Sorry to confuse,
     
     When I said IRDa, I meant IRDa compatible transceiver MODULES - I 
     didn't mean that I was using the protocol! As darryl@BLAZIE.COM's link 
     pointed out, the least stressful way to use IRDa Modules, is to make 
     it look like a comm port (with a high bit error rate!), and forget the 
     protocol
     
     The idea was to pipe the IR from a master transmitter to multiple 
     slaves, and receive the answers back from the slaves combined on 
     another fibre pipe. (a bit like 4 wire RS485 with 1 master, multiple 
     slaves)
     
     Steve Lawther


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject:      Re: slightly [OT] - light pipes and IRDA
Author:  MIME:keithh@ARCAM.CO.UK at INTERNET-HUSKY
Date:    12/02/98 17:09


Steve Lawther wrote:
>
>      It's indirectly PIC related
> on the end of each IRDA is planned to be a PIC.
> PICs running IrDA? Are you sure they're up to it? I looked at the specs 
once and went right off using IrDA. For one, it is too complex to be 
simply described and implemented. I'd guess about as complex as a Zmodem 
or TCP/IP driver. You require data buffers, and IRDA runs up to 115kBaud 
(standard) or 4MBaud (enhanced). Fine for a typical PC, but not really 
suited to consumer electronics like hi-fi, TV, etc.
     
A cleverer chap than I put some document on the net describing all sorts 
of flaws in the protocol, entitled "101 reasons why IRDA should be 
laughed out of the room" or similar. I suspect quite a few consumer 
goods with IRDA ports just run as half- duplex RS232 ports.
     
Comments?