Help - I can't find a 5mm IR Receiver

SN96

Does anyone know if there is a IR receiver that is in a 5mm LED package? I can find 5mm IR emiters, but I can't find any 5mm receivers that have the same package type as the emiters.

The below image is the type of package I would like the receiver to be.



I have searched all over the net with no luck. Thanks for any help.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike

·

PJAllen

I don't mean to seem rude, but -- What's the Difference?·

SN96

What's the difference..what?

I have a project where I would like to build an IR distance sensor in a custom machined robot head. the eyes are going to have 5mm holes where the above pictured·LED emitter will be inserted. I want to find a receiver that closely matches the dimentions of the emitter package type.

Here is an example:

·

The Sharp GP2D12 Analog Distance sensor will not work with my custom design, therefore, if I can get the individual components, I can mount those in my custom design.

Thanks for any help.


▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike



Post Edited (SN96) : 12/5/2005 4:11:22 PM GMT

SteveW

"The Sharp GP2D12 Analog Distance sensor will not work with my custom design, therefore, if I can get the individual components, I can mount those in my custom design."

Are you aware that the receiver in the Sharp sensors is the hard part? - it's a device that reports where along its length a spot is, rather than the brightness of the spot. The processing electronics on the output of this device is tricky, too - some very low noise logarithmic amps, certainly not trivial to replicate.
(If you're thinking of a wide array of IR photodiodes, are you sure you want 5mm? 3mm might be better for resolution)

Steve

Steve Joblin

Have you seen these?· http://www.parallax.com/detail.asp?product_id=350-00014· It is not in the exact shape as the emitter, but pretty close...

PJAllen

Jameco p/n 373000PS -- described as T1-3/4 (5mm)

www.jameco.com

SN96

Since I really don't know much about IR sensors, what would you guys recomend I get that would fit in the 5mm eye holes? I can resize the holes to what ever I want, but O was hoping to use 5mm IR devices and have soft leads soldered to a circuit board that would handle the inputs. Below are 2 pics of my design to beter explain what I am trying to do.



Thanks for trying to help guys, I really appreciate it.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike

·

steve_b

Why not use the standard IR distance packages and use light pipes to go to your tx/rx leds?"

You might have to optically isolate the different channels so you don't get cross talk....

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
·

Steve

"Inside each and every one of us is our one, true authentic swing. Something we was born with. Something that's ours and ours alone. Something that can't be learned... something that's got to be remembered."

Forrest

www.glitchbuster.com/ - P/N IR-DET $0.37 each

Or if you need it today - you can get it at Radio Shack for $1.59 www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2049724&cp

SN96

steve_b said...
Why not use the standard IR distance packages and use light pipes to go to your tx/rx leds?"

You might have to optically isolate the different channels so you don't get cross talk....

What the heck are light pipes? Please forgive my ignorance.

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike

·

SteveW

If you're trying to measure distance, then either trying really hard to embed that Sharp device, as a whole module, into your hardware, or using ultrasound, are both likely to be more successful than measuring distance using IR with any accuracy. If you just want 'thing - no-thing' detection, you might get away with it. However, the difference in returned signal between a shiny surface and the same shiny surface tilted by a couple of degrees so the reflection misses your receiver will be massive - far more than the difference caused by distance. Depends if you really care about the output of this sensor, I guess.

Steve

SN96

I would be happy with "thing-no thing" detection. Distance detection would be nice but that means redesinging the head to something completly different in looks.

I though about using PING sensors but they have a spacing that would not fit my design. Could I get a ping sensor, desolder the sensor components from the board and epoxy them in the eye sockes, and soft lead the sensor components to the original circuit board? Would that work?

▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike

·

SteveW

Butchering a PING would seem a far better idea than trying to build your own GP2D12.
You can even get 6mm diameter 40KHz ultrasound transducers, too - from Farnell, among other places. Not sure if Parallax sell them.
I don't know how cunning the ping is at ignoring its transmit pulses - if it's susceptible, you might need to soft-mount the transducers in silicone, to reduce the vibrations going straight through the plastic of your design.

Steve

SteveW

Chris Savage wrote:
The PING takes a finite amount of time to detect the return pulse. If that were possible the range would be much closer. As it is, the minimum range also has
some bearing on this, since it limits how quickly the PING can respond to a return pulse. I'm not sure if I am being clear or not, but suffice it to say you
wouldn't be an issue. (Monday...)

(This one doesn't seem to be showing up on the Forum, from here).

It sort of depends if the PING is doing the crude 'no response possible before time T', or a more elaborate 'no response before time T unless it's bigger than this template of silence I stored earlier' - which will let you get much better up-close performance. There are definitely plenty of options to be had, and, if customers are going to start changing the transducer type , mounting method and positioning, your precalculated times & amplitudes aren't going to suit everybody any more.
(Sorry, final year university project was a rather ahrd-core ultrasound implementation, and I've never been able to shake it off [noparse]:)[/noparse]

Steve

SN96

Well I redid the eyes on my bot head to accept the Parallax PING)))) sensors. I will need to desolder the ping sensors and soft lead them to the circuit board. Here is a pic of the latest revision. It·turned out·better than I thought.





▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike

·

SteveW

Yeah, I think that's a winner.
If you find that the PING always reports seeing something up close, be prepared to sink the transducers fiurther back into teh eye sockets, or give him a nose. Probably not needed, though, with any luck.

Steve

SN96

Thanks for all your help Steve, you just saved me a lot of time and money. To have this custom machined bot head is going to cost me $287 for just one. Had you not told me about the potential problems, I would be stuck with a $287 head that cant see didly squat.

Here is another pic of several views of the revised design. Correction - The speaker is 36.5mm and not 20.1mm



▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔▔
Mike



Post Edited (SN96) : 12/6/2005 3:45:39 PM GMT