Re: X10 Code Translator

[ddl@danlan.*com (Dan Lanciani)]

In article <QrmdnREh5-H8Dl7ZnZ2dnUVZ_vWdnZ2d@xxxxxxx>, ROBERT_GREEN1963@xxxxxxxxx (Robert Green) writes:

| I'm assuming from your first paragraph you mean you after you send the
| ON/OFF function, the unit reverts to the base housecode.  Or by "escaped
| function" do you mean until you send another code your interpreter sees as
| the escape code the unit stays shifted?  Does that mean you can't send
| stacked escape commands?

The sole purpose of my escape code is to change the current house code,
so there is no reason to stay in escaped mode.  Once you change the house
code it remains changed until you change it again or the power fails (at
which point it returns to the default from eeprom).  Remember, the whole
goal was to get multi-house code operation in IR mode where the IR code
does not include house code information.

| When using the X-10 remote, I'd love to be able to stack commands for
| individual units, just like the Maxicontrollers do.  Do you think that would
| be possible with the 8-in-1 remote and controller like the CM15A and Smart
| macros?

Not for RF mode using the normal X10 protocol, for the reason you note
below.

| If my admittedly faulty recall is correct, you're the guy that burst my
| bubble about doing that easily with an Ocelot by pointing out that the RF
| remote doesn't send a unit code UNTIL after you press a function button.

It sends a combined unit/function code because that's how X10's RF protocol
is defined.  You'd have to use something else (more like the IR version) to
get the effect you want.

| I've always wondered how the remote parses the unit code since there can be
| either one or two button presses before a function is pressed.  Does it just
| store the last two unit key presses in a buffer and evaluate them when a
| function key is pressed?

Or perhaps it just accumulates a value with the usual multiply by 10/add
method.

| > In my unix mapping implementation I look for three All Units Off in a
| short
| > time (or the equivalent held key) on my main house code and tack on All
| Units
| > Off for the other house codes.  I also expand a single All Lights On in
| > a similar way.
|
| I'm not sure I understand that despite having read it numerous times.  What
| happens after you send three AUF's?

My mapping program sends All Units Off to a couple of other house codes.

| Is that how you enter the escape mode?

Sorry, no, I changed topic to a completely different mapping function that
takes place on a unix box.  It has nothing to do with the RR501.

| Or are we discussing how you've implemented AUF's for different housecodes?
| I'll go check out your site to get some more background.

I don't think the mapping program in on my web site.  It's pretty simple.
It listens to power line messages from x10d and runs macros based on
value, count, and current select mask.  It's been so long since I
configured it that I don't quite remember its full capabilities. :)

| I've been reading through the embedded program comments at your site and
| have a question:  Are "sychronized collisions" and "tailgating" the same
| thing?

No, tailgating is when one transmitter sends so soon after the completion
of another transmission that a receiver might take the (presumably) different
transmission as a repeat of the first because of the small gap.  X10 talks
about three cycles of gap but actual requirements vary with, IIRC, ACT's
being the smallest.  The CM11a doesn't like gaps less than 3 cycles after
its own transmissions either, which is why it behaves oddly when querying
a PR511 for status.  (The PR511 leaves only 5 zero crossings between the
end of the query and the beginning of its response.)

| I ask because since using the XTB with the Decora AHT, I don't experience
| the same collision problems I did with multiple TM751's deployed throughout
| the house (even though the are still deployed).  My sense is that the XTB
| equipped transmitter always prevails in a collision, which was not always
| the case with equally powered devices.

It isn't obvious how a transmitter can prevail in a collision based on
its strength alone unless the receiver has some sort of AGC or automatic
threshold determination.  But the effects of collisions can be pretty
hard to analyze with destructive and constructive interference possible
depending on the relative phase of the carriers at various points, so I
wouldn't be quick to rule anything out...

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@danlan.*com