1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

IR extender question

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous Equipment' started by rebaztec, Jun 28, 2011.

  1. rebaztec

    rebaztec Legend

    127
    0
    Apr 14, 2007
    I rigged up a Monoprice IR extender to run on battery power, so I can take it out near the pool and still have volume control. I wanted to know if the extender pulls power all of the time or only when being used to send a signal to the receiver. I would think it would need some level of trickle power to keep the sensor active. I have it running on 8 AA rechargeable batteries housed in a polycarbonate box. Works well and can be positioned within about 50-60 feet or so before it gets sluggish with RF it's trying to send to the receiver. Any help would be appreciated.
     
  2. Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    I have no idea about the answer but I would like to congratulate you on your ingenuity. :righton:
     
  3. koji68

    koji68 Icon

    627
    0
    Jun 21, 2004
    I would guess that it is always using some power for the IR eye and using more power to transmit the RF signal when needed.

    Since you already rigged something up, it wouldn't be too hard to get a multitester connected between the power supply and the device. Measure miliamps and connect the multitester in serial with the power source.

    A basic multitester is about $15-$20 at RadioShack and it is a nice tool to have.
     
  4. Jul 1, 2011 #4 of 10
    rebaztec

    rebaztec Legend

    127
    0
    Apr 14, 2007
    OK, after playing around with the multimeter, the IR transmitter does indeed use a trickle to keep the eye ready to receive a signal. So I guess the only way around this, and to keep the transmitter portable, is to add a small toggle switch to the box. That way I can take it with me to the pool, turn it on, and use it for a few hours, then switch it off. Either way, the Monoprice system is only good for about 25 feet tops with all of the RF interference in the area. In theory it's a cool idea, but the practical use of it is still in development. Maybe a motion sensor with a really short operational period, say 15 seconds coupled with a short sensor area to turn on the box, maybe a foot or two, nah...that wouldn't work either, need some more though on this...:rolleyes:
     
  5. Jul 7, 2011 #5 of 10
    mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    You should try a Next Generation RF system. It works fine for me at 50'+.
     
  6. rebaztec

    rebaztec Legend

    127
    0
    Apr 14, 2007
  7. Yoda-DBSguy

    Yoda-DBSguy Hall Of Fame

    1,090
    7
    Nov 4, 2006
    A Galaxy...
    That's the one. the "sauser goes at the equipment location and it's a simple battery swap out for the remote you wish to become "RF". It comes with 2 batteries; one of which stays charged at the base until you need to swap them out (so you'll always have a spare ready to go).
     
  8. Carl Spock

    Carl Spock Superfly

    4,567
    0
    Sep 3, 2004
    I've used the Next Generation remote repeaters on customer systems for years and they have never failed me. I've yet to find its maximum range although I haven't gone over 75'. I have one now in my house to control my kitchen system. Because of electrical interference from my breaker panel, the RF side of my DirecTV remote goes maybe 10', and even then, only begrudgingly. The Next Generation repeater is unphased by the interference.
     
  9. rebaztec

    rebaztec Legend

    127
    0
    Apr 14, 2007
    OK...how come I haven't heard/seen more people using this little gem? I have it connected to the receiver for my outdoor pool/spa set up and it is great! I can be almost anywhere in my yard and it works. I bought another transmitter for another remote in the same system. I've shown this off to a few of my friends and family and they have all been impressed by it's simplistic, yet effective design. Great product...
     
  10. mdavej

    mdavej Hall Of Fame

    2,401
    32
    Jan 30, 2007
    I too am puzzled why this elegant device isn't more popular. I think people just automatically assume they have to buy a $250+ RF remote, and cheaper alternatives never enter their minds.

    Glad it worked out for you.
     

Share This Page