On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 09:52:22PM +0300, Markus Vuori wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> > have to wait to be polled to respond. Probably not a big deal with only
> > a few nodes. But I'll bet that once the infrastructure is in place, that
> > you'll add a whole bunch of nodes.
>
> I think I need about 15 nodes if I put one per room and two for kitchen
> and living room.
> >
> > same room. By having a PIC per socket, you can simple readdress the group
> > without having to change the state of the PIC. Also you're going to have
>
> I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean with this. What is
> this "readdressing the group" thing? Perhaps I should know more
> about these matters.
>
> > to have a wire at the target socket anyway, so why not put the intelligence
> > as close to the socket as you can.
>
> I have considered this, but perhaps it increases the number of
> PICs too much. Not sure about this, though.

It's debatable because it adds an additional level of complexity to your
protocol. My thinking was that since you have to run wire to each socket
anyway, that the intelligence should be at the socket.

>
> > 3) Send power through your wire. I believe that CAT5 can support up to 3.3A
> > of current. That should certainly be enough.
>
> Ah, first I thought you mean sending power for PIC circuits, but perhaps
> you mean sending power for devices (lamps, outlets). Did I understand
> this correctly?

No. I meant sending power to the PIC circuits. That way you won't have to
worry about plugging in a power supply at each node.

>
> > Consider JAL (http://www.xs4all.nl/~wf/wouter/pic/jal) as another alternative.
> > Easy to learn, Compilers for Windows and Linux, significant libraries.
>
> Thanks for the link, must have a look.

Glad to help,

BAJ

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body