Hi I appreciate the need to kill the motor if you lose the signal, but.... Why do you want the kill switch on a second transmitter and receiver? Surely it would be simple to arrange the motor kill as a failsafe operation in the same manner as you already described for the steering? Might save you a bit of work! Regards Alan Embedded Systems Engineer Microtima Ltd Ouseburn Mews 3-7 Stepney Bank Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 2PW Tel: 0191 2304411 Fax: 0191 2304422 -----Original Message----- From: Herbert Graf To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU Date: 10 August 2001 11:24 Subject: Re: [PIC]: Building a Servo >> -----Original Message----- >> From: pic microcontroller discussion list >> [mailto:PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]On Behalf Of Dan Michaels >> Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2001 21:52 >> To: PICLIST@MITVMA.MIT.EDU >> Subject: Re: [PIC]: Building a Servo >> >> >> Herbert Graf wrote: >> .......... >> Aside from this the steering system will default to fully left (or >> >right, haven't decided) in case of loss of contact with the >> transmitter, so >> >if everything else goes wrong at least the thing will go in tight circles >> >instead of a straight line. >> ........... >> >> As long as you are going to do this, why put a centrifugal force >> detector fail-safe on it which will kill the engine after the thing >> spends a couple of seconds in circle joy mode? > > That's an idea, however this event SHOULD never occur, since I plan to have >a kill switch on a seperate transmitter receiver. Plus at this point I >simply want it to go, then I can add some more cool features! :) TTYL > >-- >http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList >mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads