mybuickskill6979
New Member
i'm planning to make a nice little 6X6 rack. and firing system but i want the cues to be low power to a box to control the highpower stuffs. but that won't be till i learn a little more.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sam Jelfs said:wakanga - that was along my original ideas, to interface my system into a show control system, running software such as jtype or medialon to control it. Unfortunately, chatted to my project tutor, and we decided i just didn't have the time, given that I haven't finalised my design yet and I have to have it submitted in a month, I think he was right! So I am focusing on getting good data transfer between the control surface and the receiver, with the hope that in the future I can develop it further into an integrated system.
hfireworks - Nice bit of kit you've got there, a lil more compex than mine will be :lol: does yours interface with a computer to control the fireworks, or is it a matter of physically arming the channels you want to fire, and hitting fire?
Sam Jelfs said:rs / eia-422 doesn't specify the data structure does it?
the key thing here is safety, and i would still have to implement some form of protocol to manage the data and error checking. I think more so in stage pyrotechnics, which is my background, a misfire or fire of the wrong channel could be lethal if the "talent" was in the way...
a misfire in fireworks may look shite, but, shouldn't pose such a high risk as there shouldn't be anyone near them (hfireworks - that right? using a remote system there shouldn't be anyone near the actual devices?)
Sceadwian said:You're going to need to make sure your poweer source is properly issolated and current limited to prevent accidentaly shorts in the wire from zapping people badly or starting fires, but it's doable.
cadstarsucks said:I do not think the powers that be will let you do that. I still think the remote car battery would be better.... you could rig an RF link through a pair of inexpensive walkie-talkies.
Well I don't know but the sort I used to have worked on 27MHz and had a morse code button - I suppose that's data transmission.Nigel Goodwin said:However, I would disagree with walkie talkies, it would also presumably be illegal to use them for data transmissions? (licence free for voice only), use a pair of licence free radio data modules.
Nigel Goodwin said:I agree, keep it safe - not a good idea to use mains when you don't need to, and a car battery has got plenty of power!.
However, I would disagree with walkie talkies, it would also presumably be illegal to use them for data transmissions? (licence free for voice only), use a pair of licence free radio data modules.
cadstarsucks said:Got me... I was thinking that the band was set aside for voice band communication... using frequency shift keying you can stay in normal voice band easily.
Sceadwian said:Technically voice signals are data... but voice communication means JUST that. The human voice non encoded. Not a bandwidth equivalent signal. Even encoding the human voice in the exact same bandwidth is out of lines with the uses set aside for a 'voice' band. Even using FM in the same bandwidth constrictions of an AM signal may be considered encoding as the modulating and demodulating methods are different even though the signal itself isn't.