Quote:
Originally Posted by Elgin Clock
Hold on just a second!
If I follow what you are saying correctly, and relate it to an IR sensor on a TV & a VCR in the same room is that once you program board 1 (TV) with Remote 1 and then use Remote 2 next to it for something else (VCR, board 2, whatever the case) that you render the board 1 (and Remote 1) completely inoperable with each other?
That (if you don't have a faulty board) does not sound good.
Basically what I'm understnading is that when you program it with Remote 1, then pushing anything on Remote number 2 makes all remotes useles???
This doesn't make sense to me.  Please tell me I misunderstood you.
I have a theory if this is indeed what you meant. But I'll hold off on that while you answer this one. |
Elgin,
I believe what he's saying is that if you program it with Remote 1 and you're only pressing buttons on Remote 1, then it works as advertised. If, however, you start mashing/holding buttons on Remote 2 and
then try previously working buttons on Remote 1, then it doesn't work. If you then stop mashing buttons on Remote 2, buttons on Remote 1 will work again as advertised.
This only makes sense as all the sensor is looking for is a specifically modulated pulse train from the remote in the IR spectrum. If another remote is sending out a pulse train on the same IR wavelength, you'll end up with the two pulse trains superimposed on one another, which is bound to stymie the controller attempting to decode it.
This should have occurred to me earlier, but it's definitely one more argument against having several uncontrolled, uncoordinated transmitters moving about on the field. If you need a specific IR pulse to operate something on the field but another team is maliciously/accidentally/coincidentally transmitting at the same, then the two transmitters will jam each other at the receiver and nothing will happen.
Of course this opens up the possibility of someone in the stands with a suped-up TV remote jamming any or all robot recievers on the field....