Ultrasonic Distance Sensor (RCWL-1601) - 3 to 5V (CE09432)

Support Product Questions
1

This is a placeholder topic for “Ultrasonic Distance Sensor (RCWL-1601) - 3 to 5V” comments.

A modern update of the HC-SR04 Ultrasonic sonar sensor - now fully compatible with 3.3V.

Read more

2

The page of the Ultrasonic Distance Sensor (RCWL-1601) - 3 to 5V (SKU: CE09432) has conflicting information regarding the range. A range of 20 - 450mm is mentioned as well as a range of 2 - 450cm is mentioned. I assume the latter is correct?

1 Like
3

Welcome to the forum Daniel!

Abolsutely, sorry about the mixup, 450cm is the correct measurement.

I’ve updated the product page to show the correct information!
Liam

2 Likes
4

No problem. Thanks Liam!

5

Hello,
would you be able to provide some kind of dimensional drawing or CAD model for this sensor. I am primarily interested in the diameter and spacing of the holes if you can’t provide anything else.
Thanks

1 Like
6

Hi Tim,

I found a dimensional diagram for this module:

we’ll add it to the product page ASAP!

7

Thank you very much for your help James!

1 Like
8

Hi James
You do realise don’t you that there is only 1 dimension on that drawing that matches a standard 2.54mm grid. That is the 7.62mm at the top. There are no dimensions for the 4 connecting points at the bottom but I suppose they do. However the 15mm distance between these 2 groups doesn’t match.

I have bought this subject up on a previous occasion. I can’t see any feasible reason why mounting holes, strip header holes etc can’t be on the same 2.54mm grid as that would make it so much easier to handle mechanically as mounting on a piece of pre drilled development board or similar would allow existing holes to be used instead of trying to drill between holes or trying to elongate existing holes.

Personally if I were using such a device I would try to find one which the designers thought about this problem and had mounting and connection situations that suited.
Cheers Bob
PS The photo and the drawing don’t seem to match. The photo does not show the 2 points at the top of the drawing. In fact the photo of the rear of the board shows 4 soldered connections here.

9

Hi Robert,

Unfortunately we don’t manufacture this module in house, so we’ve got very limited control as to its structure.

Personally, on PCBs I work on for home projects, I prefer an 0.1" grid as you mentioned for any electrical connections or components (but perhaps something finer like 0.05" or 0.01"), and round metric mm numbers for anything mechanical.

I don’t think either is necessarily the perfect choice as both offer advantages IMO

10

Hi James

Understood completely. But it is still a pain in the A…e.

Yes, particularly as everything else including pin headers etc uses this grid. I can’t speak for all but most of the PCB layout and routing software I have come across offers a grid of 0.1" (2.54mm) or multiple / sub-multiple of this as a default grid spacing.

Easier to keep these on the same grid for the above mentioned reasons, less hassle. The alternative is to leave a device like a 1602 display, PicoDev unit or most breakouts perched on the pin header connections. Probably OK for home/experimenter/maker uses but certainly would not please any QA scrutiny. Personally I would avoid this scenario for any permanent or long term use.
But that is only me.
Cheers Bob

2 Likes
11

Does anyone see any issues that might be faced with desoldering the receiver and wiring it to be seated opposite the transmitter? The purpose would be to try and detect an object moving through a opaque cylinder between the transmitter/receiver, and reading the apparent drop in received signal (either presence/absence or slight increase/decrease in tof).

There’s the obvious problem that the cylinder will reflect a lot of the sound away, but beyond that issue, is there any other red flags in this that anyone can imagine?

3 Likes
12

I’ve done a fair bit of sonic detection for interactive light shows and my number one enemy has been echoes off a curved surface. I predict that will be your major challenge.
It’s not a deal breaker, tech is pretty clever so it might just work anyway.
For less than a cup of coffee I’d give it a go. :+1:

3 Likes
13

Hi ProgrammerScum,

Are there any issues using a light or mechanical detector? Like a break beam sensor or switch?
Is it possible to give us some more info about your project?

2 Likes
14

Thanks Liam, yeah I’ve considered those options, as well as using an rfid scanner with a nfc tag on the object. I’ll raise a dedicated post to explore my options