is whether I should be using a Micro:bit, Arduino or something else to piece my prototype together.

I already have a Micro:bit, but the way the Bluetooth connects doesn't seem like a good representation of my final product. I'm not sure how much of a problem this is, but would the Bluetooth connection from the Arduino be the same as something from a custom PCB?

Is it worth the effort to do it with an Arduino instead of the Micro:bit?

TonyM
  • 21,742
  • 4
  • 39
  • 62
Brian
  • 123
  • 3
  • Microbit is physically too big, perhaps a micro/nano version of Arduino: https://store.arduino.cc/usa/arduino-micro. – tlfong01 Oct 16 '20 at 21:12
  • Or Arduino nano 3.0: https://aliexpress.ru/popular/arduino-nano-v3.0.html. – tlfong01 Oct 16 '20 at 21:14
  • Here is a 2019 review of Arduino nano 3.0: Four new Arduino Nano Boards: Test and Comparison (with a comparison with ***ESP32***) - Andreas Spiess (The Swiss Guy!), 2019nov17 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GLXSebQVCE. – tlfong01 Oct 16 '20 at 21:18
  • Get the nordic chip from the microbit (or better yet it's nRF52 bit brother) on a sub-module say the MDBT series. But questions of this type are *off topic* here... – Chris Stratton Oct 16 '20 at 21:47
  • As suggested by the Swiss guy in his YouTube, Arduino nano's seem good for maker's BLE projects (while ESP32 good for WiFi). You might also like to explore Cortex M0 (AdaFruit Circuit Python friendly) boards (while using M4 for STM32 apps development) . Cheers. – tlfong01 Oct 16 '20 at 21:51
  • Why do you need a microcontroller in addition to the bluetooth module? – Jasen Слава Україні Oct 17 '20 at 00:14

1 Answers1

2

Honestly, it really doesn't matter.

Arduino is basically an Atmel AVR with a snazzy board and a lot of beginner/education friendly peripherals and a development environment.

Microbit appears to be the same thing, but with an ARM Cortex M0, and a less mature community.

In both cases, if you were making a custom PCB for commercialization, you'd create a new board around the chip you're using, the AVR or a cortex M0, rather than basing off the arduino or microbit designs. You'd probably also ditch the beginner friendly dev environments.

So, it ultimately boils down to which chip do you want to depend on. ARM chips have a lot of capability for the price, and you can get chips from many different manufacturers, but their tooling is considerably less friendly than AVRs.

whatsisname
  • 1,434
  • 1
  • 10
  • 16
  • You kind of missed the whole BLE requirement, which means that choices really _do_ matter. Such heavily points towards a BLE capable MCU such as found on the micro:bit (yes, it's a cortex M0, but that's not what makes the chip applicable) or more likely a later part in the same series such as the nRF52832. And while one _could_ put this directly on a custom board, using it in a submodule is probably the smartest near term step as that encapsulates most of the RF design issues. – Chris Stratton Oct 17 '20 at 04:05
  • Basically the problem with the micro:bit is that it's an nRF51822 *development board* including LED's, sensors, and a programmer rather than one of the compact modules with the more recent nRF52832 designed to be *integrated into a product*. – Chris Stratton Oct 17 '20 at 04:13