Webcams output digital data via USB so that they can be connected to a computer without any additional hardware.  Software running on the PC can read image data from the webcam and display it to the user or save it to the computer’s hard drive.  The downside to this approach is that the camera interface is not necessarily consistent from one webcam to another.  I have a Kodak webcam and a Logitech webcam, and when I plugged them in I found I needed different software for each.  Windows 7 handles these differences pretty smoothly, but my donor PC for this project is using Ubuntu Linux, and there things are not so polished.  Adding additional cameras would mean having to buy the same camera or fiddling with more software.  Now I bet you can see why CCTV systems don’t take this approach (besides legacy reasons).  Managing many webcams would be a real headache!

Luckily, network webcams that connect to WiFi or via network cables to your home router are available.  Many of these can capture images as standard JPEGs which can be uploaded to a File Transfer Protocol (FTP) server.  This method should work for most network webcams.  As a big added bonus, there are no wires to run around the house if the webcam is wireless.

After reviewing cameras on Amazon, I decided on the Foscam FI8918.  This camera strikes a good balance between cross your fingers and pray no name Chinese brands and expensive name brands.  I purchased two for $160 shipped.  This is a lot more than the $25 I paid for my Logitech USB web cam, but not having to run cabling through the house was easily worth the $50 difference to me.  The FI8918 can upload images to an FTP server and can also be configured to detect motion.  It even has a nifty calendar based scheduler built in, though I didn’t intend to use it.

The setup of these cameras is a little goofy, though straightforward.  They must first be plugged in via a hard wire network cable to your router.  You then need to run a utility on the provided CD to locate the cameras and open Internet Explorer to the configuration page.  I changed the default camera name an username/password before configuring the wireless connection.  I found that the Foscam’s wireless configuration page didn’t automatically detect my wireless settings, so I had to log into the router and copy all the settings.  The first camera worked smoothly after all those changes, but the second stubbornly refused to connect to my wireless.  Finally I reset it back to factory settings and repeated the process one more time and all was well.  Not sure what happened…

I then setup the FTP upload and Alarm settings in the administration panel. Sample settings are displayed below.

Alarm Service Settings

FTP Upload Settings

With that all settled, I now needed to actually setup an FTP server!  This turned out to be trickier than I thought… stay tuned!

After hearing stories of recent day time burglaries, we decided to take action to improve our own security.

Most folks would sign up for ADT or maybe a more cutting edge solution like Alarm.com.  But, not wanting to poke holes in the walls of our rented home installing dozens of sensors (with a hefty price tag as well), we thought about the use cases that our system would need to address.

Primarily, we were interested in knowing if someone was in our home when we are not.  Alarm systems often use window/door sensors and vibration sensors to detect entry.  It seemed much simpler to look for motion within the home.

Regarding notification, we communicate via email to our smartphones.  That’s the same way we’d like to receive alerts.  That cut out most of the DIY alarm kits on Amazon such as a the SkyLink SC-100.  These only have a local alarm (a noise maker).

I looked up some IR motion sensors, but they all required hard wired installation or a proprietary base station and they aren’t cheap either.  I know that webcams can easily do motion detection, and they sometimes cost less than the IR sensors when on sale– so why not use wireless webcams?

The only hurdle would be to distinguish intruders from us, and there is a very easy way to tell when we are home: our smartphones connect to our home WiFi.

Suddenly, an outline of the system began to form.  It would be based on a PC connected via WiFi to wireless webcams and basically implement the following process:

1. Wait for motion
2. If our smart phones are not connected to the WiFi, send an email with picture attachment to our smart phones

This simple setup would be the start of our DIY security system.

The Bafang geared hub motor contains 3 nylon gears… yes, plastic. Run within it’s limits, those gears should be fine. But this motor was being run at double the normal voltage.

You can see what a bit too much power does to the gears here and then what way too much power does here.

To hopefully avoid these problems, a metal gear was installed in our motor.

Today, after about a year of use, I decided to open up the motor and assess the conditions inside. I can report back that everything looks beautiful inside!

Opening the hub motor

The metal gear is on the left and the nylon gear is on the right-- both look perfect

We’re looking at building the next iteration, where we’d like to tame the top speed but improve hill climbing performance, a handy feature in San Francisco. Stay tuned!

Without further ado, here is the video (you can also watch it directly at Youtube here in full 1080p HD):

We had a lot of fun filming this video and spent many hours editing. Thanks to Mike Steczo also for the sound track! Also dear readers, note the homage to Jeremy Clarkson near the beginning…

Well, the biggest news to come out of Plug-in 2010 was the Chevy Volt pricing.  GM was planning on releasing the pricing at about 10am on Tuesday, but Bloomberg had already leaked it by 8:30am when attendees were finishing up breakfast and coming into the exhibition hall.  Oops.

Nissan scored the best spot in the hall right in front of the entrance, with Chevy to the left.  Even before attendees came in, there were at least half a dozen people hovering around the Leaf.  The Volt– well I saw two camera men setting up for the GM press conference.

There had been speculation that the Volt would cost about $45,000.  This was correct.  The Volt’s MSRP will be $41,000 with another $4k in options.  The other choice is a $350/month lease– not sure what GM will require down.  The Leaf is about $33,000.  GM had one ace up it’s sleeve to beat the price difference and perceived better reliability of the Nissan offering: an 8 year, 100,000 mile warranty.

Except that right after the GM press conference, the head of Nissan North America announced that Nissan would match Chevy’s warranty.

The GM Volt team members walking around looked rather dejected, versus the Nissan employees, who were giddy.  To be fair, the Volt looks like an all right car, and for those who need the range, it offers something the Leaf doesn’t have.  But the Leaf looks really good inside and out, and it’s a whole lot cheaper.

The big news for me was the explosion in charging options.  At least half a dozen companies– consuming at least 1/3 of the floor– were offering some sort of charging solutions.  Several of these companies also overlap home and industrial automation, angling for a position in the coming smart grid.

The conference was much bigger than two years ago and definitely more interesting.  However, it is tiny compared to something like the SF International Auto Show.  Then again, it costs a whole lot more too.

I ran into David Herron, owner of the visforvoltage.com forum, and also Kane Fortune and Colin from Fortune-Hanebrink, makers of the Hanebrink All Terrain Electric Bicycle.  I’d been wondering how Hanebrink had managed to use a hub motor for a bottom bracket drive.  I couldn’t find a reasonably powerful hub motor that could fit in between a set of pedals.  Well, the answer is, neither could Hanebrink, because they had to increase the spacing between the cranks (called Q-factor) by, well, quite a lot.  The hub motor axle was shortened on the non-drive side and beefed up on the drive side.  It was a little hard to make sense of all that’s going on, but there are some free wheels, sprockets, and bearings in there… take a look at the photos below.

I also had fun talking to the folks from EETrax in Boulder, Colorado.  They sell parts for EVs but in their spare time build crazy electric vehicle and drink beer.  My kind of fun.

FYI, parking at the convention center is $20– but you can park on the street just a few blocks away for free.

100727 Plug-In 2010 Conference23 pictures San Jose McEnery Convention Center, San Jose, CAJul 28, 2010

The meeting started in the council chambers where a group of consultants hired by the city introduced the background and goals of the Master Plan before taking us over to the atrium to speak with city representatives at several stations about possible changes.

Afterwards, the attendees broke into five groups of ten for sessions covering our bicycle usage habits, problem areas within the city, and solutions to those problems.  Back in the council chambers, representatives from each group spoke about each teams best recommendations for the city.

My group was extremely excited about our first suggestion– a “bicycle superhighway” paralleling the Caltrain tracks proposed by one of the city board members in our group.  Not only does Caltrain serve the critical North-South route, but it cuts through the center of the city, making access from most locations in the city to the “highway” convenient.  Although it sounds like a daunting task, most bicycle improvements are funded as attachments to other public works and California recently approved a high speed rail system which may use the Caltrain right of way.  The rail line would be enclosed and a bicycle path could be incorporated into the design on the outside.  This would extend the whole system along the peninsula!

The idea of being able to cruise, without stop lights or signs, from San Francisco to San Jose excited everyone.

We all agreed that the existing system of bike lanes and routes has many short comings.  Many patches of accessibility are not connected and there is too much emphasis on bicycle facilities on major roads.  Delaware, for example, is a major North-South route, however, nobody feels comfortable taken inexperienced riders on Delaware and the condition of the road is very poor, especially around 92.  Additionally, access across 101 is poor, especially the total cluster at 3rd Ave.

Other popular ideas were development of the city waterways to include bicycle paths; consistent, visible parking in downtown; and a proposal for a trial to remove a car parking space on the corner of each block in downtown and addition of raised bicycle parking.  This would make parking easy to find and also solve one of the major issues downtown: the sidewalks are not wide enough for bicycle parking.  Currently, there are places to lock bicycles in the parking garage.   However, few participants were even aware of these and most didn’t want to park in the dark, uninviting (and seemingly unsafe) the first level or walk up to the second level.

Another interesting idea was to re-purpose parking meters after conversion to an electronic parking system.  The posts left over from the meters could be used for locking bicycles.  A nice addition for electric bicycles would be to install electrical outlets on some posts.

Finally, the city must coordinate with neighboring cities as, at least in our group, no one bicycled exclusively within San Mateo.

A survey on cycling habits was open until recently; it’s still possible to post free form comments and also map the routes you commonly use within the city.