| Wireless network | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| assign address to each slave?(with "jumpers") | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Still you wont know which is which? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| pay with time | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| not easy | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| or pay with money | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| or pay with money - not a solution | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Inherently not simple! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| you cant poll for N number of slaves | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| automatic | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| N? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| N? - any | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Ho about this ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| how do you propose to do that? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| have a look at the picture on the website | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Obviously missing something here... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| dipswitch my butt | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| it\'s pretty obvious, isn\'t it? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| first - then | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Once again you're assuming facts not in evidence | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| The sample is much larger now | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| example | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Yes, it is | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I like that ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I Don't get it either. | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| It's reall not that complicated ... but ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Still not with you | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Slaves to broadcast their presence HOW? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Not that difficult | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Thats fine but what if we have | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Then you really do need a database! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| you WILL get in big doo-doo | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| this is absolutely true! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| You\'ll need lots of switches and lots of ports | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| totally off the rocker | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| How long, at 8kbps | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Who on Earth wants to do that | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| One has to set limits | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| It does not have to be manual | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| It has its "baggage" | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| no "significant burden" who cares about 'simpler' | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Maybe we need to bring the O/P back to reality | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I can't tell | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I may be slow today.... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| ARP possiblities | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Overhead - but possibly not too serious? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| You may be onto something ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| you don't get it | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| How long would it take? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| quicker than what? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Obviously there's a trick involved | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| or ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| no patent ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| With that scheme you have to skip some | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| easy | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| No ... it means there's nobody at that one address | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Not an address, an address mask | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| not likely on low-cost RF | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| of course, but nobody woud dream of sending RF w/o | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Miracle ? , I differ | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| confound it reat the stuff | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| no patent ... And after slaves colliding | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| after each 'find' it get faster | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| the cheap RF links are typically | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Erik, please clarify one point | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| If one could devise a suitable RF protocol... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| the key is to know more than is known here | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| confound it can't you read | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| You're assuming facts not in evidence. | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| if a response comes, your code is faulty | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| So ... how does that differ from not transmitting? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Richard, Richard | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Yes, but what SHOULD happen? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| with a mask of zero any unassigned sign sho | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| What is it you are recommending, Erik? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Nothing I feel | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Reading Erik's mind | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Address+Mask - an RF twist | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| let me clarify | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Russ, I admire your "psychic abilities' | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| A refinement | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| yes | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Starting over | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Russ, you may very well be right | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Erik, that is not what was asked for! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| whic i would have done ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Perhaps you\'re not aware ... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
1) abd 2) | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| NOT "mask address" but "mask AND address" | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| some things you can do on the one-wire channel | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Very tricky indeed | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I do not ASS U ME diddlysquat | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| It is absolutly required for my scheme | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| That is a non-starter with low-cost RF. | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| sorry | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| OK, here's an idea | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| collisions avoidance ? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Surely the master needs to know its slaves?! | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| identifying slaves | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| I can not help with collisions but.. | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| multimaster via RF | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| collision recovery | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Not a few seconds | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Listen Before Xmit | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| not that urban legend again | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Accepted terminology | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Collisions will still happen | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Yes, but how will the system respond? | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Listen Before Xmit ...... | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| if slaves can "speak without being spoken to" | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| Perhaps you should read this article | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| A Better Way | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| There are some internal issues too | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| frequency hopping | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
| frequency hopping , I have DSSS | | 01/01/70 00:00 |
