| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 317
|
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:41 am |
 |
|
| PrinceNai wrote: | | Quote: | | After setting princenai preamble bits ignore to 0, can I read data like this in the code you last sent ? |
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. What does a logic analyzer setting have to do with a reception and decoding on a PIC? |
Tell me, it has something to do with it. In the picture, where I drew red, when I set the preamb bits ignore setting to 0, I see different data. When I set it to 1, I see different data. In the last code you published, I can see the data when this setting is 1. |
|
 |
PrinceNai
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 554
Location: Montenegro
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 9:55 am |
|
|
| Yes, that was the whole point. To ignore the first symbol after the long preamble because I think it is not part of the data, but only a start bit. |
|
|
PrinceNai
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 554
Location: Montenegro
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:03 am |
|
|
| Logic analyzer settings confirm this. It doesn't ask you how many symbols you will ignore at the end of a stream, it asks how many you'll ignore at the start. By ignore I mean not count as data. |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 317
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:15 am |
|
|
| PrinceNai wrote: | | Logic analyzer settings confirm this. It doesn't ask you how many symbols you will ignore at the end of a stream, it asks how many you'll ignore at the start. By ignore I mean not count as data. |
If the data solved without ignoring is incorrect, then the data solved by setting it to 1 is correct. |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 317
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:18 am |
|
|
| PrinceNai wrote: | | Yes, that was the whole point. To ignore the first symbol after the long preamble because I think it is not part of the data, but only a start bit. |
How do you understand what you're saying? Ignore or not count the first bit. |
|
|
PrinceNai
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 554
Location: Montenegro
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 10:52 am |
|
|
| Quote: | | By ignore I mean not count as data. |
I wrote that maybe two posts ago. |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 317
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 11:17 am |
|
|
| PrinceNai wrote: | | Quote: | | By ignore I mean not count as data. |
I wrote that maybe two posts ago. |
I'm asking how you understood that bit to be ignored? Based on what did you ignore it ? |
|
|
PrinceNai
Joined: 31 Oct 2016
Posts: 554
Location: Montenegro
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 1:18 pm |
|
|
| I had to count. In tenth message of this thread I told you you have 65 symbols. That doesn't divide by 8 too good. A few messages after that I told you that your analyzer very likely, but in my humble opinion definitely, decodes the data incorrectly. Then I suggested to take the first symbol as a start bit. Analyzer supports that, which makes me believe that it is a widely used way of outputting Manchester coded stream. That is all. Then I wrote something that decodes your data according to that. If you have reason to believe this is not the correct way, by all means do it differently, write something that will give you the result you are comfortable with. When you do it, please share, because I invested some time in this and would really like to know how to do it right next time. The input from your side was as it was. I'd like to see it as it is on the picture. A few questions. How do you know data comes out LSB first? How do you know it is encoded Thomas style? Change any of those two and results will be completely different. |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 317
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 1:35 pm |
|
|
| PrinceNai wrote: | | I had to count. In tenth message of this thread I told you you have 65 symbols. That doesn't divide by 8 too good. A few messages after that I told you that your analyzer very likely, but in my humble opinion definitely, decodes the data incorrectly. Then I suggested to take the first symbol as a start bit. Analyzer supports that, which makes me believe that it is a widely used way of outputting Manchester coded stream. That is all. Then I wrote something that decodes your data according to that. If you have reason to believe this is not the correct way, by all means do it differently, write something that will give you the result you are comfortable with. When you do it, please share, because I invested some time in this and would really like to know how to do it right next time. The input from your side was as it was. I'd like to see it as it is on the picture. A few questions. How do you know data comes out LSB first? How do you know it is encoded Thomas style? Change any of those two and results will be completely different. |
okey. I'm just asking out of curiosity, I have no prejudices about this. |
|
|
temtronic
Joined: 01 Jul 2010
Posts: 9568
Location: Greensville,Ontario
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 3:21 pm |
|
|
yes, 8 doesn't go into 65 very nicely !
I don't assume 8 bits make a byte.
reminds me of one system I worked on.... 22 bits of serial data.
stare at it long enough and it's 'obvious'....
TWO start bits, 4 'adrs',8 'data', 8 'control' |
|
|
bulut_01
Joined: 24 Feb 2024
Posts: 317
|
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2025 3:43 pm |
|
|
| temtronic wrote: | yes, 8 doesn't go into 65 very nicely !
I don't assume 8 bits make a byte.
reminds me of one system I worked on.... 22 bits of serial data.
stare at it long enough and it's 'obvious'....
TWO start bits, 4 'adrs',8 'data', 8 'control' |
I have a surprise for you Temtronic, be careful about the encryption algorithm of the remote I'm working on..  |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in
