Re: Playing Field configuration?

[Joyce Poon <poonj@ecf.utoronto.ca>]

I'm too lazy to start a new thread... so just cope with this email re
interference.

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:
> thread.  However, 1) time wasted is not a problem.  2) my
> understanding is that the chance of our being detected by the enemy is
> a function of _their_ _sensors_, not their emittors, 3) we've
> discussed this before and the only thing we agreed on was that it is
> worth testing, which is something that was _always_ true.

1) I don't want to waste time.
2) Not entirely true.  If they have stronger emitters then obviously a
less sensitive detector will still be able to detect its signal. That
x'mas email when I talked about the detection range business was just to
unify the detection/emission range.  Detection range = f(emission
intensity, detector sensitivity).
3) Interference, if it can be implemented, is advantageous of course.

> If you want to go through the complete discussion again, let's do it
> in person, since email won't work too well for this particular topic.

If you must... although I believe I do understand the issues involved.
You may be able to change the freq/duty cycle of the enemy IR emission,
but if we have to cover more gnd (ie vary interference emission over a
larger freq range) then you can only momentarily (maybe not even...
depending on whether the enemy is even "looking" at that pt) cause
interference.

To cause interfernce more effectively, maybe another circuit using the 555
timer can be built... (more work for me...).  I'll think about this some
more (maybe).

> There is also the side question of how much free time the computer has
> to devote to the interference, but for now that's not an issue.

If the comp doesn't have enough free time, then interference has to be
implemented via circuitry... (if it is implemented at all).

Joyce :)