 | | RE: Another update for WIRRL —Rob Limbaugh
|
| | | I just noticed at least one glaring error with the new schematic... Say, for argument, an RCX sends "1001", which, in IR, would be "0110". The IR detector of WIRRL would do nothing for the first bit ("0"), but the next bit ("1") should be sent over (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Another update for WIRRL —Timothy Schroeder
|
| | | | | Instead of worrying about the half duplex communication, wouldn't it just be easier to have tranceiver at two different frequencies? If I am missing something, go ahead and say so. I know very, very little about electronics. Timothy (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Another update for WIRRL —Gareth Bestor
|
| | | | I'm watching your postings with some interest as I'm also very interested in implementing are wireless RF<->IR interface for the RCX, and have been eyeing the Linx transmitter/receivers too. One question - could some of the transmit/receive (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Another update for WIRRL —Øyvind Steinnes
|
| | | | "Gareth Bestor" <bestorga@us.ibm.com> wrote in message news:H4E4uq.JvL@lugnet.com... (...) in (...) eyeing (...) receiver (...) reveiver (...) I've also followed this intresting thread. And now I'm wondering why Lego have used the infrared (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Another update for WIRRL —Philippe Hurbain
|
| | | | (...) I guess that's because of regulatory issues. Getting anything with radio transmission approved for all countries Lego wants to sell in can prove a daunting task... And IR can prove very effective: did you try Spybotics remote control? it (...) (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
| | | | |
