I'm looking to have a box with 36 buttons (wireless) that sends a radio
signal to a transmitter box that would then "fire" the corresponding
circuit.

The last several years I've been doing a fireworks show with a 36 shell
finale. The last several years I've been doing it analog with 36 sets of
wires, one set to fire each shell. I'm looking to have a box with the 36
buttons and LEDS and then when a button is pushed to have it fire the shell.
I understand some basics but looking for the best and cheapest way to do
this.

On the receiver end I'm probably looking to stay with 12 volt DC supply
powering one box that would have wire terminals not 36 separate boxes.

"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:Ixqdh.2006$QD3.1827@trndny01...
I'm looking to have a box with 36 buttons (wireless) that sends a radio
signal to a transmitter box that would then "fire" the corresponding
circuit.

The last several years I've been doing a fireworks show with a 36 shell
finale. The last several years I've been doing it analog with 36 sets of
wires, one set to fire each shell. I'm looking to have a box with the 36
buttons and LEDS and then when a button is pushed to have it fire the
shell.
I understand some basics but looking for the best and cheapest way to do
this.

On the receiver end I'm probably looking to stay with 12 volt DC supply
powering one box that would have wire terminals not 36 separate boxes.


That would be dangeruse.
Similar ideas are used for controling industrial crains.
But its not that streight forward due to the dangers involved. Lots of
shielding a and safety precautions.
After all workers dont realy want a 30ton object being droped from a great
height just because sombade was using a welder.
Plus firework displays would be making so many explosions you would defently
triger one of the many trigers.
You would be best sticking to wires. Or make some kind of timing control
device.

Regards
Wombat.

I knew I'd get one of these. I know the dangers but they are limited since
my closest neighbor is over a mile away and the electric connection would
not be made until 5 sec before the show!

Plus I'm planning on using one of the frequencys used for RC cars at low
power. And those closest neighbors or 80+ years old so I don't think
they'll be using that frequency at 10pm on July 4th.

And again, even with a stray signal, the receiver won't have power until 5
sec before the show. And the launch tubes are hundreds of feet away from
the crowd.



"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
...
"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:Ixqdh.2006$QD3.1827@trndny01...
I'm looking to have a box with 36 buttons (wireless) that sends a radio
signal to a transmitter box that would then "fire" the corresponding
circuit.

The last several years I've been doing a fireworks show with a 36 shell
finale. The last several years I've been doing it analog with 36 sets
of
wires, one set to fire each shell. I'm looking to have a box with the
36
buttons and LEDS and then when a button is pushed to have it fire the
shell.
I understand some basics but looking for the best and cheapest way to do
this.

On the receiver end I'm probably looking to stay with 12 volt DC supply
powering one box that would have wire terminals not 36 separate boxes.


That would be dangeruse.
Similar ideas are used for controling industrial crains.
But its not that streight forward due to the dangers involved. Lots of
shielding a and safety precautions.
After all workers dont realy want a 30ton object being droped from a great
height just because sombade was using a welder.
Plus firework displays would be making so many explosions you would
defently
triger one of the many trigers.
You would be best sticking to wires. Or make some kind of timing control
device.

Regards
Wombat.

Well how would yo uknow that one of the kids inthe crowd hadnt got a toy RC
car !
Crains work on a totaly different range. Yet they still have to have loads
of fail safes.
But feel free to use one. Send the vid to You tube so we can all have a
laugh at the outcome.
;-)

Why not have a simple counting circuit that fires each one off after
another.
You could have a remote kill switch. So atleast if the kids in the crowds do
send a stray singnal the worst that would happen is the thing would switch
off.
That would be pritty easy to do.

Regards
Wombat.

"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:4Yydh.2042$QD3.818@trndny01...
I knew I'd get one of these. I know the dangers but they are limited since
my closest neighbor is over a mile away and the electric connection would
not be made until 5 sec before the show!

Plus I'm planning on using one of the frequencys used for RC cars at low
power. And those closest neighbors or 80+ years old so I don't think
they'll be using that frequency at 10pm on July 4th.

And again, even with a stray signal, the receiver won't have power until 5
sec before the show. And the launch tubes are hundreds of feet away from
the crowd.



"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
...
"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:Ixqdh.2006$QD3.1827@trndny01...
I'm looking to have a box with 36 buttons (wireless) that sends a radio
signal to a transmitter box that would then "fire" the corresponding
circuit.

The last several years I've been doing a fireworks show with a 36 shell
finale. The last several years I've been doing it analog with 36 sets
of
wires, one set to fire each shell. I'm looking to have a box with the
36
buttons and LEDS and then when a button is pushed to have it fire the
shell.
I understand some basics but looking for the best and cheapest way to
do
this.

On the receiver end I'm probably looking to stay with 12 volt DC supply
powering one box that would have wire terminals not 36 separate boxes.


That would be dangeruse.
Similar ideas are used for controling industrial crains.
But its not that streight forward due to the dangers involved. Lots of
shielding a and safety precautions.
After all workers dont realy want a 30ton object being droped from a
great
height just because sombade was using a welder.
Plus firework displays would be making so many explosions you would
defently
triger one of the many trigers.
You would be best sticking to wires. Or make some kind of timing control
device.

Regards
Wombat.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 03:11:36 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:

I'm looking to have a box with 36 buttons (wireless) that sends a radio
signal to a transmitter box that would then "fire" the corresponding
circuit.

The last several years I've been doing a fireworks show with a 36 shell
finale. The last several years I've been doing it analog with 36 sets of
wires, one set to fire each shell. I'm looking to have a box with the 36
buttons and LEDS and then when a button is pushed to have it fire the shell.
I understand some basics but looking for the best and cheapest way to do
this.

On the receiver end I'm probably looking to stay with 12 volt DC supply
powering one box that would have wire terminals not 36 separate boxes.

---
Stay wired.


--
JF

Well how would yo uknow that one of the kids inthe crowd hadnt got a toy
RC
car !


Because its a private crowd. My immediate family; my parents and siblings
and cousins, all of which are over 30. The "crowd" has never been over 25
people!


Why not have a simple counting circuit that fires each one off after
another.

Thought about this but still would like to have control over it.


You could have a remote kill switch. So atleast if the kids in the crowds
do
send a stray singnal the worst that would happen is the thing would switch
off.

Not to bad an idea, but again, no kids in the crowd. I'm thinking that what
you don't understand is that if a stray signal happens which is unlikely in
this setting, whats the big deal? Its not like the launch tubes are going
to dig themselves out of the ground and turns towards the crowd if a stray
signal sets one or more of them off. The worse that will happen is a shell
is launched when I didn't want it to! The tubes are buried and a misfire
isn't going to effect anything. The remote is only to get them out of the
tube not to stear them or to control at what height they explode.

I'm sorry I posted for help. This whole thing was just to find the best way
of doing it. (cheapsest, safest) And to maybe get ideas of things I hadn't
thought of. I'll guess I'll just go ahead and do it without input from this
group. If I have any specific questions I'll just talk to my co-workers.

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:26:35 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:


I'm sorry I posted for help. This whole thing was just to find the best way
of doing it. (cheapsest, safest) And to maybe get ideas of things I hadn't
thought of. I'll guess I'll just go ahead and do it without input from this
group. If I have any specific questions I'll just talk to my co-workers.

I think you missed the whole point: we did give you advise--don't do
it! What you are proposing is dangerous but you won't see anything but
what you want to see.

Listen to those who have advised you: it is not a good idea.

Consider this: what do the professionals use? I'll give you a hint:
not radios! And certainly not radios on uncontrolled public
frequencies.

I suppose you could do it with single wire communications units, but
that would be expensive and still require wires, though not so many.

Could someone please explain what is "dangerous" about this? Shells are
publically available they are not sticks of dynamite. They are loaded in a
steel tube in the ground, wired to a remotre box all with the power off!
The power is switched on 5-10 seconds before the show. Even if some some
stray signal from the nearest 80+ year old neighbor over a mile away sets
all 36 off at the same time they just go into the air and explode as if I
had set if off on purpose. Where's the danger?

I guess you could say the steel tube could be turned to shrapnel but this
assumes the shell stays in the tube and that the tube isn't underground. If
the shell stays in the tube it would have done that had it been lit
normally.

These shells are not professional shells, I've had a few (when I was alot
younger) go off 10-20 feet from me with no ill results.

As for "hearing what I want to hear" I apologize if this offends you.
However; I'm not acustom to being told I can't do something. I wouldn't
have several inventions under my belt if I stopped when the negatives (like
my mother) told me I couldn't do it.

If you don't wish to offer any help with the remote thats fine but that
doesn't mean that I'll abandon it. However, I am willing to consider ideas
for a "transmitter" connected to a "receiver" via 1 single cable like phone
wire. However, I would need a cable with at least 37 wires within it. (36
triggers a common)

If I were to do it like that what voltage supply should be used. I'm
thinking either 12v or 24v DC?


"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:26:35 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:


I'm sorry I posted for help. This whole thing was just to find the best
way
of doing it. (cheapsest, safest) And to maybe get ideas of things I
hadn't
thought of. I'll guess I'll just go ahead and do it without input from
this
group. If I have any specific questions I'll just talk to my co-workers.

I think you missed the whole point: we did give you advise--don't do
it! What you are proposing is dangerous but you won't see anything but
what you want to see.

Listen to those who have advised you: it is not a good idea.

Consider this: what do the professionals use? I'll give you a hint:
not radios! And certainly not radios on uncontrolled public
frequencies.

I suppose you could do it with single wire communications units, but
that would be expensive and still require wires, though not so many.

I just had a thought, how about a receiver that must receive two signals on
two different frequencies at the same time in order to fire?




"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:5OJdh.2269$g_3.720@trndny02...
Could someone please explain what is "dangerous" about this? Shells are
publically available they are not sticks of dynamite. They are loaded in
a
steel tube in the ground, wired to a remotre box all with the power off!
The power is switched on 5-10 seconds before the show. Even if some some
stray signal from the nearest 80+ year old neighbor over a mile away sets
all 36 off at the same time they just go into the air and explode as if I
had set if off on purpose. Where's the danger?

I guess you could say the steel tube could be turned to shrapnel but this
assumes the shell stays in the tube and that the tube isn't underground.
If
the shell stays in the tube it would have done that had it been lit
normally.

These shells are not professional shells, I've had a few (when I was alot
younger) go off 10-20 feet from me with no ill results.

As for "hearing what I want to hear" I apologize if this offends you.
However; I'm not acustom to being told I can't do something. I wouldn't
have several inventions under my belt if I stopped when the negatives
(like
my mother) told me I couldn't do it.

If you don't wish to offer any help with the remote thats fine but that
doesn't mean that I'll abandon it. However, I am willing to consider
ideas
for a "transmitter" connected to a "receiver" via 1 single cable like
phone
wire. However, I would need a cable with at least 37 wires within it.
(36
triggers a common)

If I were to do it like that what voltage supply should be used. I'm
thinking either 12v or 24v DC?


"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:26:35 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:


I'm sorry I posted for help. This whole thing was just to find the
best
way
of doing it. (cheapsest, safest) And to maybe get ideas of things I
hadn't
thought of. I'll guess I'll just go ahead and do it without input from
this
group. If I have any specific questions I'll just talk to my
co-workers.

I think you missed the whole point: we did give you advise--don't do
it! What you are proposing is dangerous but you won't see anything but
what you want to see.

Listen to those who have advised you: it is not a good idea.

Consider this: what do the professionals use? I'll give you a hint:
not radios! And certainly not radios on uncontrolled public
frequencies.

I suppose you could do it with single wire communications units, but
that would be expensive and still require wires, though not so many.

"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:5OJdh.2269$g_3.720@trndny02...
Could someone please explain what is "dangerous" about this? Shells are
publically available they are not sticks of dynamite. They are loaded in
a
steel tube in the ground, wired to a remotre box all with the power off!
The power is switched on 5-10 seconds before the show. Even if some some
stray signal from the nearest 80+ year old neighbor over a mile away sets
all 36 off at the same time they just go into the air and explode as if I
had set if off on purpose. Where's the danger?

I guess you could say the steel tube could be turned to shrapnel but this
assumes the shell stays in the tube and that the tube isn't underground.
If
the shell stays in the tube it would have done that had it been lit
normally.

These shells are not professional shells, I've had a few (when I was alot
younger) go off 10-20 feet from me with no ill results.

As for "hearing what I want to hear" I apologize if this offends you.
However; I'm not acustom to being told I can't do something. I wouldn't
have several inventions under my belt if I stopped when the negatives
(like
my mother) told me I couldn't do it.

If you don't wish to offer any help with the remote thats fine but that
doesn't mean that I'll abandon it. However, I am willing to consider
ideas
for a "transmitter" connected to a "receiver" via 1 single cable like
phone
wire. However, I would need a cable with at least 37 wires within it.
(36
triggers a common)

If I were to do it like that what voltage supply should be used. I'm
thinking either 12v or 24v DC?


"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:26:35 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:


I'm sorry I posted for help. This whole thing was just to find the best
way
of doing it. (cheapsest, safest) And to maybe get ideas of things I
hadn't
thought of. I'll guess I'll just go ahead and do it without input from
this
group. If I have any specific questions I'll just talk to my
co-workers.

I think you missed the whole point: we did give you advise--don't do
it! What you are proposing is dangerous but you won't see anything but
what you want to see.

Listen to those who have advised you: it is not a good idea.

Consider this: what do the professionals use? I'll give you a hint:
not radios! And certainly not radios on uncontrolled public
frequencies.

I suppose you could do it with single wire communications units, but
that would be expensive and still require wires, though not so many.



Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

http://www.icircuits.com/prod_dtmf8plus.html

All you would need is 2 walkitalki`s and a DTMF Generator.
This works with 8 Relays.
Maybee 8 seperat 10 stage Timing devices. that would give you 80 trigers.
10 per triger. I aint gonna help you anymore.
You should be able to figure out the rest from there on.

Regards
Wombat.

On 2006-12-07, SBFan2000 wrote:
Could someone please explain what is "dangerous" about this? Shells are
publically available they are not sticks of dynamite. They are loaded in a
steel tube in the ground, wired to a remotre box all with the power off!
The power is switched on 5-10 seconds before the show. Even if some some
stray signal from the nearest 80+ year old neighbor over a mile away sets
all 36 off at the same time they just go into the air and explode as if I
had set if off on purpose. Where's the danger?

such a device in the hands of a terrorist?

I think most of the posters here see no significant advantage over a wired system



--

Bye.
Jasen

On 2006-12-07, SBFan2000 wrote:
I just had a thought, how about a receiver that must receive two signals on
two different frequencies at the same time in order to fire?

coded signals like used for security (cars, gates, etc) would be as good

still there's a chance of interferance stopping it from working.

Bye.
Jasen

"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:ZZJdh.4808$H22.2426@trndny09...
I just had a thought, how about a receiver that must receive two signals on
two different frequencies at the same time in order to fire?

How about a receiver that uses some sort of digital thang whereby it takes,
for example, an eight-digit number to fire each shell? That way, any stray
signals would do nothing.

Or could a pair of mobile phones possibly be used? The bad guys do that in
the movies hehehe...

I like what you're trying to do here, and I don't think it's as dangerous as
these guys make out. I mean, it can't possibly be more dangerous than
setting fireworks off by hand, can it? Assuming, that is, that you have no
power to the firing system until everyone is well-clear. If that's the case,
the worst that could happen is that the fireworks don't go off exactly when
you want. Big deal.

"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go wrong?

Give him some help, go on. If he blows himself up it's not like you'll be
liable.

Hehe, maybe the OP should have stated that it was only party-poppers that he
wanted to remotely fire... ;o)

"Marcus Redd" wrote in message
ng.com...
"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:ZZJdh.4808$H22.2426@trndny09...
I just had a thought, how about a receiver that must receive two signals
on
two different frequencies at the same time in order to fire?

How about a receiver that uses some sort of digital thang whereby it
takes, for example, an eight-digit number to fire each shell?

SHELL?!?!?!?!

Yes, ok, I like bombs and stuff.

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 01:18:49 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:

I just had a thought, how about a receiver that must receive two signals on
two different frequencies at the same time in order to fire?



There are many ways (including digital encrypted signaling) to make it
secure--but at what cost?

Wire is *cheap* (even I will sell you some multi-pair telephone cable
if you want, I think it is either 15 or 17 pairs), exotic transmitters
and receivers could be really expensive. Especially for a non-money
making event.

Try looking at adavanced garage door opener technology.

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:39:34 -0000, "Marcus Redd" wrote:


I like what you're trying to do here, and I don't think it's as dangerous as
these guys make out.

Maybe it is because I live near a major fireworks company that has
produced many award winning shows over the years. And maybe because I
know the owner. And maybe because I've seen the results of "it'll be
OK".

There are reasons why things are done the way they are.

But as I already posted, digital may be the answer--but at what cost?

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:42:32 -0000, "Marcus Redd" wrote:

"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go wrong?


Let's say the OP has 30 mortars. Hence 30 receivers (or am I not
understanding him?) So he powers up receiver 1, then walks over to
receiver 2 and powers it up, and then receiver 3, then things start to
go bad--reciver one (powered up) goes off... (For whatever reason,
his little home-made system triggers).


oops.


Ah, but wait, what about a centralized battery to power all at one
time?

Humm, might work, but that is wired, what the OP didn't want. (I did
suggest single wire systems).

"PeterD" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:42:32 -0000, "Marcus Redd" wrote:

"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing
system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go
wrong?


Let's say the OP has 30 mortars. Hence 30 receivers (or am I not
understanding him?) So he powers up receiver 1, then walks over to
receiver 2 and powers it up, and then receiver 3, then things start to
go bad--reciver one (powered up) goes off... (For whatever reason,
his little home-made system triggers).

oops.

Hehe, yeah, potential in that situation for one big oops!

Ah, but wait, what about a centralized battery to power all at one
time?

Humm, might work, but that is wired, what the OP didn't want. (I did
suggest single wire systems).

Yeah, this is more what I envisaged. But yes, it is wired. Hmm... looks like
either a wired system or an expensive digital one really. Or maybe a
double-analogue one - so you'd have to send signals on two different
frequencies to get each one to fire?

"jasen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-12-07, SBFan2000 wrote:
Could someone please explain what is "dangerous" about this? Shells are
publically available they are not sticks of dynamite. They are loaded in
a
steel tube in the ground, wired to a remotre box all with the power off!
The power is switched on 5-10 seconds before the show. Even if some some
stray signal from the nearest 80+ year old neighbor over a mile away sets
all 36 off at the same time they just go into the air and explode as if I
had set if off on purpose. Where's the danger?

such a device in the hands of a terrorist?

I think most of the posters here see no significant advantage over a wired
system



--

Bye.
Jasen

My thoughts Exactly.
Ya sure Im gonna go around advertising how to make a multi Remote Detonator.
Id have the counter terrorist squad round my place quicker than a flash !!
No Thanks.

And yes a Mobile phone would do the job, with the DTMF. ;-)

Regards
Wombat.

perhaps that would have helped!

I know, I'll created a new "alias" and repost with "party poppers" instead
of "shells" :-)


"Marcus Redd" wrote in message
ng.com...
"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing
system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go
wrong?

Give him some help, go on. If he blows himself up it's not like you'll be
liable.

Hehe, maybe the OP should have stated that it was only party-poppers that
he
wanted to remotely fire... ;o)

You misunderstand. I want the receiver "box" to be wired to each shell.
The receiver would have one power supply. I just don't want to run 36 pairs
of wires 200 feet!


"PeterD" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 12:42:32 -0000, "Marcus Redd" wrote:

"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing
system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go
wrong?


Let's say the OP has 30 mortars. Hence 30 receivers (or am I not
understanding him?) So he powers up receiver 1, then walks over to
receiver 2 and powers it up, and then receiver 3, then things start to
go bad--reciver one (powered up) goes off... (For whatever reason,
his little home-made system triggers).


oops.


Ah, but wait, what about a centralized battery to power all at one
time?

Humm, might work, but that is wired, what the OP didn't want. (I did
suggest single wire systems).

Yea, because we all know a terrorist would contact a little newsgroup for
help on making this complicated thing over just using a cell phone like the
other thousands of terrorists.

I don't mean to start a war but what a childish response. It shouldn't be
done because Jasen doesn't see a "significant advantage?" Were would we be
if all the ingenious inventers had not continued with their ideas because
somebody didn't see the advantage. Afterall what huge advantage does a
little simple starter motor in your car offer over just hand cranking?


"jasen" wrote in message
...
On 2006-12-07, SBFan2000 wrote:
Could someone please explain what is "dangerous" about this? Shells are
publically available they are not sticks of dynamite. They are loaded
in a
steel tube in the ground, wired to a remotre box all with the power off!
The power is switched on 5-10 seconds before the show. Even if some
some
stray signal from the nearest 80+ year old neighbor over a mile away
sets
all 36 off at the same time they just go into the air and explode as if
I
had set if off on purpose. Where's the danger?

such a device in the hands of a terrorist?

I think most of the posters here see no significant advantage over a wired
system



--

Bye.
Jasen

My thoughts Exactly.
Ya sure Im gonna go around advertising how to make a multi Remote
Detonator.
Id have the counter terrorist squad round my place quicker than a flash !!
No Thanks.

Great you've made you decision not to help, now you can leave this thread.
If the DOHS wants to talk with me about this, thats fine. They'll do a
background check and find that my background has already been cleared by the
FBI. (I service copy machines in an undercover FBI office and had to have a
complete background check before they would tell me where it was.)

If your not smart enough to figure it out then your not smart enough to have
it.

"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:Sn1eh.7412$bW2.3413@trndny04...
perhaps that would have helped!

I know, I'll created a new "alias" and repost with "party poppers"
instead
of "shells" :-)


"Marcus Redd" wrote in message
ng.com...
"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing
system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go
wrong?

Give him some help, go on. If he blows himself up it's not like you'll be
liable.

Hehe, maybe the OP should have stated that it was only party-poppers that
he
wanted to remotely fire... ;o)

On 2006-12-07, SBFan2000 wrote:
You misunderstand. I want the receiver "box" to be wired to each shell.
The receiver would have one power supply. I just don't want to run 36 pairs
of wires 200 feet!

run a single pair then, and send control signals over that,
it might be sufficient to send a single pulse to signal the
controller to fire the next shell, otherwise it could be
a time (eg rs232) or frequency (eg DTMF) multiplexed
signalling system.

I had some rotory selector units (ex phone exchange) that with new coils
wound for 12V operation might be ideal (for the single pulse setup)
I have them no longer alas.

--

Bye.
Jasen

What???

Run a spell-check on the words below to see just how smart Wombat is... ;o)

dangeruse
controling
crains
streight
realy
droped
sombade
defently
triger
trigers


"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
...
If your not smart enough to figure it out then your not smart enough to
have
it.

"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:Sn1eh.7412$bW2.3413@trndny04...
perhaps that would have helped!

I know, I'll created a new "alias" and repost with "party poppers"
instead
of "shells" :-)


"Marcus Redd" wrote in message
ng.com...
"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing
system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go
wrong?

Give him some help, go on. If he blows himself up it's not like you'll
be
liable.

Hehe, maybe the OP should have stated that it was only party-poppers
that
he
wanted to remotely fire... ;o)

Your not "smart enough" to figure out that I no longer care about your
opinion, so why don't we take your newsreader away from you?

Plonk!


"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
...
If your not smart enough to figure it out then your not smart enough to
have
it.

"SBFan2000" wrote in message
news:Sn1eh.7412$bW2.3413@trndny04...
perhaps that would have helped!

I know, I'll created a new "alias" and repost with "party poppers"
instead
of "shells" :-)


"Marcus Redd" wrote in message
ng.com...
"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

Wombat - surely you're making too much fuss over this. If the firing
system
is unpowered until everyone is well clear then what could possibly go
wrong?

Give him some help, go on. If he blows himself up it's not like you'll
be
liable.

Hehe, maybe the OP should have stated that it was only party-poppers
that
he
wanted to remotely fire... ;o)

"Marcus Redd" wrote in message
ng.com...
What???

Run a spell-check on the words below to see just how smart Wombat is...
;o)

------------------KEY---------------
11=R, 8=O,12=C
2=A,14=L, 9=U
3=T, 13=K,10=P,1=E
4=S, 6=I, 7=Y, 5=H
---------------END KEY------------


4,10,1,14,14 12,5,1,12,13, 3,5,6,4,
1,2,3 4,5,6,3 7,8,9 10,11,6,12,13.

Regards
Wombat.
:-)

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:26:39 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:

You misunderstand. I want the receiver "box" to be wired to each shell.
The receiver would have one power supply. I just don't want to run 36 pairs
of wires 200 feet!



So one receiver for the 36 tubes? (so 36 wire pairs from the
receiver?)

In that case, I'd use a microcomputer that's wired to the other end
with a double pair of Cat5 Ethernet. Or, use wireless.

I think you are making it harder following the path you are setting
out right now. A SBC would work well in this case.

"Wombat-Pipex-News" wrote in message
...
"Marcus Redd" wrote in message
ng.com...
What???

Run a spell-check on the words below to see just how smart Wombat is...
;o)

------------------KEY---------------
11=R, 8=O,12=C
2=A,14=L, 9=U
3=T, 13=K,10=P,1=E
4=S, 6=I, 7=Y, 5=H
---------------END KEY------------


4,10,1,14,14 12,5,1,12,13, 3,5,6,4,
1,2,3 4,5,6,3 7,8,9 10,11,6,12,13.

EAT SHI YOU PRCKL ??? You spell in "code" just as poorly as you spell
"normally". AND you missed a comma. Very amateurish, I'm afraid...

Anyway...

4, 5, 8, 15, 1, 6, 3, 17, 9, 16, 16, 7

"PeterD" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 23:26:39 GMT, "SBFan2000"
wrote:

You misunderstand. I want the receiver "box" to be wired to each shell.
The receiver would have one power supply. I just don't want to run 36
pairs
of wires 200 feet!



So one receiver for the 36 tubes? (so 36 wire pairs from the
receiver?)

In that case, I'd use a microcomputer that's wired to the other end
with a double pair of Cat5 Ethernet. Or, use wireless.

I think you are making it harder following the path you are setting
out right now. A SBC would work well in this case.

Why is it that, on Usenet, the first replies you get to a post are always
the stupid ones saying "No" or "You can't" or "Why?" and it then takes quite
a while for the useful and intelligent replies like Peter's and jasens? ;o)

Well if your realy want to blow yourself up thats you choice.
check out these sorts of things.

http://www.icircuits.com/prod_dtmf8plus.html

All you would need is 2 walkitalki`s and a DTMF Generator.
This works with 8 Relays.
Maybee 8 seperat 10 stage Timing devices. that would give you 80 trigers.
10 per triger. I aint gonna help you anymore.
You should be able to figure out the rest from there on.

Regards
Wombat.

The link above is all you need.
read the description, and figure it out. You can have several boxes linked
to the same audio input.
God how hard can it be. !

I think you are making it harder following the path you are setting
out right now.

Thats quite possible. :-) Thats why I asked for help/opinions. Thanks