Re: CANopen Vs J1939

Am Montag, 28. April 2014, 21:47:00 schrieb YinpingDong:
> Dear All,
>
> this might be a stupid question, but It really confused me:
> CANopen node can work with J1939 node without gateway!
> 
> please help me, because in my understanding J1939 isn't compatible with CANopen. Communication between them need gateway.


Johnson,

For me it is not clear what you want to achieve.
J1919 is using the extended identifier format and a defined bit rate of 250kbit/s.
CANopen mostly uses 11 bit identifier format.
If the CANopen nodes use the same bit rate as J1939,
both can at least co-exist.

Data exchange is possible too.
A CANopen node can configure a RPDO to receive extended frames.
So it can receive J1939 frames.
Configured with a appropriate mapping - according the PGN -
it can also work with the data within the J1939 frame.
And visa verse.
A CANopen node can easily act as a J1939 sensor sending data.

> 
> Another confusing idea is to implement a protocol stack so called J1939 + CANopen, that means it is J1939 but with benefit of CANopen: 
> 1) using J1939 to define message
> 2) using CANopen's object dictionary 
>
No idea what that is good for.

> Can anybody help to explain above idea,right or wrong,...?
> 
> 
> Best Regards
> Johnson 

Regards
  Heinz
  emtas GmbH

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQEcBAABAgAGBQJTXl5qAAoJENViPQy9fcm7fYUIAIlUBHGpRZ2u3ykNUsGgva7H
zctKGFKL4h4pG1bPRxBLcjfbrGgPUOIVjRzFxJgGbPFO8gCE2YVwXakNQetImrAb
sjEuTCXrjRE5y/HIz+HfEbJr1FYK0mFJ4dXLvO/FgEfk+uveWAKYqu0ciVtNKLtW
d9hwUKSj+eP9BNPGMzuTCdIHP6Db/Q9Z/TE9GDidGVT3U5a/jF6qSGXTHmvIGLzZ
UJXCqDtS0mROjmLuwlBmLNr4u2ddt7EF6GCdXF+y7tdQz3o+SYTSUINGnA5clLRg
5cHem+HSBkN2MnwKKWxWU1XIeIknvrASJp2BViNxIXaDi/NLM67EjCioiuxyeDQ=
=a1q9
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----