Subject:
|
Re: Another update for WIRRL
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Tue, 22 Oct 2002 21:43:03 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
834 times
|
| |
|
|
What's a "proxy messenger"?
Couldn't the reflection problem be solved by placing a barrier in between
the emitter and receiver?
Timothy
In lugnet.robotics, "Rob Limbaugh" <RLimbaugh@greenfieldgroup.com> writes:
> Just in case people are a bit confused by the schematic, the circuit =
> would be needed for each device that will participate in an RF bridge.
>
> I abandoned the idea of using two different frequencies because:
>
> 1) As soon as you attempt communication between more than two devices, =
> one device would have to be a proxy messenger.
>
> 2) Using two different RF frequencies doesn't solve the =
> IR-reflection-feedback problem that would exist.
>
> A single frequency solves #1 (BTW, the current IR communication is =
> single frequency: 38kHz). Using logic between the IR side and the RF =
> side solves direction switching and #2 by disabling the appropriate data =
> path.
>
> One solution could involve using a programmable logic device with 4 I/0 =
> lines (at least two in and two out). If data comes in from the RFRX =
> first, then ignore any incoming data on IRRX until ~1.67us after =
> incoming RFRX data ceases. If data comes in from the IRRX first, then =
> ignore any incoming data on RFRX until ~1.67us after incoming IRRX data =
> ceases. With the right PLD, the I/O line used for IR-out could be =
> pulsed at 38kHz without an external oscillator circuit. Even in this =
> case, the one RF frequency could be used.
>
> Another option would be to modify the "Hardwired RCX" solution Peter =
> Balch came up with (http://www.abs-robotics.com/other/hardware.htm). =
> There are arrows in the diagram indicating data direction. What you =
> could gain by using different RF frequencies is the ability to do =
> full-duplex communication (which may require customized firmware and/or =
> PC software to unlock that ability).
>
> Perhaps I should add a "pros and cons" section to the page for the =
> various ideas... The two ideas listed above have several other design =
> issues to consider beyond what is mentioned here.
>
> I don't know much about electronics, either. Part of the reason for =
> pursuing this endeavor is because I'm getting bored with "Connect red =
> wire from J5 to spring 34". So, like you, I would hope that if I'm =
> making a wrong turn, someone would point it out to me.
>
> - Rob
>
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Another update for WIRRL
|
| I should have removed the word "messenger". After all, doing something by "proxy" would imply a messenger-type role. What I meant was, for DeviceA to send a message to DeviceB, they would have to use some sort of proxy or router between them (the (...) (22 years ago, 23-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | RE: Another update for WIRRL
|
| Just in case people are a bit confused by the schematic, the circuit would be needed for each device that will participate in an RF bridge. I abandoned the idea of using two different frequencies because: 1) As soon as you attempt communication (...) (22 years ago, 22-Oct-02, to lugnet.robotics)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
