There isn't IR pick-up window that I can see.
The chips have of the following on them:
ATMLH002
2FB 1
9H4368B
LM393
POR
58901
64861
LHON
REA85 degrees C
A949(m)
100UF 10v
photo
photo2
photo3
Sony RM-VLZ620 remote
Moderator: Moderators
ATMLH002
2FB 1
9H4368B
I don't know what this is.
LM393
A voltage comparator (dual) probably used to separate on bursts from off during learning.
58901
64861
Don't know
LHON
REA85 degrees C
A949(m)
100UF 10v
This is a capacitor that will keep the voltage from drooping while sending an IR signal
The more recent pictures show normal soldering rather than the handwork I thought I saw.
I'm puzzled why they used a sub-PCB. Makes me wonder if this remotes is adapted from a different one which has the same button layout, but a microprocessor with a larger 40 pin package.
2FB 1
9H4368B
I don't know what this is.
LM393
A voltage comparator (dual) probably used to separate on bursts from off during learning.
58901
64861
Don't know
LHON
REA85 degrees C
A949(m)
100UF 10v
This is a capacitor that will keep the voltage from drooping while sending an IR signal
The more recent pictures show normal soldering rather than the handwork I thought I saw.
I'm puzzled why they used a sub-PCB. Makes me wonder if this remotes is adapted from a different one which has the same button layout, but a microprocessor with a larger 40 pin package.
I was able to teach with no trouble, but there seem to be some bad units out there, see this thread with video:
http://www.remotecentral.com/cgi-bin/mb ... d.cgi?8697
http://www.remotecentral.com/cgi-bin/mb ... d.cgi?8697
Edmund
-
underquark
- Expert
- Posts: 874
- Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 4:58 am
- Location: UK
Do you have a scanner? I use my old Umax Astra 4500 to scan pictures of remotes at low resolution and paste them into a spreadsheet where I list the codes. I reckon a higher resolution ought to yield decent images free from flash artefact since the light is bright and constant. As it is designed to scan documents, the focus is set for short macro.MaskedMan wrote:I can't take a picture worth a damn...
Sample image (low res and shrunk to just 65K) here.
One small caveat with scanning instead of using a camera, is that while old scanners tend to use CCD imagers that work well in terms of "depth of field" and keeping things in focus even if they're not flat against the glass, newer scanners almost always use CMOS imagers and these apparently have a very shallow "depth of field". In my experience, with a CMOS imager, things that are even just 1mm above the glass, are very fuzzy looking in the resulting scan, while a CCD imager gives an acceptably sharp looking scan even for things that are 2-3mm above the glass.underquark wrote:Do you have a scanner? I use my old Umax Astra 4500 to scan pictures of remotes at low resolution and paste them into a spreadsheet where I list the codes. I reckon a higher resolution ought to yield decent images free from flash artefact since the light is bright and constant. As it is designed to scan documents, the focus is set for short macro.MaskedMan wrote:I can't take a picture worth a damn...
Sample image (low res and shrunk to just 65K) here.
You can't really blame the scanner mfgrs for that since they're really only intended for use with paper documents that lay flat against the glass.
A.A.