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

["Robert Green" <ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx>]

"Robert L Bass" <sales@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:tdbc42dte26l2kd3chaqjrcpa7gvuhtk9o@xxxxxxxxxx
> > You're all clearly unaware that we've received a personal
> > visit from a legendary internet personality, Rod Speed.
>
> Oh.

I suppose that's not impressive to someone that's a internet personality
themselves.  :-0

> > "USB Only" is obviously a much higher priority requirement
> > for the OP than most replies have acknowledged.  If there's
> > anything that's typical about Usenet in this thread, it's that
> > a lot of answers that fall under the heading: "not *exactly*
> > what that user wanted."
>
> It would seem so.

I've done a lot of requirements analyses in my life.  It's always been
incredible to me how wildly systems requirements morph as the design
evolves.  Unfortunately, it's often not in a good way!  Usenet at times
reflects the worst part of the process by inducing the "Telephone Game"
effect in a very predictable way.  As soon as someone makes a twist,
everyone else twists that way.  If we're talking flying red ducks and
someone says flying red chickens, suddenly, there's lots of chicken talk.
It immediately puts the OP in a contentious posture.  He has to say,
forcefully, I don't LIKE chicken (for whatever reason).

Now we're drifting from the OP's initial requirements in two directions.
One along the lines of chickens and not ducks and the other about why the OP
would even WANT to do whatever it is he wants to do.  Neither have much to
do with flying red ducks.

> > If my mate's read of Speed is right, we can be sure, if
> > nothing else, that RS knows *exactly* what he wants.
> > That's probably pretty clear by now, anyway.
>
> That can be either a good or bad thing.

If it's a bad thing, you can issue the standard warnings (don't tie neutrals
to ground, don't run LV parallel to HV wiring, etc) and let it lie.  A
'good' example of a 'good' thing was a short while back when I asked about
text on TV for my Dad.  I received a number of very good suggestions to
implement exactly what I had in mind.  I also got some posts with some
excellent alternatives to my entire design.  Lewis G's comments about how he
solved a similar problem, as well as the great input from Dave, Bill, you,
BF and a few others caused me to completely change course and implement a
different solution.  That was based on confronting the cost, complexity and
effectiveness of my initial solution compared to what evolved.

That's what truly great about CHA and Usenet.  It offers other perspectives.
On the other hand, I think a lot of that was going on in this thread was the
old "phone game" where a kid whispers something to the next kid in line so
that when you get to the end "Flying Red Duck" becomes "Crying Dred Locks"
or something like it.

> > The state of PC and HA wiring is such that it's easy (for me
> > at least, and especially my wife) to understand how someone
> > could finally say "not one more f'ing wire!"  I, too, am
> > struggling with cleanly implementing similar systems and
> > have no serial ports to spare nor a desire to add additional
> > ports via PCI cards.
>
> I'm not trying to argue that serial ports are better than USB
> -- only that they may be a viable option.

It seemed pretty clear to me that USB was the only viable option for RS.
I'll have to look again to see why I felt this was an "accept no
substitutes" item with the OP but I did feel that very strongly.  Of course,
I had the benefit of knowing about the OP from somewhere else, so I assumed
that he knew what he wanted from the get go.

> > This sort of approach is fraught with peril, as the cliche goes.
> > You are limited to what PC can talk to your net (got have a
> > special board installed), gotta learn another OS (Theos or
> > some other proprietary OS).
>
> Actually, the THEOS operating system was a requirement of the central
monitoring
> station automation software we were running.  At the time there were no
USB
> ports (or at least none that I was aware of).  We were running a package
called
> BOLD which automated the handling of incoming security signals on a
multi-line
> alarm receiver.

I've maintained large BBS's using slave cards (entire PC's on single ISA
cards) and banks of modems.  I know this sort of HW and SW more intimately
than I ever wanted to know.  The further away you step from the industry
standards, the more collateral problems you're going to face.  I think the
OP knows this on a deeply personal level.

> > A machine failure is a crisis...
>
> Due to the critical nature of central alarm monitoring, everything in the
office
> had a backup.  We set it up so that I could throw a few switched, swap a
few
> cables and be up and running after a total meltdown in less than 10
minutes.
> Our central station receiver, printers, terminals and computer system were
all
> redundant.  We even had two 4KW UPS units and two gensets though the
backup
> genset was smaller and simpler than the primary unit.

No argument there.  I would expect, though, that Rod wants a solution that
he can hook up in ten seconds or less.  :-)  Once you require a special card
in a PC you've gone from the 10 second swap to the 10 minute one.  And if
the swap card blows, it could be 10 days.  And if the manufacturer is out of
business it might take 10 weeks to find another card or implement a
replacement solution.

> > Rod obviously wants something he can maintain easily.
> > Anything that requires a special board in a PC means
> > "maintenance issues" and I've supported enough of
> > them to know.  USB-based means he can plug it into a
> > laptop, a Mac, a PDA and lots of other things and *hopefully*
> > run his sensor net without having to crack open a machine
> > or buy cards or adapters.  I can see why he's so hard over
> > on demanding that as a requirement.  It's incredibly
> > important for CPU device "independence."
>
> That makes a lot of sense.

And it's something he's confirmed repeatedly.  For example, I used to use
the RAID HW that came with most new motherboards until one profound failure
taught me that it's far better to have a RAID PCI card that you can take
with your drive array to a new PC and restore it from there.  Why?  Because
motherboard based RAID often requires an exactly identical motherboard to
read the array correctly.  A blown RAID chip on a three-year old server can
quickly become a panic hunt for an identical motherboard on Ebay.  A $20
RAID card means I can take the array to any other machine to restore it.  It
also means I can afford to buy a spare (the MB's cost $150+ so it's not
practical to keep entire motherboards in reserve).

> >> The entire system was extremely simple to set up and use.
> >> The hardware ran 24/7 for many years without a hitch.
> >
> > Know why?  You probably never tinkered with it once it was
> > set up and running.  Those sorts of systems work fine once
> > you've put in the time to set them up.  But if they fail, you
> > either need an identical spare or lots of qualified spare parts
> > to really assure 24/7 performance.  I think that's one thing
> > the OP, Mr. Speed, has in mind.
>
> In my business identical spares are pretty much the industry standard.
Not only
> that but they have to be capable of being turned on immediately -- no time
to
> swap cards inside the PC, etc.  A lot can happen in a few minutes when
you're
> down.  Larger, better financed central stations take this a step farther.
Their
> backup systems are kept running 24/7.  In the event of a breakdown the
system
> has to give an alarm and "fail over" to the backup without skipping a
beat.

Again, we're drifting from the OP's topic because it's just so easy to do.
:-)  But the point is made that less complicated means easier to repair or
replace.  I got the very strong feeling Rod wanted less complicated.

> >> We sold the business and the computer system
> >> with it six years ago.  To the best of my knowledge it's still
> >> running today.
> >
> > Compaq, at its zenith, was selling wonderfully overbuilt machines
> > with connectors rated for 10X what was then "industry standard
> > practice."  I marvel at the sturdiness of some of the old PC "iron."
> > It doesn't, however, have a whole lot to do with the OP's USB
> > requirement.
>
> Agreed.  I can see the validity of what you're saying.

Now convince my wife!  She doesn't understand my love for my old Compaq
SLT286 that's about 20 years old and still runs my Ratshack PC multimeter
software just fine.

> >> I wish I could say the same for some of my other PC
> >> equipment.
> >
> > Still, performance doubles every few years so longevity isn't
> > as big a factor as it would be in a car.  I would love to see
> > my gas mileage improve the way PC clock speeds and
> > peripheral throughput has.  I would buy a new car as often
> > as I bought a new PC if it did...
>
> Oh, you don't?  Hmm.  :^)

If I bought new cars at the rate I build PC's I'd need a used car lot.

> > IMHO, longevity is not a big requirement of the OP.  I
> > would say his USB requirement is actually a way of
> > factoring in getting a new PC and being able to use it
> > to control the net right out of the box, without adding
> > a serial IO card.
> >
> >>> Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
> >>> either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.
> >>
> >> Anything is easy if you know how.  I don't write code . . .
> >
> > You should have stopped right there.  I know how to rebuild a VW engine.
> > That doesn't make it easy in the slightest.  If you don't write code,
it's
> > really a stretch criticize his code-writing ability...
>
> I didn't mean to criticize him at all.  In fact, I specifically said that
was
> not the point.  I was only trying to say that "easy" and "hard" are
relative.

I know what you were trying to say.  I just wanted to point out that
criticizing someone, no matter how gently, for not being able to do
something you can't do yourself is never going to come off sincerely, I'm
afraid.  That's at least my NSHO.

> > The OP is really the only one capable of commenting on the mix of
factors
> > that dictate his choice of SW.  He's reiterating how important
"standard" is
> > to him in his design specs.  Still, you're not listening!!!
>
> I'm listening.  You've explained this point clearly and as I said above it
makes
> sense.

I'm perserverating ah, um _perseverating_ (damn if that word doesn't want to
come out of my fingers wrong every time I try typing it!) again.

> >> but folks I work with develop software for industrial PC's
> >> and they don't seem to have much of a problem.  I'm not
> >> trying to belittle your skills, friend.
> >
> > Perhaps you aren't, but I'm betting he'll take umbrage.
>
> One sage poster includes in his sig line the statement, "Umbrage is free.
Take
> all you want".  Usenet has something in common with driving a car.
Participants
> often feel anonymous.  That lends ease to expressing anger at lesser
slights
> than "normal" folks do in other social situations.  We've seen that in the
> visits of certain folks from another newsgroup.

Agreed.  That's why I try, whenever possible, to try to lock it down before
it becomes an overwhelming issue.

> > He's explained his requirements to the point of perseveration.
> > (-:  Disparaging his programming skills, however "gently"
> > isn't likely to get a positive response.  I'll bet it contains the
> > "F" word at least.
>
> There was no disparagement.  For me it's probably easier to maintain a
wiring
> system than for you (even assuming your skills in that area are above
average)
> because that's what I did for a living for so many years.  That does not
mean
> that your skills are inferior.  It only means that what is easy varies
from
> person to person.  What I really hate doing is integrating and maintaining
PC
> hardware.  :^)

See?  I hate pulling cable and love solving PC HW problems.  Different
strokes.  I just wanted to point out that RS was probably equally determined
to stick to his SW choice as he was his USB choice.

> >> But I think you're unnecessarily constricting your project
> >> by ignoring other possible solutions.
> >
> > And he should care what you think about his project
> > exactly why?  (-:
>
> He doesn't have to give a rat's derriere about my opinion.  Nor do you.  I
> shared an idea as have you.  After reading your comments I can see why
he's
> adamant about USB.  No problem.  This isn't a race to see who gains the
most
> points.  It's an open discussion forum where people with varying
backgrounds,
> skills and opinions can share what they know/think/whatever.  IMO (which
doesn't
> have to matter to you either), this is a good thing.

I was just being sarcastic.  Most people respond to posts for some personal
reason.  Whether it's to share knowledge, bust chops or get "attaboys"
there's always a personal element to a response.

> > I don't want to sound mean, but I see so many newsgroups
> > where the responses just get farther and farther away from
> > the specs that I feel I have entered the twilight zone. I hear
> > that "doo doo, doo doo" music right now.  He wants a USB
> > solution that he can program in VBA in a non-exotic sort of
> > way.  Pretty simple.  It may not be realistic, given some other
> > constraints on the project, but that's what I expect he came
> > here to find out.  There have been a number of posts that I
> > think have been very helpful, but in the end, he's the one
> > who gets to decide if they were.
>
> Well, yes.  But threads have a way of morphing, not so much because of Rod
> Serling's influence but because that is how conversation works.
Unless there's
> a strict moderator tapping his podium with a ruler, most conversations
tend to
> wander all over the place.

That's true and it can be both good and bad (is there an echo in here?).

The good part is that you get lots of brainstorming and get to look at ideas
you may not have considered.  The bad part is that the thread can wander so
far away from the original post that the replies are basically worthless.
The pile-on effect from discussion of frying red chickens may have some
value, but in the long run, it's probably a good idea to answer the original
questions somewhere during the meander.  Say, how did we get here from
"1-wire to USB converter that can use 1820s directly?"  :-)

> As long as the subject matter is related to HA, I
> don't see that as a bad thing.

It's not bad as long as it doesn't become contentious and people start
talking past each other and everyone starts slipping on all the umbrage
that's spilled everywhere.

<stuff snipped>

> Same here.  The design of the cable is intended to enhance tensile
strength and
> flexibility with little or no thought given to compression, extension
> (soldering, punch down, whatever).  They also are not expected to live
very
> long.  Many of them et replaced long before the phones to which they are
> connected die.
>
> > Maybe Ozian RJ11 cables are different or he's got a batch
> > of cables he knows he can work with.  I suspect by the time
> > he gets this far down, you've already lost much of your ability
> > to persuade him.  :-)
>
> I made it clear enough that my comments were not intended as a slight.  If
he's
> so sensitive that he can't accept that, he loses.  I'm not trying to gain
> anything.  He is.  I prefer not to assume the gentleman is as easily
offended as
> you say.  If I'm wrong, that's unfortunate but for his sake it would be
good for
> him to take my (and your) advice about running wire.

I just wanted to make the point that we're talking to someone from another
country, so our assumptions about Aussie "telco cords" could be way off base
(as it seems).  Pushing the issue can really be read as calling the OP
stupid.  I know it's not your intent, but we know what they've paved the
road to Hell with.  It's a balancing act, I agree.  I should have said:
"Gee, Rod, here in the Americas the telco cable with RJ11 is unsolderable.
No amount of tinning or unwrapping the copper from the other fibers gives a
good solder joint.  What's different about your telco cord?"

> >> That's an area where I have extensive knowledge and hands-on
> >> experience.

American experience, anyway.

> >>You really don't want to try to use that kind of cable for
> >> permanent wiring of any sort.  More importantly, you don't want to
> >> run it through walls (code violation).  It's a royal PITO to splice,
does
> >> not take well to being stapled in place and is not robust enough for
> >> anything other than it's intended purpose -- as a flexible cord to plug
> >> telephones into nearby wall jacks.
> >>
> >> If that is not your intention, ignore the above paragraph.  :^)
> >
> > If he's got a solution to what I have found were to be the most
> > unsolderable wires on earth, I'd like to learn it.
>
> I rarely curse but when once I broke out one of those cables and tried to
solder
> it to a broken, cheap-o telephone I made an exception.  :^)

Apparently, it's not an issue for the cables he intends to use.  To me, it's
just another part of the learning experience of Usenet.  The telco cords
I've worked with were remarkably unsolderable.  They also would break the
seal on the freezer door, so ours must be different from his.  The
difference could easily be the lack of insulating fibers that probably make
our cords thicker and sturdier but harder to solder.

--
Bobby G.