1) I am working on a problem, the emulation of which requires me to setup a wireless mesh network with various nodes.

2) A node is a collection on an Arduino Uno board with a 433 MHz Transreceiver modules. (I received a partial setup on my taking over of the problem).

3) In order to expand the network, I wanted to buy some additional RF modules so I stumbled across these types

A. https://www.amazon.com/433Mhz-Transmitter-Receiver-Link-Arduino/dp/B016V18KZ8/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1470286538&sr=8-2&keywords=433+RF+module (Call it the 4 pin receiver, say)

B. https://www.amazon.com/Geeetech-433Mhz-Transmitter-Receiver-Experiment/dp/B00AMB3NCY/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&qid=1470286606&sr=8-14&keywords=RF+module (Call it the 8 pin receiver, say)

4) The setup I had, had the B type RF modules working perfectly fine.

5) I then got a few more type A's thinking they would work but what I realised that the receiver modules of the type A's weren't as fast as receiving closely spaced transmission (100ms apart). On increasing the gap to about 800ms they worked fine. I checked this on all 4 that I got just to make sure that there wasn't a hardware fault in any.

6) The transmitters however worked okay.

So my question is, is there a fundamental difference between the two types, or was my experience due to the specific product that i received (implying a different manufacturers' product would possibly may have given me desired result)??



2 Answers 2


This is pretty far off of answering your actual question, but I will offer some unsolicited advice. Those modules are ill-suited to mesh networking (if that's really what you're trying to do), as you're going to have to implement a full-stack protocol on top of them; they are just dumb ASK modulator / de-modulator pairs, no collision detection / avoidance built in or anything like that. You should consider using an FSK digital transceiver instead, e.g. HopeRF RF69HCW modules, or Nordic NRF24L01 modules. Or if you have the budget for it, something like an XBeee transceiver. You'll save yourself a lot of headaches by not interacting with such a low-level radio link, unless you really have a good reason.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I did realise that over the course of time but idea was to get some hands on experience before and if, it is decided to dive into better seas. But thanks, I now know what would the 'better' ones should be like. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 23, 2016 at 6:27

There is no "fundamental" difference between your "A-type" and "B-type" examples. However, you have discovered that there are implementation variations in the design choices of vendor "A" vs. vendor "B". Most likely in the low-pass filter of the "data output" from the receiver.

It is possible that you could modify the "A-type" receiver to allow higher-speed data response, but that would require partial reverse-engineering the receiver circuit and removal and replacement of very small surface-mount components. Perhaps not worth the resources (time, money, effort) for your project?

Both your "A" and "B" examples are very low-level, primitive (and cheap in both senses of the word) examples of 433 MHz transmitters and receivers. Consider that the design parameters for the project may have precluded you from using some of the lower-performance examples of 433 MHz TX and RX.

  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This is simply false. The two modules linked are extremely different in functional design. The first is a crude super-regenerative, while the second is a superheterodyne (the crystal is a dead giveway, but a little searching will find images without the shield can). \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 11, 2016 at 14:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ So does that explain the different observations in the two types or is it result of something else? Thanks \$\endgroup\$ Commented Aug 23, 2016 at 6:26

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.