Not Your Typical Apex Toggle Switch Box

[BlueAntec]

I've actually considered them. Those are larger and longer buttons, won't easily fit in the design and will require a deeper box. Not to mention the cost ($23 each). I wanted something slimmer and smaller, yet with similar quality.

If there's enough demand I'm sure I can convince the manufacturer of my button switches to do custom etching though.

Thank you for the reply. I was considering printing a box to hold the switches and a breakout box but never got around to it. I like you solution much better though. If etching of the buttons becomes an option I'm all in.

 

[BZOFIQ]

I hear you. This would require a modification to the current PCB. I'll have to think about the implementation a bit.
Certainly achievable.

A board just like yours with USB port with pin headers behind the USB ports that could be connected via a ribbon allowing one to use multiple boards in a single enclosure (as many as one desires/within module limits of the APEX.

I/O headers could simply be pin headers that one can connect whatever they desire or a pluggable DIN Port for connecting their BOB, along with pins.

Once you add pin headers the board can they be adapted to pretty much anything.

I'm excited.

 

[_AV]

What im talking about is having something somewhat modular, like the option to choose between all buttons, or half buttons half BoB, or half BoB and Half FMM for optical sensor, or full FMM, i dont know just and idea. To bring the advanteges of the A2 and A3 apex in a module

I like the way you think. I also wanted to add some optical sensors instead of floats. This might be doable. Again, this would be a different product. I'll have to experiment.

 

[_AV]

A board just like yours with USB port with pin headers behind the USB ports that could be connected via a ribbon allowing one to use multiple boards in a single enclosure (as many as one desires/within module limits of the APEX.

I'll offer you one better
How about a single arduino mega with its 54 digital I/O pins which emulates multiple PM1 modules? Would that be enough?

 

[BZOFIQ]

I'll offer you one better
How about a single arduino mega with its 54 digital I/O pins which emulates multiple PM1 modules? Would that be enough?

If's it reliable and cheaper then multiple PM1s, why not.

 

[Rimsky]

I like the Arduino Mega idea. It would be much more powerful and flexible.

Having said that, it is my understanding that currently there is no way to communicate from Apex to these third party modules, only send open/closed (on/off) signals from the modules to Apex (basically BoB functionality). Am I right?

is there hope to change that? It would open a whole new world of possibilities.

 

[theatrus]

In theory, with reverse engineering, any aquabus module can be emulated. And yes, you could make a virtual-many-in-one module.

 

[Rimsky]

I’m not an expert but Imagine that even by inspecting packets, it might be very difficult to crack the protocol (bidirectional) if the manufacturer implemented some kind encrypted communication based on keys generated by the modules and Apex head unit. It may be possible, but maybe it is hard to accomplish.

 

[theatrus]

If this was the case, yes.

However it’s not the case so far. Neptune wasn’t even doing any form of firmware security a few years ago and that’s not something you can fix after the fact.

 

[Rimsky]

A quick look at the Aquabus Library in GitHub documentation, it seems that they have implemented much more than BoB open/closed functionality.

Hopefully new projects like this one come out.

I wish there would be a module that can have lots of 24DC outlets that can be controlled from Apex just like the native 24DC (not 1Link) outlets that come with EB832 and 1Link modules. 2 of those ports is not enough. I like to use them to power simple dosing and ATO pumps.

 

[Rimsky]

If this was the case, yes.

However it’s not the case so far. Neptune wasn’t even doing any form of firmware security a few years ago and that’s not something you can fix after the fact.

Interesting... You are right. They can't break compatibility with existing modules.
This opens a lot of cool possibilities.
I like the idea of the Arduino "Apex OpenModule". Something that can give us more flexibility.

 

[_AV]

I like the Arduino Mega idea. It would be much more powerful and flexible.

Having said that, it is my understanding that currently there is no way to communicate from Apex to these third party modules, only send open/closed (on/off) signals from the modules to Apex (basically BoB functionality). Am I right?

is there hope to change that? It would open a whole new world of possibilities.

Not so fast... With this specific module you can't send anything from Apex to the module. Because you are at the mercy of the head unit. Modules are passive, they can't make the head unit do what it's not programmed to do. One could, however, create a module that emulates something like an EB832, but just for the purpose of the 24v outlets for example. But that's because the head unit already supports that type of module and the communication.

 

[theatrus]

Correct. The protocol is very much geared to be a single master (the head unit). If you want more than what the stock ecosystem can do… then replace it.

Not going to say it’s that hard, but at that point it’s not that hard.

 

[doubleshot00]

I think i want one. Im to “slow” ti understand the breakout box. This seems so much easier to use.

 

[Rimsky]

I think i want one. Im to “slow” ti understand the breakout box. This seems so much easier to use.

It would not simplify programming, nor cabling. It would be simpler that adding a second expansion module and second BoB, but for a single BoB, I think it would not simplify anything.

 

[_AV]

I think i want one. Im to “slow” ti understand the breakout box. This seems so much easier to use.

Sure. Please PM me.

 

[_AV]

It would not simplify programming, nor cabling. It would be simpler that adding a second expansion module and second BoB, but for a single BoB, I think it would not simplify anything.

Not true at all. You can't get illuminated buttons with a break out box. You don't get anything actually with a breakout box, other than the wire connectors. The rest is DIY. This is an-all-in-one, plug-and-play solution.

 

[Rimsky]

Not true at all. You can't get illuminated buttons with a break out box. You don't get anything actually with a breakout box, other than the wire connectors. The rest is DIY. This is an-all-in-one, plug-and-play solution.

I’m not saying your solution is not superior. It has many advantages and potential for things like optical switches (which require power). And will save you a module if your existing BoB is full and want to expand.

I’m just thinking that it will not make any simpler the programming itself. I’m I missing something?

 

[_AV]

I’m not saying your solution is not superior. It has many advantages and potential for things like optical switches (which require power). And will save you a module if your existing BoB is full and want to expand.

I’m just thinking that it will not make any simpler the programming itself. I’m I missing something?

In the sense of programming, there is no difference. I provided examples for this very purpose.

 

[Rimsky]

In the sense of programming, there is no difference. I provided examples for this very purpose.

That's what I meant and wanted to clarify to the other person. In no way I intended reducing merit to your product. I'm very excited about it.