IR V visible red and PVR remotes.

[T i m]

Hi All,

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?

The visible red system is used very close so range shouldn't be a
problem.

Would I also need a IR 'pass' filter on the IR remote and STB to
filter out any of the visible red signals?

Failing that (or the use of some polarising filters which I've got but
don't want to cut up if there is a technical reason why it won't work)
I could just make one remote 'wired' by putting the TX LED inside the
actual STB.

Thanks for your time etc. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. These are Topfield TF58000PVRs and whilst I think there are some
taps that are supposed to allow some sort of dual use, I've not worked
out what is required and it looks like you would need a second remote
(and to re program it) in any case.

 

[Phil Allison]

"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk>

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?

** Are you " having a laugh " ??

Remotes are all IR for damn good reasons.



..... Phil

 

[T i m]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 22:33:46 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk


We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?


** Are you " having a laugh " ??

No?

Remotes are all IR for damn good reasons.

And that would be?

So, are you suggesting it's totally impossibly to have a remote
controller using visible light ... or even using an audible 'click'
for that matter? ;-)

Cheers, T i m

 

[Phil Allison]

"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk>

** Bet he has big gaps between his front teeth .....

"Phil Allison"


We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?


** Are you " having a laugh " ??

No?

Remotes are all IR for damn good reasons.

And that would be?

So, are you suggesting it's totally impossibly to have a remote
controller using visible light

** Care to point one such out to us?

BTW:

Impossible is not the issue - impractical is.


.... or even using an audible 'click' for that matter? ;-)


** I smell as nasty red fish.




..... Phil

 

[T i m]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 23:41:41 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

<snips>

"Phil Allison"


We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?


** Are you " having a laugh " ??

No?

Remotes are all IR for damn good reasons.

And that would be?

I notice there is no answer offered?

So, are you suggesting it's totally impossibly to have a remote
controller using visible light

** Care to point one such out to us?

That wasn't my question or point.

BTW:

Impossible is not the issue - impractical is.

Because? I still see no actual facts being offered here?

It doesn't matter that you neither understand the question or have a
solution Phil. I'm sure there will be some here who can manage both.

Cheers, T i m

 

[Phil Allison]

"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk>

( snip reinstated )

** Bet this arsehole has big gaps between his front teeth.

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?


** Are you " having a laugh " ??

No?

Remotes are all IR for damn good reasons.

And that would be?

I notice there is no answer offered?

** None required.

You can look it all up with Google.

So, are you suggesting it's totally impossibly to have a remote
controller using visible light

** Care to point one such out to us?

That wasn't my question or point.

** You posted had no real question or point.

The total lack of examples in support of you half baked notion is
conspicuous.

BTW:

Impossible is not the issue - impractical is.

Because?

** FFS go look it up - you tedious, steaming great fuckhead .

I still see no actual facts being offered here?

** I see no reason to waste pearls on a pig.

It doesn't matter that you neither understand the question or have a
solution Phil.

** But I do get the question.

If I knew how to make visible red LEDs work for remote control of domestic
appliances - the very last thing I would do is post that info on usenet or
anywhere else.

Cos it would be worth a fortune.

BTW

Fuck you.


..... Phil

 

[T i m]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:14:31 +1100, "Phil Allison" <phil_a@tpg.com.au>
wrote:

<snip BS and bluster>

It doesn't matter that you neither understand the question or have a
solution Phil.

** But I do get the question.

If I knew how to make visible red LEDs work for remote control of domestic
appliances - the very last thing I would do is post that info on usenet or
anywhere else.

Cos it would be worth a fortune.

You are way too late mate:

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10012385.html

It matters not (in principal) if the light source was an incandescent
lamp or an LED. The only thing an incandescent lamp would do is limit
the frequency of any coding due to the thermal mass of the filament.

Oh, and 'remote control' using visible light has be used for centuries
(beacons, Aldis lamps etc).

You are very welcome. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

 

[Phil Allison]

"T i m"

** I KNOW this fucking arsehole has big gaps between his front teeth.

It doesn't matter that you neither understand the question or have a
solution Phil.

** But I do get the question.

If I knew how to make visible red LEDs work for remote control of domestic
appliances - the very last thing I would do is post that info on usenet
or
anywhere else.

Cos it would be worth a fortune.

You are way too late mate:

http://news.cnet.com/2300-11386_3-10012385.html

** ROTFLMAO !!!!

No LEDs, no fancy IR remote functions and no relevance.

Lunatics like this POS troll are a dime a dozen.


FYI:

Fuck off and DIE - you retarded, pommy cunt.




..... Phil

 

[William Sommerwerck]

I believe I can manage both.

Because a red photon has more energy than an IR photon, the IR sensor would
likely respond to the red light from the "other" remote. So, no, you couldn't
easily isolate them.

You'd probably need fairly sharp optical bandpass filters. Is it worth the
trouble?

 

[N_Cook]

On 17/02/2014 10:41, T i m wrote:

Hi All,

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?

The visible red system is used very close so range shouldn't be a
problem.

Would I also need a IR 'pass' filter on the IR remote and STB to
filter out any of the visible red signals?

Failing that (or the use of some polarising filters which I've got but
don't want to cut up if there is a technical reason why it won't work)
I could just make one remote 'wired' by putting the TX LED inside the
actual STB.

Thanks for your time etc. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. These are Topfield TF58000PVRs and whilst I think there are some
taps that are supposed to allow some sort of dual use, I've not worked
out what is required and it looks like you would need a second remote
(and to re program it) in any case.

I've got round this problem by using a small angled black rubber tube
glued at an angle over the sensor of the little used unit . Then have to
hold its remote above head and directed down but it works around the
problem.

 

[Adrian C]

On 17/02/2014 10:41, T i m wrote:

Hi All,

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?

You could build a very small and cheap single transistor radio TX/RX
channel for one of the remotes, replacing the optics?

Or similar with ultrasonic transducers?

--
Adrian C

 

[T i m]

On Mon, 17 Feb 2014 16:33:10 +0000, Adrian C <email@here.invalid>
wrote:

On 17/02/2014 10:41, T i m wrote:
Hi All,

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?

Firstly, thanks to all you have replied so far.

You could build a very small and cheap single transistor radio TX/RX
channel for one of the remotes, replacing the optics?

Funnily enough I thought that one out loud when talking to the
SIL_to_be about it earlier.

Or similar with ultrasonic transducers?

Yup .... basically anything that isn't going to interfere with the IR
signal but could still be modulated.

However, whilst any / all of the thoughts and suggestions of keeping
it 'remote' are good, ITRW I'm not sure I'd ever get round to actually
implementing them, whereas I might actually get round to simply making
the remote 'wired'.

A second IRTX placed inside the second unit with the external window
covered with black tape. The IR TX LED(?) wired via a 3.5mm jack
socket and similar on the remote (the switch on the socket isolating
the internal TX). She's sitting right next to her Topfield anyway so
it being wired really would be any disadvantage. Removing the lead
and the tape reverts it back as std?

I'll just have to see how much room there is in the remote.

Cheers, T i m

 

[Klaatu]

"T i m" <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote in message
news:03p3g9t86lkobhm06e9hpcb1p98hvemfip@4ax.com...

Hi All,

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

Now, I was wondering if I was to replace one remote TX LED with a
visible red LED and possibly put a visible red optical grade filter
over the matching STB, would / should that be enough to isolate the
two systems?

The visible red system is used very close so range shouldn't be a
problem.

Would I also need a IR 'pass' filter on the IR remote and STB to
filter out any of the visible red signals?

Failing that (or the use of some polarising filters which I've got but
don't want to cut up if there is a technical reason why it won't work)
I could just make one remote 'wired' by putting the TX LED inside the
actual STB.

Thanks for your time etc. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

p.s. These are Topfield TF58000PVRs and whilst I think there are some
taps that are supposed to allow some sort of dual use, I've not worked
out what is required and it looks like you would need a second remote
(and to re program it) in any case.

And the owners manual or Google don't come up with anything about changing
the remote address?


---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

 

[Mike]

In article <dYqdnVo4evEBV5_OnZ2dnUVZ5oWdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Klaatu <whichway@today.org> wrote:

And the owners manual or Google don't come up with anything about changing
the remote address?

There's nothing in the original manual or remote about changing the
address because it's not supported. One remote, intended to be used
with one device. Two in one room, interference.

There are TAPS (application software) which can be used to alter
the behaviour of the PVR to ignore the standard TF5800 codes, and
instead to use TF5810 (similar handset) codes. Or you can use a one-for-all
with the "other" code set on.

The OP already has these TAPs but has not got them working and so
is asking the question again, having already tried in uk.tech.tv.video.pvr
und uk.something.or.other-digital.tv ... and been given several
possible solutions, including trying the very helpful Topfield forum,
where I'm sure people familiar with the hardware and software could
indicate why it's not working.
--
--------------------------------------+------------------------------------
Mike Brown: mjb[-at-]signal11.org.uk | http://www.signal11.org.uk

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news@netfront.net ---

 

[Geo]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014 00:11:04 +0000, T i m <news@spaced.me.uk> wrote:

A second IRTX placed inside the second unit with the external window
covered with black tape. The IR TX LED(?) wired via a 3.5mm jack
socket and similar on the remote (the switch on the socket isolating
the internal TX). She's sitting right next to her Topfield anyway so
it being wired really would be any disadvantage. Removing the lead
and the tape reverts it back as std?

Or some hotmelt glue and a bit of old fibre optic from a christmas
lighting decoration?
What about one of the audio TosLink cables?

 

[whit3rd]

On Monday, February 17, 2014 2:41:50 AM UTC-8, T i m wrote:

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

There's no reason to replace any LEDs. You could more easily use
two circular polarizers (right hand and left hand) just like some
stereo-TV and stereo movie systems employ. This would require
filters on the receivers and remote transmitters.

Alas, reflections will complicate matters (the mirror-reflection of
such light changes the handedness...).

Many PVRs come with sockets in back for 'other' inputs than infrared,
you could switch one of your PVRs to a UHF remote (there are UHF receivers
that plug into that backpanel socket); this will generally override IR input,
and only requires you to get one of the universal remotes that has
UHF output, like <http://www.x10-store.com/unlerepu.html> for instance.

You might have to inhibit the IR output from the universal remote (black tape?).

 

[Michael Black]

On Tue, 18 Feb 2014, whit3rd wrote:

On Monday, February 17, 2014 2:41:50 AM UTC-8, T i m wrote:

We have recently gained a second set top box / personal video recorder
and they are both (technically) the same. The problem then is the two
remotes affect both units (as they are used independently).

There's no reason to replace any LEDs. You could more easily use
two circular polarizers (right hand and left hand) just like some
stereo-TV and stereo movie systems employ. This would require
filters on the receivers and remote transmitters.

Alas, reflections will complicate matters (the mirror-reflection of
such light changes the handedness...).

Many PVRs come with sockets in back for 'other' inputs than infrared,
you could switch one of your PVRs to a UHF remote (there are UHF receivers
that plug into that backpanel socket); this will generally override IR input,
and only requires you to get one of the universal remotes that has
UHF output, like <http://www.x10-store.com/unlerepu.html> for instance.

You might have to inhibit the IR output from the universal remote (black
tape?).

Since he says one is close to the remote, all he has to do is connect some
fibre optic from the LED on the remote to the sensor on the unit.

Or, take the LED off the remote, put it on a pair of wires long enough,
and then physically mount the LED in front of the IR sensor on the unit.

It's no different from some old remotes for tv sets and VCRs and cable
converters, which did have the remotes hardwired to them.

Michael

 

[William Sommerwerck]

"whit3rd" wrote in message
news:5874da62-b2e2-4f54-b46d-57de7e418152@googlegroups.com...

Alas, reflections will complicate matters (the mirror-reflection
of such light changes the handedness...).

And reflection from a non-metallic surface destroys the polarization
altogether.