Re: All Lights On/All Units Off and Modifying an MT10

["Mark Hetherington" <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>]

> Please don't take it the wrong way. The comment wasn't meant to be
an
> attack on you. It was merely my assumption from what I have read.

You felt it an appropriate point to make as the introduction to your
post? I had already ignored your previous assumptions in your first
reply where you were very quick to point out the blindingly obvious
but failed to actually answer the questions posed. It was very hard
not to take this later statement "the wrong way". Although you
appear
to be retracting the remarks here through use of the past tense, you
seem to reiterate it later by returning to present tense, so it is
not clear where you are coming from on this matter.

> > All Lights off is 1101, the pattern for All units off is 0001 so
whether it
> > is hardwired or software controlled, this pattern is the required
change.
>
> As my assumption above implied, they are incorrect. The correct 4-
bit
> binary pattern for All-Lights-Off is 0110 and All-Units-Off is 0000.

Your "assumption above" did not contain sufficient qualification
to
imply inaccuracy and your "assumption above" included electronics
so
how did that relate to binary patterns, accurate or otherwise?

Besides, they are not incorrect per se. I used the correct 5 bit code
which represents a function code but unfortunately missed the leading
0 since that is sort of how they are stored in my X10 transmission
program.

The codes are thus 01101 and 00001 respectively (compare to my
original 1101 and 0001). Your codes could just as easily represent
unit codes 13 and 1 which is why D16 or the F bit (whichever you
prefer) is a very important component. For a unit code, the D16 bit
is 0. D1 is of no relevance to the functions until you get to the
status request etc so even with this missing bit, my choice of bit
mask was not really inaccurate. Additionally, this represents the
delimited section of bits requiring a change. Again not inaccurate.

When sent across the power line, the bit mask would be sent with
complement so to be more accurate maybe I should have used 01 10 10
01 10 and 01 01 01 01 10 respectively. Obviously they would be
prefixed with the start code (1110 no complements) and the 4 bit
house code (with complements) to give a total packet of 22 bits. This
packet would be sent twice. So maybe I ought to represent the bit
masks as
1110HHHHHHHH0110100110,1110HHHHHHHH0101010110 H = 1:0

What should I assume from you not spotting the obvious fact that the
trailing 1 was the D16 value and the leading zero was missing? Should
I assume you have no knowledge of the protocol or electronics and
introduce my post with said assumption and ignoring any questions
posed therein lest they reduce the impact of said introduction? Or
should I maybe offer a polite correction and try to answer questions?
Or maybe just continue the discussion regardless possibly putting the
correction into the text in a subtle manner if deemed important? I
know from experience that you would choose option one.

All said and done, the binary pattern was irrelevant since it was
merely qualification for the point that all I wished to achieve was
change x to y. I could have used any representation but chose an
appropriate one. Correct or otherwise, it did not alter the question
posed nor the request for an answer to it. You ignored both in favour
of your inaccurate and unqualified statement on ability/knowledge.

> No, neither. The buttons are connected to the microcontroller's
input pins
> in a multi-line matrix arrangement. Using a keypad scanning
routine, the
> exact button presses may be detected and act upon accordingly. The
fact
> is, no matter what you do to the buttons or their wiring, you can't
> change what the microcontroller has been programmed to send out.

Thank you. So as I originally suggested the IC is responsible for
building the code. In my original post I suggested the IC as the
responsible component but since many X10 devices "hard wire"
certain
parts of codes left this open as a possibility in my original
question. It also answers that age old question of whatever happened
to the spectrum keyboard. Wonder if it has the same "bug". :)

(NB To avoid assumptions of lack of knowledge when comparing the
matrix used for a spectrum keyboard and that used for an
MT10U/MT7222, it is not intended as a technical observation and I
know it is not be exactly the same but the principles are close
enough for the slightly humorous comparison to be made.)

> I was only stating my opinion with the information available. If
you are
> offended by what appears to be a fair assessment, I apologise.

I really would like to accept this but I am afraid I am not able to
in it's present from. You all but reiterate the original statement in
the same sentence you use the word apologise. An apology with
reservations is not really an apology.

I hadn't realised that one must post a thesis on protocol before
asking questions so I trust the basic summary of the X10 packet
system I provided above is sufficient information to enable you to
show a mere a modicum of respect should this discussion continue.

Respect may need to be earned, but this does not imply one should
treat people with disrespect in the interim.

Is it fair for me to assume something about your knowledge or ability
based on what you have said merely in the postings on this
discussion? Maybe you can assume some more and tell me more about
myself such as whether or not I can fly an aeroplane or what job I
do? Surely you have sufficient information to conclude one way or
another.

Your qualification for making your comment is hardly conclusive.
Don't you see how ridiculous it is to make such a narrow assumption
based on such little information and how outrageous it is to
introduce a post with such a statement and then go on to continue the
barrage in subsequent posts?

> May I ask how many different protected chips your contacts have
> successfully cracked? Without access to sophisticated equipment, it
is
> highly unlikely that your contacts can be as successful as you
claimed.

So now I am a liar as well? Another assumption without basis.

I am stuck using the yahoo web site at the moment and have already
lost my original reply to this email so lost some of my original
points and have run out of time to rewrite all of them. Although I am
happy to discuss this matter further, I would prefer clarification of
the above before taking the time to do so and a better interface than
the web browser. So for now I must snip this section.


Mark.