View Single Post
Copernicus's Avatar
Posts: 1,986 | Thanked: 7,698 times | Joined on Dec 2010 @ Dayton, Ohio
#363
Originally Posted by Estel View Post
AIUI, joerg_rw meant, that IrDA and CIR can cross-talk, albeit at reduced sensitivity, + as we know, IrDA have much weaker beam power than CIR (ywt, works at higher speed).

Thus, having CIR TX diode *should* ensure no-problems with RX of other devices, as beam power will be orders of magnitude greater than normal sending power for IrDA - compensating for loss of sensitivity due to color offset.
I'm not sure that having the exact wavelength is all that much of a problem. But I am worried that, while it may be possible to send CIR signals using IrDA hardware (by "slowing down" the on/off pulses in one manner or another), it could be much harder to go the other way; does hardware exist that can drive a CIR-style LED at the speeds needed for IrDA? Will the output of a CIR-power LED oversaturate the IrDA receiver? (I'm kind of guessing that the IrDA power levels are as low as they are in order to avoid this kind of oversaturation problem; otherwise, nobody would have ever created an interface that forced you to place two devices a few centimeters apart in order to function properly.) Also, could an IrDA rx be able to read signals from a wide range of existing CIR remote controls? (If not, use as a "learning remote" becomes impossible.)

I do agree that having both a powerful CIR signal along with the ability to communicate over IrDA all in one package would be nirvana. I also believe that if it were that easy, someone would have already done it twenty years ago when IrDA was designed; it would have made adoption of the technology much quicker (and I'd suspect that it would still be popular today).

In any case, please do test the hardware chosen for the Neo900 before you finalize it!
 

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Copernicus For This Useful Post: