piclist 2002\10\14\164423a >
Thread: IR remote control...
www.piclist.com/techref/io/irs.htm?key=ir
face
flavicon
face BY : Russell McMahon email (remove spam text)



> If xmiters should be isolated, then IR is not the best choice.  They are
as
> dumb as if you try to differentiate a 74HC00 from a 74HC02 in the dark.

Still OK IF each transmitter carries a receiver as well and you carry out
some form of media sharing algorithm (CSMA or whatever). Even possibly dumb
time sharing transmissions if transmitter clock stability is good enough.

What is the required data rate? I would imagine at least 10 updates per
second to get crisp enough controls and at least 1 byte per command.
Possibly several if you want motor speeds and directional controls. Say 10
per second x 4 bytes/bot x 10 bots x 10 bits/data_byte  = 4,000 bps. May be
pushing 38 kHz common devices if you need much higher rates than this with
independent TXs. A shared TX would only need this rate and should be OK.

Anyone know how fast can you reliably demodulate asynchronous data using
typical 3 lead type IR receivers?
Any issues with response time from receipt of carrier? (as would be required
when multiple TXs were time sharing the ether).


       Russell McMahon




       Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic:
[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads


<000401c273ca$b2fcdfa0$2301a8c0@Paradise> 7bit

See also: www.piclist.com/techref/io/irs.htm?key=ir
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) IR remote control...

month overview.

new search...