> These fobs ("Driver 1" and "Driver 2" so the car can recognize *who* > is driving it) have a key inside that can be extracted to manually > unlock the doors. It can also be withheld from a parking attendant > so they can't access the glove box, etc. (manual lock).We have more than two drivers. We probably won't bother with removing the key. It will just stay in the key slot. However, we will enable/disable the engine and/or doors remotely. That's why we need a mobile web server hooking up to the engine immobilizer.
Auto immobilizer
Started by ●August 22, 2016
Reply by ●August 22, 20162016-08-22
Reply by ●August 22, 20162016-08-22
On 8/22/2016 7:36 PM, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote:>> These fobs ("Driver 1" and "Driver 2" so the car can recognize *who* is >> driving it) have a key inside that can be extracted to manually unlock the >> doors. It can also be withheld from a parking attendant so they can't >> access the glove box, etc. (manual lock). > > We have more than two drivers. We probably won't bother with removing the > key. It will just stay in the key slot. However, we will enable/disable > the engine and/or doors remotely. That's why we need a mobile web server > hooking up to the engine immobilizer.Knowing who is driving only really is significant if the car can *do* something, different, for each driver. E.g., alter the position of seat, mirrors, music preferences, etc. IMO, current vehicles don't do *enough* of this as there are many "preferences" that could easily be tracked that aren't (and that doesn't begin to address driving *styles*!)
Reply by ●August 23, 20162016-08-23
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:24:45 +1000, Jim Thompson <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@on-my-web-site.com> wrote:> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: > >> Den mandag den 22. august 2016 kl. 20.44.09 UTC+2 skrev >> edward....@gmail.com: >>> Where do they connect auto immobilizer? Ignition wire is simply, but >>> too simple and obviously easy to by-pass. For my old Ford, i disable >>> it with the crankshaft sensor, since it would not start without it. >>> >>> I am using Intel Edison or Raspberry Pi to control an relay. Both can >>> do the job. Edison is better because of the small size and embedded >>> flash; However, it is also worse because of the embedded flash. I had >>> to reload the OS many times when it just disappear, due to the way >>> they reload the OS on-board. Fortunately, this would not be a >>> problem with it power up all the time anyway. RPI uses a separate >>> uSD, loaded from PC. >> >> why on earth would you use something like an edison or RPI to control a >> relay? >> >> >> -Lasse > > Some people can only "design" using a uC/uP ;-) > > ...Jim ThompsonYeah, but they need ridiculously big and growing bigger uC/uP 's
Reply by ●August 23, 20162016-08-23
On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 9:18:42 PM UTC-7, David Eather wrote:> On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:24:45 +1000, Jim Thompson > <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@on-my-web-site.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen > > <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: > > > >> Den mandag den 22. august 2016 kl. 20.44.09 UTC+2 skrev > >> edward....@gmail.com: > >>> Where do they connect auto immobilizer? Ignition wire is simply, but > >>> too simple and obviously easy to by-pass. For my old Ford, i disable > >>> it with the crankshaft sensor, since it would not start without it. > >>> > >>> I am using Intel Edison or Raspberry Pi to control an relay. Both can > >>> do the job. Edison is better because of the small size and embedded > >>> flash; However, it is also worse because of the embedded flash. I had > >>> to reload the OS many times when it just disappear, due to the way > >>> they reload the OS on-board. Fortunately, this would not be a > >>> problem with it power up all the time anyway. RPI uses a separate > >>> uSD, loaded from PC. > >> > >> why on earth would you use something like an edison or RPI to control a > >> relay? > >> > >> > >> -Lasse > > > > Some people can only "design" using a uC/uP ;-) > > > > ...Jim Thompson > > Yeah, but they need ridiculously big and growing bigger uC/uP 'sBut all we care about is price & power consumption. For $50, we get quad cores (RPI), 1G RAM, Wifi and bluetooth. That's really pretty cheap. Power is around 5W, mostly for the radios (including external USB cellular modem).
Reply by ●August 23, 20162016-08-23
edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote:>> These fobs ("Driver 1" and "Driver 2" so the car can recognize *who* >> is driving it) have a key inside that can be extracted to manually >> unlock the doors. It can also be withheld from a parking attendant >> so they can't access the glove box, etc. (manual lock). > > We have more than two drivers. We probably won't bother with removing the key. It will just stay in the key slot. However, we will enable/disable the engine and/or doors remotely. That's why we need a mobile web server hooking up to the engine immobilizer.We have a "car sharing system" operating here that does things like that. (intended for people that need a car only infrequently, probably unthinkable in the USA) You pay a small monthly fee to get a logon ID and card and then you can logon to a website, book a car near to where you are, it will tell you where it has one available (they are on many block corners on a reserved parking place) and when you present your card (contactless card of course) it will recognize the fact that you have booked it and open the door and enable the engine. When you have returned and locked the car, some rental amount for time and covered distance is charged to your account. Probably a custom-made device for the company running that system, it will communicate over 2G/3G/4G I think.
Reply by ●August 23, 20162016-08-23
Jasen Betts <jasen@xnet.co.nz> wrote:> On 2016-08-22, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote: >> On 8/22/2016 12:38 PM, Rob wrote: >>> edward.ming.lee@gmail.com <edward.ming.lee@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Monday, August 22, 2016 at 12:02:59 PM UTC-7, Don Y wrote: >>>>> On 8/22/2016 11:44 AM, edward.ming.lee@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>> Where do they connect auto immobilizer? Ignition wire is simply, but too >>>>>> simple and obviously easy to by-pass. For my old Ford, i disable it with >>>>>> the crankshaft sensor, since it would not start without it. >>>>> >>>>> Modern vehicles disable the "engine" by preventing the engine control >>>>> app from *running* the engine (i.e., no "wires" have been cut; the control >>>>> signals are just inhibited -- no injector controls, etc.). You'd have to mimic >>>>> the functionality of the entire ECU to work-around it. >>>> >>>> So, is the RFID controller inside or close to the ECU? >>> >>> Probably yes. I have a car which has this feature as standard and >>> I think there is just an RFID readout that is connected to the ECU. >>> The ECU has to be programmed with the keys it has to recognize, and when >>> the readout does not read one of those numbers it will simply not run >>> the engine. It is still possible to run the starter motor. >>> A message appears on the LCD telling about it. >>> >>> Each key has a passive RFID chip embedded. This is separate from the >>> active (battery-powered) transmitter used to open and close the doors. >> >> Are you sure the doors are dependant on battery power in the fob? >> E.g., SWMBO's vehicle can unlock the doors/windows/etc. "from afar" >> using the (battery powered) transmitter. But, the doors unlock >> when the fob is proximate to the vehicle *and* the door handle >> grasped -- i.e., no need to fiddle with the fob in your pocket). >> >> Likewise, the engine starts with the fob tucked away in your pocket. >> >> [OTOH, I recall some fine print that said when the battery dies you hold >> the fob right up against the START button to start the vehicle. So, >> perhaps the battery is used in ALL cases -- just used MORE when trying to >> unlock remotely?] > > The range limit for inexpensive passive RFID is about 100mm, > for about $1000 (receiver/antenna cost) you go to 1m > > so yeah, that fob is almost certainly using the battery if it's in your > pocket.The explanation given earlier (battery powered device woken by local emission of a low-frequency field) is the correct one for normal operation. The passive RFID pill is a backup. In my car, that is the only mechanism during engine start, but in the Renault cars that is different.
Reply by ●August 23, 20162016-08-23
Yes, I believe they are using something similar. In addition, we want to limit the places and routes of where they can go. That's why we need the immibilizer, if it's driven out of range.
Reply by ●August 23, 20162016-08-23
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 14:18:38 +1000, "David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> wrote:>On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 05:24:45 +1000, Jim Thompson ><To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@on-my-web-site.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen >> <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote: >> >>> Den mandag den 22. august 2016 kl. 20.44.09 UTC+2 skrev >>> edward....@gmail.com: >>>> Where do they connect auto immobilizer? Ignition wire is simply, but >>>> too simple and obviously easy to by-pass. For my old Ford, i disable >>>> it with the crankshaft sensor, since it would not start without it. >>>> >>>> I am using Intel Edison or Raspberry Pi to control an relay. Both can >>>> do the job. Edison is better because of the small size and embedded >>>> flash; However, it is also worse because of the embedded flash. I had >>>> to reload the OS many times when it just disappear, due to the way >>>> they reload the OS on-board. Fortunately, this would not be a >>>> problem with it power up all the time anyway. RPI uses a separate >>>> uSD, loaded from PC. >>> >>> why on earth would you use something like an edison or RPI to control a >>> relay? >>> >>> >>> -Lasse >> >> Some people can only "design" using a uC/uP ;-) >> >> ...Jim Thompson > >Yeah, but they need ridiculously big and growing bigger uC/uP 'sTransistors are free. Might just as well use 'em.
