I want to build small IR receiving circuits, without using an arduino/programmed microcontroller.
Each circuit should respond to a specific pulse sequence.
A pulse sequence consists of several IR pulses of varying lengths and varying breaks between them. To keep things simple, lets narrow it to a constant pulse length for each circuit. Counting the pulses is easy using a small IC (I have many 4017s I can use), but I'm not sure how can I count the length of each pulse. I'd prefer a digital method, a time-counting chip instead of an analog filter.
Currently, my idea is a simple oscillator which is powered by the pulse itself, and another 4017 which counts the osciallations. Do you think it'll work?
Any other idea how can I do that? Or, if there's any idea how could I build several IR receiving circuit with each responding to a single pulse sequence, so I could control each one individually?
I have trouble understanding your goal. You want to build a controlling circuit without using a microcontroller. Is that just a challenge for you, or cost, or size, or what? Maybe if we know your goal, we can make better suggestions.
Jong33:
I want to build small IR receiving circuits, without using an arduino/programmed microcontroller.
Each circuit should respond to a specific pulse sequence.
That's going to very difficult to do... problems like this are why microcontrollers were invented.
Actually, it is the 3 of them (With cost being the least important).
It's a good challenge, and I want the final circuit to be pretty small.
fungus:
Jong33:
I want to build small IR receiving circuits, without using an arduino/programmed microcontroller.
Each circuit should respond to a specific pulse sequence.
That's going to very difficult to do... problems like this are why microcontrollers were invented.
I had further thoughts about my idea of the oscillator-counter, I think it might work. True, the sequences won't be complicated at all... But with a single oscillator and a few 4017s I think I'll be able to build some distinct-pulse recievers.
Ok, Well for the cost, and the size, you may want to look at the attiny85. And I think it would be a pretty good challenge getting it programmed to, if you never have yet. I think whatever else you could build, would be larger, and cost just as much or more.
I was thinking, the waveform from the IR won't be clean or provide sharp edges for the 4017 to activate on a high edge pulse, unless you're using one of them rectifiers in which case no problem, so we want to measure the time of the pulse?...
First of all I'd run it through a schimitt trigger to clean up the signal (Schmitt inverter 4000 / 555 etc) . we want to measure how long the High value duration? or are you trying to measure the Frequency? (eg 100hz)
cjdelphi:
people around here don't understand "curiosity"
or facts or experience but ya know, words and stuff
while in theory we have been there, in the real world we have been there, and its why most things that need any significant distance, response time or reliability use radio (ie where is the IRDA port on a galaxy III, its not missing cause its costly)
ie where is the IRDA port on a galaxy III, its not missing cause its costly
I don't know, but it is back on the S4 XD
@Jong33
Maybe you can use the same technique as we used in the old days in RC equipment.
Here is an example using the 4017 both as encoder and decoder:
the Infrared is used for the gesture control... and there's like 4 different variants of the 4S, they may look alike but vastly range in hardware performance wise, I think it's naughty of samsung to mislead people by simply using the name eg "galaxy" "galaxy express" "s4 galaxy mini" neither of which compare to the hardware specs of a true galaxy....
cjdelphi:
people around here don't understand "curiosity"
not true ! Actually, curiosity is what got them here
But they also know all the work micro-controllers do for them, the spare space in designs etc... IMO, it is normal, in an arduino forum, that people try to explain why you should use an arduino instead of several devices, especially if using the arduino is easier, faster, and if the result is a less expensive and smaller design, which I think it would be here
I learnt electronics when microprocessors where at their very beginning , and I really saw all their benefits, even if I had to use assembly language in those days.
All the time saved can be used to learn something else, there are only 24h in a day and ?? (not so many) years in a life
Edit (correction) : Not really "at their very beginning" (I'm not that old XD ) I mean the beginning of their "for everyone" availability . They were 6802, 6809, 8080 .... and we didn't learn them in electronics courses .
We presented a couple of exhibits at the recent maker Faire in Dublin - using a standard remote control and a single IR LED (wired in reverse) to:
reset an Arduino
wake-up a sleeping battery powered Arduino.
The applications (if any) are extremely limited and very open to interference, although they actually worked quite reliably at the time. So you are not totally alone in trying to explore beyond the normal approaches.
I assume you are at least talking about using an 'IR Receiver' indoors, which means you 'mainly' have to deal with just inverted pulses and potential interference from other IR remotes. I suggest you consider including some error checking/validation into the bit stream (CRC or parity).
After that I draw a blank, as you have said what you don't want but less about your intended target application. So it's hard to help!
However, I would be very interested in hearing back, if you do succeed in designing a smaller circuit than an ATTiny (or any microcontroller) with an IR receiver, that works reliably. [As no doubt would Atmel & Vishay etc ]
About the galaxy S4 - I don't know how it became the object of discussion, but it (mine's, I9505, at least) has an operatable IR that I've already used to control several devices in my house, including the Arduino itself. The S4's IR blaster is pretty reliable and accurate (Take a look at what I did here: Infrared Digital Modulation - Galaxy S4 to Arduino - Exhibition / Gallery - Arduino Forum) and also pretty strong, comparing to other IR remotes (When pointing it to a digital camera, you see a very strong light, so interference is less of a problem).
Back to the pulse-length-counting circuit: I built one today, using a 555 IC to create the oscillations, a 4017 to count them and a few other logic gates. It ended up just too big (And it's not even finished, still need to count the pulses themselves...), plus it will consume too much power for my intended use. So... I guess this challenge is a bit ahead of me . I'll go with the microcontrollers (For now ]:D)
You got me with these ATTinys, read a lot about them today. Looks like installing the program onto them is not that hard: http://hlt.media.mit.edu/?p=1695 and they have a low power consumption which is great for me. I do have some questions regarding them, but those belong in a different board
Osgeld:
while in theory we have been there, in the real world we have been there, and its why most things that need any significant distance, response time or reliability use radio (ie where is the IRDA port on a galaxy III, its not missing cause its costly)
I respectfully disagree. RF and light travel at the same speed. And light is capable of far more bandwidth than RF (light having a shorter wavelength).
RF and light can go the same distance too. Now, the argument could be made that RF has better efficiency for a given distance i.e., you can resonate an antenna with X watts to transmit RF data at a certain rate, but free-space optical requires > X watts to do the same thing. However this is more a function of LED (or whatever photon generator you're using) efficiency and receiver sensitivity; advances in LED technology or the invention of other photon sources/detectors (perhaps quantum) could conceivably close the gap or even surpass RF someday.
I believe the popularity of RF on consumer devices is due to it's omnidirectional nature and the ability to penetrate (some) walls -- perhaps that what you meant by reliability, in which case I agree with that aspect.
Speed of IR is limited by physical characteristics of the LED and photodiode.
Anyway....
How about 567 tone decoders? Each transmitter uses a different frequency.
Or still use the 567 to receive, but then each transmitter sends a sequence - long to signify the start of a sequence, followed by a unique number of pulses, counted by the 4017. So on the long pulse, the 4017 resets, then counts the shorter pulses.
Modulate the IR LEDs at 38kHz, then chop that on and off to send the pulses. A standard IR receiver module will pick that up and output only the on/off pulses.
Keep in mind, all this is subject to noise from CFLs and sunlight.