Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Sevcik
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....
|
Ok, that makes sense. If you have a scrambled pattern then it can't decode it. Sounds logical.
The only way I can see the thing being used on a robot now is if the intended purpose for this is to act as an E-Stop for all robots? Would that be a conceivable idea?
And the "the possibility of someone in the stands with a suped-up TV remote jamming any or all robot recievers on the field" was on the top of my thoughts when I saw we were using IR detectors in some way (with things available on the market such as remotes that can interact with all kinds of IR devices like the
ninja remote, or the
Tv Be gone type thing)
This would work perfect in my whole Remote E-Stop theory, but of course... then there is the flip side of the illegal crowd controlled device as well, which I'm sure no one in
FIRST would even try in the spirit of things.
Another good point was brought up a while ago, about flash cameras interfering with the IR sensors as well as was the case a few years back in the FLL world. This doesn't seem like it would be a rule that would go over too big in a
FIRST competition if they were to ban flash based cameras at competitions.
Speaking of IR devices on the market, did anyone catch the latest device from the company that makes "The Clapper"?
It's a remote control device as well as a clapper. lol
http://www.jeiusa.com/clapperplus.html
Just something else to ponder the timing of in the whole conspiracy aspect of the thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donut
To use this receiver effectively, the emitters have to be situated in such a way that only one is visible in its field of view at any time. So if remotes are actually used on field, they'd have to be roughly 90 degrees apart, meaning only 4 human players. This also fights the transmitters onboard robots theory, as two robots could be transmitting to the same receiver and it would detect neither.
More backing to help the transmitters on field theory?
|
IR receivers from what I have gathered are "line of sight" controllers, so if they told us to put our robot a certain place on a field to interact with a human player with a remote (kind of the way 2005 used the loading zones with the Tetras) then I think it could be conceivable in that case. Also, I would expect some sort of wall to be built near that area so it couldn't be interfered with in that case as well maybe? idk. If we go up to Kickoff and see that the Field has extra walls on the outside of it, I'm going to be more likely to be able to see that being a real possibility. It won't help by that point, because it will only be <1 hour before the game is revealed but whatever. lol
I think after all of this guessing, I'm still on the fence as to whether it's for on the robot, or a field element now. Arghhhhhhh!!!
