At 05:20 PM 8/18/02 -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote: > > Ok, ok! You found me out! It isn't really a "collision detection" >technique > > as much as it is a "collision avoidance" technique... The unit that is >about > >This has two problems: > >2 - It doesn't guarantee collision avoidance any more than checking once. >If two nodes are out of sync, the second will see the first transmit either >way and therefore not transmit itself. If both nodes are in sync, then >neither will see the other no matter how many times each of them check. >They will both check a bunch of times, see that nobody is talking, and then >both try to talk simultaneously. I use a similar protocol where the 'wait' time is determined by the node ID: lower numbered nodes have higher priority. Works OK with in bandwidth applications - which the original poster was asking about. CAN seems like expensive overkill for the application. dwayne -- Dwayne Reid Trinity Electronics Systems Ltd Edmonton, AB, CANADA (780) 489-3199 voice (780) 487-6397 fax Celebrating 18 years of Engineering Innovation (1984 - 2002) .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .-. .- `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' `-' Do NOT send unsolicited commercial email to this email address. This message neither grants consent to receive unsolicited commercial email nor is intended to solicit commercial email. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList mailto:piclist-unsubscribe-request@mitvma.mit.edu