IR remote control...
Wagner Lipnharski email (remove spam text)
Olin Lathrop wrote:
>> ... except if transmitter A starts to send the packet, receiver A
>> decodes its own address and starts to receive. In middle of the A
>> data frame, transmitter B starts to transmit and garble all A
> Of course the packets would contain a checksum. In this case the
> packet would be detected as corrupted and ignored.
There is a double problem.
1) This kind of broadcast system, where the sender never receives
confirmation from the destination. A system like this requires certain
insurance that the destination WILL receive the packet correctly.
2) Different from a real broadcast system, where the sender keeps sending
the same transmission over and over, this unidirectional communication
system probably will really need a collision avoidance by monitoring the IR
environment before transmit.
Of course, for better safety any kind of checksum is required.
Also, a bi-directional system can be implemented, with confirmation, "ack",
"nack", etc. It will make the collision avoidance easier to implement.
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/io/irs.htm?key=ir
You must be a member of the
piclist mailing list
(not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the