Re: 1-wire to USB converter that can use 1820s directly

["Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx>]

Marc F Hult <MFHult@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote

> This thread is a good instantiation of the rise
> to hegemony in usenet of the lower quartile  ...

Wota fucking wanker you are Hult.

> To summarize:

To lie, actually.

> 1) The four-conductor RJ-11 plugs that the original poster
> suggests are conventional and useful for 1-wire installation.

I never ever said anything of the sort. I JUST said
that that was the approach I PLANNED TO USE.

Basically because the wire is more flexible and convenient.

> However 8-conductor RJ-45 plugs and jacks are ubiquitous
> so they would seem preferable in many situations

Not in the PARTICULAR situation I WANT TO USE THEM IN.

> especially considering that dependable whole-house 1-wire
> distribution sh/would best consist in multiple channels (see below).

Separate matter entirely to what I was talking about.

> A 4-conductor RJ-11 plug fits into a RJ-45 jack, so RJ-45
> patch panels, available for less than $1/jack on eBay,

True in spades of RJ-11 panels.

> provide a flexible, dependable, inexpensive solution that is
> adaptable wiring infrastructure needs other than 1-wire (audio
> signals, audio control, RS-232, video, computer network, and so on).

Irrelevant to what I want to do with the temperature sensors.

> 2) Twisted-pair wiring (eg CAT3, CAT5) is
> preferred to non-twisted-pair especially if a
> whole house is to be wired as the OP proposes.

Pity I wasnt even discussing whole house wiring.

> The twisted pair provides better immunity to noise
> and more constant impedance than the ("satin")
> telephone wire suggested by the OP.

I wasnt even discussing satin telephone wire.

> The use of non-twisted pair wiring such as what is connected
> to the telephone cables that the OP proposes seems to be
> asking for poor performance if used for 'long' distances.

Pity I'm not using them for long distances.

> Also note that some phone cords are stranded and may
> include cloth-like fibers making them difficult to solder

Which might be why I choose to avoid using those.

> and durn near impossible to punch down

Dont need to punch those down, I clearly said that I want
to take commercially made RJ11 phone cords, cut them
in half and solder on a 1820 to each of the cut ends.

What I use for the RJ11 sockets those
plug into is an entirely separate matter.

> (and so are potentially unreliable for these reasons).

See above.

> 3) Best practices for Maxim/Dallas 1-wire does not include
> multiple channels (= "strings" = "runs") on a single driver.

I dont give a flying red fuck what is 'best practices'.

I know that strings of 1820s work fine, particularly in the situation
where most of the 1820s are reasonably clumped together.

> However the OP perserverates

That isnt even a word, you posturing fuckwit.

> on this topology, perhaps because he under the mistaken
> impression that the only issue is available power for the sensors.

Nope, because I have enough of a clue to realise that it works fine
for Pete Anderson and its documented in the Dallas datasheets too.

> T'aint. Others has suggested that he inform himself by reading
> the 1-wire documentation, but that doesn't seem to be his MO.

Best get that seems machinery seen to then Hult.

> 4) Maxim has a DS2482 IC that is designed to drive multiple channels.

I dont want multiple channels.

> Dr Peter Anderson www.phanderson has developed and sells nifty,
> inexpensive PIC-based systems that also drive multiple channels.

And clearly advocates the use of strings of 1820s.

> OP has been repeated referred to these resources by respondents,

I was well aware of that before I even posted thanks.

It doesnt happen to be what I want.

> but doesn't seem to 'get it'.

You dont seem to get that strings work fine, Pete Anderson uses them
fine, and so all I need is a USB/1-wire converter/adapter which drives
strings of 1820s the same way that device of Pete's does, or add that
to a commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter myself.

> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.

Yeah, its just rather poorly organised.

> 6) Despite the OP's imperviousness to the concept that USB, RS-232,
> 1-wire and I2C all involve serial communication and that real devices
> (whether in one package or not) necessarily involve translation
> betwixt them, a USB --> RS-232 converter + PIC--> multi-channel
> 1-wire solution (such as Dr. Anderson's) would meet his need.

Not as well as a commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter
which will drive the 1-wire the same way Pete does in his system.

> The multi-channel IC offering from Maxim/Dallas has I2C input
> and so needs a USB front end to met the OP's needs.

I dont need multichannel. Like that or lump it.

> 7) Despite what the OP now claims, reasonable people reading
> carefully would conclude that he is looking for a pre-built device
> that includes software drivers for about $30 or less.

Only fools like you. ALL I said was that since commercial
USB/1-wire converter/adapters are available for less than
$25, one which drives the 1-wire string like Pete's does
power wise shouldnt result in a price more than $30.

I am also considering using a much more expensive
lan/1-wire device. Its got some advantages like being
more convenient to integrate with VBA into Access and
Excel since its a standard http protocol device etc, but
has some potential downsides with other than just
1820 support and is rather less flexible in that area.

> I don't know of any that are multi-channel

I dont want or need multichannel.

> and am reluctant to recommend a single
> channel implementation of what he proposes.

I dont actually give a flying red fuck what
you might or might not recommend.

Clearly Pete Anderson has decided that strings of 1820s work fine.

> It could be done, of course, by daisy chaining each of the strings
> through
> a hub, ( IN1-->OUT2 -->IN2-->OUT3-->IN3 etc)  but it simply isn't worth
> the aggravation of a flakey data acquisition system in my opinion.

Your opinion is completely irrelevant. Pete Anderson
is clearly of the opinion that strings of 1820s are viable.

> The cost difference of $20 or so is small compared
> even to the price of the sensors required by the
> system. When one also considers consequences of
> errors and time expended, the cost difference is trivial.

There are no cost consequences of errors.
Or time expended either in this case.

> Among other reasons, a single break or poor connection
> in a daisy chained system takes down the entire system.

It isnt daisy chained, the sensors are PARALLELED.

> Multiple drivers and channels ("strings") isolate problems,
> are more robust than a single channel and are easier to
> trouble-shoot and generally more reliable.

Not interested. I'm quite capable of trouble shooting
a break in the paralleled config I plan to use.

Daisy chained aint what I want, basically because that involves
a pair of wires to each sensor location. A star config makes much
more sense given where the sensors will be located, in clusters.

> 8) It is generally trivial to adapt an RS-232 device to USB using an
> inexpensive adapter. This has been suggested by several respondents,
> but apparently rejected by the OP for whatever reason.

Because it makes more sense to do something extra
on the 1-wire side of the USB/1-wire converter/adapter
if it wont drive the string of 1820s adequately.

> 9) In the experience and opinion of many (myself included)
> the most readily accessible programming interface for
> 1-wire is an simple ASCII protocol that the hardware
> device understands such as those used by Dr. Anderson.

I prefer to do it better myself. Essentially because
that give more control with other 1-wire devices later.

> This allows the hardware device to deal
> with 1-wire timing and electrical issues.

Thats what the USB/1-wire converter/adapter does.

> The OP wants a USB "driver" for VBA,

I didnt say that.

> Excel etc (whatever he means by that).

> Three good, very different approaches/sources for communicating with
> 1-wire-aware devices are 1) Homeseer with plugs, 2) www.windmill.co.uk
> and
> 3) StampPlot www.selmaware.com (I've used them all and can recommend.)

Not what I asked about. I want to be able to control the strings from
access and excel.