Re: Interference (was Re: Playing Field configuration?)

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

On Sat, 29 Jan 2000, Tim Vanderhoek wrote:

> >From the context, I believe it was the computer board you were
> concerned that would be wasting time.  If I misinterpreted that, then
> I'll only say that wiring together a ring of emitters should be pretty
> trivial.

	Nothing is trivial... I thought more about the way that detectors
& emitters will be mounted (on the robot and on our beacon) & decided that
the best approach is to hold off the soldering (emitters) for now.  I will
discuss with Cindy, in person, about what I plan to do, and get her feed
back.
 
	Um... I think our own detectors can also be confused by
interference.  Our own sensors will be constantly picking up widely
varying signals.

> I think it would be very hard to generate effective interference from
> circuitry.

	Agreed.

> was a little simplistic.  If the enemy doesn't use a square(-ish)
> wave, it's almost impossible.  If they use a square(-ish) wave, it may
> or may not be possible to get an overall win from appropriately
> generated interference.  I don't know.  I want to find out, and the
> math is too complicated to do from a theoretical perspective only.

	I think it's safe to assume that most grps will have squarish
waves just because of the fact that most grps do use 555 timer.  Even if a
non-square wave is used, the interference should still work.  

> You have to understand that I'm usually arguing for things that can be
> tried, or considered more closely.

	I understand that. But you also have to understand that adding
an extra subroutine in your code could mean hrs in front of the 
oscilloscope for me.  

Joyce