| Products > Test Equipment |
| Brymen IR connection protocol - Anyone sniffed it yet? |
| << < (17/31) > >> |
| jadew:
@serggio, It's not the same protocol. It just transmits a stream of bits, each representing one segment of the screen. |
| serggio:
--- Quote from: jadew on May 22, 2016, 07:51:53 pm ---@serggio, It's not the same protocol. It just transmits a stream of bits, each representing one segment of the screen. --- End quote --- What you mean protocol? I asking about hardware, not about protocol. UART or COM, or USB, this is interface. Protocol can be defined by sets of commands, can be on physical or program layers. How your connection adapter introduced inside of Brymen software? Like USB or COM device? |
| t1d:
--- Quote from: serggio on May 22, 2016, 07:59:46 pm ---What you mean protocol? I asking about hardware, not about protocol. UART or COM, or USB, this is interface. Protocol can be defined by sets of commands, can be on physical or program layers. How your connection adapter introduced inside of Brymen software? Like USB or COM device? --- End quote --- Hi, Serggio, I joined in this thread, long after it was begun. It appears that the controller was selected early in the development. The Arduino controller platform was the groups preference, most likely because 1) of its ease of use, 2) lots of people already own one and 3) everyone's familiarity with programming it. This history is on the first couple of pages of the thread. I will be using my controller design that I built around a Microchip PIC18F4550. It is similar to what is called a "Pinquino," a controller platform developed by the Microchip user community, in response to the Arduino. I am using it, because 1) I have the hardware completed, 2) my brother is finishing up the software for all sorts of applications and 3) it is fun to use what we have built, ourselves. The PIC18F4550 will receive the IR code information and send the information to my laptop, by USB. I don't think it is a matter of anyone thinking that one type of controller system is better than another. I think it is about what people simply want to do. However, these are just my personal observations and suppositions; I certainly am not speaking as a leader of the group. It just looked to be a fun project, of benefit to me, as I own a BM869s, and somewhere where I could make a contribution to the group, by designing the Eagle hardware files... I say use the controller of your choice and go for it... |
| t1d:
Re: Lockstep Boards My Lockstep boards have arrived from OSH Park. They were ordered on the 13th and came today. So, 13 days to delivery; not bad. I have not had time to work with them, fully, yet. But here are my observations. 1) It appears that the curves on the board will seat properly in the brackets. 2) I will have to sand the tops of the curves, just a hair, to get them to slide under the bracket. 3) My concerns as to the placement of the IR components seems to have been correct, meaning that they will need to be moved in toward the center, a bit. I did use the 6mm measurement. But, this measurement may have been to the edge of the hole? I thought it was to the center of the hole. 4) All the pads seem to be adequate. 5) OSH Park placed break-off tabs on the curved ends of the board. I will sand them off, but I need to remember to ask them to refrain from placing them there, on the next batch... I am pleased with these, as a prototype. I think I will be able to get all the information from them that I need to finalize the design. I still could use instructions on how to launch the Python GUI from the command line. I have installed the path, correctly. |
| t1d:
I have done some measuring and confirmed that the center of the IR components should be at 7mm, not 6mm. So, I have reworked the board. Here is what I think the final layout will likely be... The sanding and testing the fit are still pending. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |