Re: Cause of some major X10 problems found

["Jeff Volp" <JeffVolp@xxxxxxx>]

"Dave Houston" <nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46e8e985.1688235031@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> You're distorting things and making claims that are not supported by fact.
>
> 1. Jeff has not "seen such created codes already when not really looking
> for
> them". He has seen _one_ instance where the noise resulted in a
> 1010101010101... sequence and has postulated that if a receiver saw a
> transition from 111111111111... to 1010101010... it would act on it. Such
> a
> code would represent "M-13" and would turn nothing on.

Since I only saw it visually on the logic analyzer, I cannot be certain
there wasn't a "1-1" imbedded somewhere in the string.  That would cause it
to be decoded differently.

I do have a Wavetek that can do AM, and will see if I can get something
repeatable.  But, I'll have to go back to an early version of the AGC to
allow that signal to make it to the decoder.

> 2. I did not "point out, those are constructed on the binary level to be
> the
> most likely created by noise bits." I said that the _single_ occurence
> reported by Jeff could only be "M-13" or "J-Status Request". After further
> review, it can only be "M-13". What's most likely to result from a
> constant
> noise source is 111111111111111111111111111111.... Whether a Monterey will
> report that as BSC I don't know as I never wasted $300+ on one but I
> suspect
> it will.

If you watch the beating CFL's you would see how it would be possible for
different sequences of 1's and 0's to be created randomly. Before I changed
the AGC to increase the threshold when receiving unmatched complimentary
pairs, there was a constant stream of random ones when the beating would
peak over the threshold.  Once and a while that could hit a valid X10 code.
I captured one on the logic analyzer.  I'll bet that if I go back to the
earlier AGC, I could capture more.

Jeff