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

["Alancc" <alan.cc@xxxxxxx>]

Bloody hell....I'm glad I didn't offer any help!!

Alancc
----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Hetherington <mark.egroups@xxxxxxx>
To: <ukha_d@xxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 12, 2001 4:09 PM
Subject: [ukha_d] Re: All Lights On/All Units Off and Modifying an MT10


> > 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.
>
>
>
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>


For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx
Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx
List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/