combinatorix

D

dave hillstrom

Guest
combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and relax
from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
wrote:

>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and relax
>from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.

~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
> wrote:
>
>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>> hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and relax
>> from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>
> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!

Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

Given a manifold M with a submanifold N, N can be knotted in M
if there exists an embedding of N in M which is not isotopic to N.
Traditional knots form the case where N = S1 and M = S3.

< Deep wisdom from on high (Wikipedia)
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>> hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and relax
>>> from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>
>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>
>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.

ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
as elegant as i want.

say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up
to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master
to discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network
physical layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.

got any ideas?

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
dave hillstrom wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and relax
>>>>from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>
>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>
>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>
> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
> a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
> as elegant as i want.
>
> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up
> to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master
> to discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network
> physical layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>
> got any ideas?

Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
that will be much faster than you imagined possible.

--
nuts
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:

> dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>> hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>> relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>
>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>
>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>
>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>> a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>> as elegant as i want.
>>
>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>> 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>> discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>> layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>
>> got any ideas?
>
> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
> that will be much faster than you imagined possible.

Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You are either insane or a fool."
"I am a sanitary inspector."

< _Maske: Thaery_
 
mimus wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>
>>>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>
>>>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>
>>>ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>>a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>>as elegant as i want.
>>>
>>>say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>>31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>>discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>>layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>
>>>got any ideas?
>>
>>Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>>that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>
> Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>
A half-duplex party line can be a PITA when things get busy. Prolly
the simplest protocol is <ID>[<ECHO>]<STATE><CR> from the slave, where
state is '0' at startup and '1' if no error from last command (READY).
The slave echos every command from the master <ID><ECHO><STATE><CR> and
announces completion of an action by <ID><1><CR> or disaster by
<ID><ERROR CODE><CR> - sorta like a function in C. If the master wants
to know more it has to ask <ID><like dude, tell me where you stopped
at><CR>. The slave won't do nothin' but send back a 'state 0' unless
the master responds with an initialization string after startup (which
may be nothing more than 'do whut yuo know how to do' - or it could be
a long list of stuff to set up a complex process).

The 8051 has a bit 9 interrupt and 115k baud uart which makes it a
fairly speedy responder in a 485 encironment - like if you need to
broadcast a crash stop.

Much of the newer test equipment and science instruments on the market
have built-in webservers which talk TCP/IP over 100/1000 base T. Data
can be ftp'd out and programs/commands can be ftp'd in. And a telnet
ternimal can be used to drive if you want to geek it.

--
nuts
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 20:42:50 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>> hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>> relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive
>>>> got a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its
>>>> not as elegant as i want.
>>>>
>>>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up
>>>> to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the
>>>> master to discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the
>>>> network physical layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>
>>>> got any ideas?
>>>
>>> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10
>>> suggestions that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>
>> Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>
> A half-duplex party line can be a PITA when things get busy. Prolly the
> simplest protocol is <ID>[<ECHO>]<STATE><CR> from the slave, where state
> is '0' at startup and '1' if no error from last command (READY). The
> slave echos every command from the master <ID><ECHO><STATE><CR> and
> announces completion of an action by <ID><1><CR> or disaster by
> <ID><ERROR CODE><CR> - sorta like a function in C. If the master wants
> to know more it has to ask <ID><like dude, tell me where you stopped
> at><CR>. The slave won't do nothin' but send back a 'state 0' unless the
> master responds with an initialization string after startup (which may
> be nothing more than 'do whut yuo know how to do' - or it could be a
> long list of stuff to set up a complex process).
>
> The 8051 has a bit 9 interrupt and 115k baud uart which makes it a
> fairly speedy responder in a 485 encironment - like if you need to
> broadcast a crash stop.
>
> Much of the newer test equipment and science instruments on the market
> have built-in webservers which talk TCP/IP over 100/1000 base T. Data
> can be ftp'd out and programs/commands can be ftp'd in. And a telnet
> ternimal can be used to drive if you want to geek it.

Great, now ha><0r5 can blow up yer flippin' _multimeter_, too.

Add unnecessary equipment networkability to unnecessary and unencyphered
confidential-information databases on networked systems to the
death-penalty list.

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

"You are either insane or a fool."
"I am a sanitary inspector."

< _Maske: Thaery_
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts
<melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:

>dave hillstrom wrote:
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and relax
>>>>>from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>
>>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>
>>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>
>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>> a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>> as elegant as i want.
>>
>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up
>> to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master
>> to discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network
>> physical layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>
>> got any ideas?
>
>Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>that will be much faster than you imagined possible.

i ~AM~ the design review committee.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>
>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>> hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>> relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>
>>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>
>>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>
>>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>> a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>> as elegant as i want.
>>>
>>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>> 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>> discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>> layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>
>>> got any ideas?
>>
>> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>> that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>
>Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.

according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time delay
derived grom their address.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>
>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>> hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>> relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>>> a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>>> as elegant as i want.
>>>>
>>>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>>> 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>>> discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>>> layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>
>>>> got any ideas?
>>>
>>> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>>> that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>
>> Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>
> according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
> startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
> space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time delay
> derived grom their address.

What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses until
it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch against input,
one presumes.

Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a
new entity has come into being--the system itself.
No matter what the "goal" of the system, it
immediately begins to exhibit system behavior; that
is, to act according to the general laws that govern
the operation of all systems. Now the system itself
has to be dealt with.

< _Systemantics_
 
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>
>>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>>> hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>>> relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>
>>>>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>>>> a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>>>> as elegant as i want.
>>>>>
>>>>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>>>> 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>>>> discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>>>> layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>
>>>>> got any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>>>> that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>
>>> Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>
>> according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>> startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>> space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time delay
>> derived grom their address.
>
>What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses until
>it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch against input,
>one presumes.
>
>Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?

no rings. strictly chaos.

pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
will do the same.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
dave hillstrom wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>>>>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>>>>relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>>>>>a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>>>>>as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>>>programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>>>addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>>>>>31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>>>>>discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>>>>>layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>got any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>>Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>>>>>that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>
>>>>Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>
>>>according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>>>startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>>>space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time delay
>>>derived grom their address.
>>
>>What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses until
>>it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch against input,
>>one presumes.
>>
>>Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>>ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>
> no rings. strictly chaos.
>
> pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
> will do the same.
>
Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing luck
you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the total
number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves actually
connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve collisions and
it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1. Assuming 5 k bytes/sec
and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k address space, you'll be mapped
in less time than it'll take to boot windows - with or without tomateos.

--
nuts



--
nuts
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:20:03 -0400, mixed nuts
<melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:

>dave hillstrom wrote:
>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>>>>>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>>>>>relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>>>>>>a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>>>>>>as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>>>>programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>>>>addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>>>>>>31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>>>>>>discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>>>>>>layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>got any ideas?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>>>>>>that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>>
>>>>>Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>>
>>>>according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>>>>startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>>>>space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time delay
>>>>derived grom their address.
>>>
>>>What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses until
>>>it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch against input,
>>>one presumes.
>>>
>>>Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>>>ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>>
>> no rings. strictly chaos.
>>
>> pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
>> will do the same.
>>
>Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
>prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing luck
>you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the total
>number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves actually
>connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve collisions and
>it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1. Assuming 5 k bytes/sec
>and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k address space, you'll be mapped
>in less time than it'll take to boot windows - with or without tomateos.

too bad its a 32 bit address space. though that might not change the
time too too much....

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:28:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:

> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:20:03 -0400, mixed nuts
> <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:
>
>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus
>>>>>>>> <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom
>>>>>>>>>> <DaVe@MeOw.OrG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last
>>>>>>>>>>> few hours on a topological problem that i really want to
>>>>>>>>>>> forget and relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well.
>>>>>>>> ive got a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves),
>>>>>>>> but its not as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>>>>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>>>>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect
>>>>>>>> up to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for
>>>>>>>> the master to discover whos on its network? keep in mind that
>>>>>>>> the network physical layer is half-duplex rs485 running at
>>>>>>>> 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> got any ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10
>>>>>>> suggestions that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>>>
>>>>> according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>>>>> startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>>>>> space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time
>>>>> delay derived grom their address.
>>>>
>>>> What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses
>>>> until it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch
>>>> against input, one presumes.
>>>>
>>>> Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>>>> ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>>>
>>> no rings. strictly chaos.
>>>
>>> pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
>>> will do the same.
>>>
>> Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
>> prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing luck
>> you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the total
>> number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves actually
>> connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve collisions and
>> it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1. Assuming 5 k bytes/sec
>> and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k address space, you'll be mapped
>> in less time than it'll take to boot windows - with or without
>> tomateos.
>
> too bad its a 32 bit address space. though that might not change the
> time too too much....

Don't you _know_ the damned things' addresses when you hook 'em up,
allowing for some nice EPROM-array or even text-file-based polling on
power-up?

Kludgy, but not as kludgy as stepping through four million possible
addresses-- on a serial line, at that <shudder>-- or wotever . . . .

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

C: The First and Still the Best Portable AL!

< Me

C: A fast straight-razor dance on a newly-waxed floor.

< Waldi Ravens
 
dave hillstrom wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:20:03 -0400, mixed nuts
> <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:
>
>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>>>>>>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>>>>>>relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>>>>>>>a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>>>>>>>as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>>>>>programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>>>>>addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>>>>>>>31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>>>>>>>discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>>>>>>>layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>got any ideas?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>>>>>>>that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>>>
>>>>>according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>>>>>startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>>>>>space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time delay
>>>>>derived grom their address.
>>>>
>>>>What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses until
>>>>it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch against input,
>>>>one presumes.
>>>>
>>>>Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>>>>ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>>>
>>>no rings. strictly chaos.
>>>
>>>pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
>>>will do the same.
>>>
>>Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
>>prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing luck
>>you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the total
>>number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves actually
>>connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve collisions and
>>it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1. Assuming 5 k bytes/sec
>>and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k address space, you'll be mapped
>>in less time than it'll take to boot windows - with or without tomateos.
>
> too bad its a 32 bit address space. though that might not change the
> time too too much....
>
That's like mapping out the whole internet without the IANA. 64k is a
smaller problem - which could be solved in a matter of 30 seconds if
you pay attention to UART (bus) busy and have some form of collision
detection (like a checksum) and resolution (like everyone but the
guy(s) who threw the error shuts up for a 1 packet delay plus some
random n-packet interval if an error packet goes by). Note that in any
given 1 second interval, the chance that 2 clients drop a start bit at
the same time (within program resolution) is really small - 1/(baud
clock) as the upper limit of likelyhood but in reality much less
because the baud clocks aren't in phase and the processors aren't
synchronous.

You can have a 32 bit ID - but you'll never need the whole address
unless there's an alias the lower 16 bits. In any case you only need 5
bits for actual runtime addressing.

--
nuts
 
mimus wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:28:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:20:03 -0400, mixed nuts
>><melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:
>>
>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus
>>>>>>>>><tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom
>>>>>>>>>>><DaVe@MeOw.OrG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last
>>>>>>>>>>>>few hours on a topological problem that i really want to
>>>>>>>>>>>>forget and relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well.
>>>>>>>>>ive got a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves),
>>>>>>>>>but its not as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>>>>>>programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>>>>>>addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect
>>>>>>>>>up to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for
>>>>>>>>>the master to discover whos on its network? keep in mind that
>>>>>>>>>the network physical layer is half-duplex rs485 running at
>>>>>>>>>57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>got any ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10
>>>>>>>>suggestions that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>>>>>>startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>>>>>>space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time
>>>>>>delay derived grom their address.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses
>>>>>until it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch
>>>>>against input, one presumes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>>>>>ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>>>>
>>>>no rings. strictly chaos.
>>>>
>>>>pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
>>>>will do the same.
>>>>
>>>Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
>>>prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing luck
>>>you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the total
>>>number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves actually
>>>connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve collisions and
>>>it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1. Assuming 5 k bytes/sec
>>>and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k address space, you'll be mapped
>>>in less time than it'll take to boot windows - with or without
>>>tomateos.
>>
>>too bad its a 32 bit address space. though that might not change the
>>time too too much....
>
> Don't you _know_ the damned things' addresses when you hook 'em up,
> allowing for some nice EPROM-array or even text-file-based polling on
> power-up?
>
> Kludgy, but not as kludgy as stepping through four million possible
> addresses-- on a serial line, at that <shudder>-- or wotever . . . .
>
Yuo mis-peeled billion. Or has Ohio joined the British Commonwealth?
hmmmmm?

--
nuts
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:30:47 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:

> mimus wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:28:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:20:03 -0400, mixed nuts
>>> <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:
>>>
>>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus
>>>>>>>>>> <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom
>>>>>>>>>>>> <DaVe@MeOw.OrG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> last few hours on a topological problem that i really want
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to forget and relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> feh.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well.
>>>>>>>>>> ive got a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce
>>>>>>>>>> themselves), but its not as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte
>>>>>>>>>> address, programmed in at production time (much like network
>>>>>>>>>> cards MAC addresses). say you can define one as master and you
>>>>>>>>>> can connect up to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on
>>>>>>>>>> powerup for the master to discover whos on its network? keep
>>>>>>>>>> in mind that the network physical layer is half-duplex rs485
>>>>>>>>>> running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> got any ideas?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10
>>>>>>>>> suggestions that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in
>>>>>>> at startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that
>>>>>>> address space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a
>>>>>>> linear time delay derived grom their address.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses
>>>>>> until it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch
>>>>>> against input, one presumes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around
>>>>>> ("<MASTER ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>>>>>
>>>>> no rings. strictly chaos.
>>>>>
>>>>> pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as
>>>>> others will do the same.
>>>>
>>>> Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
>>>> prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing
>>>> luck you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the
>>>> total number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves
>>>> actually connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve
>>>> collisions and it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1.
>>>> Assuming 5 k bytes/sec and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k
>>>> address space, you'll be mapped in less time than it'll take to boot
>>>> windows - with or without tomateos.
>>>
>>> too bad its a 32 bit address space. though that might not change the
>>> time too too much....
>>
>> Don't you _know_ the damned things' addresses when you hook 'em up,
>> allowing for some nice EPROM-array or even text-file-based polling on
>> power-up?
>>
>> Kludgy, but not as kludgy as stepping through four million possible
>> addresses-- on a serial line, at that <shudder>-- or wotever . . . .
>
> Yuo mis-peeled billion. Or has Ohio joined the British Commonwealth?
> hmmmmm?

I don't know what I mean.

There's always jumper-set addresses, if you really want to get, like,
paleo-kludgy . . . .

(Reminds me of the paper-clip I used to use to reboot my C64s with.)

--
tinmimus99@hotmail.com

smeeter 11 or maybe 12

mp 10

mhm 29x13

When a system is set up to accomplish some goal, a
new entity has come into being--the system itself.
No matter what the "goal" of the system, it
immediately begins to exhibit system behavior; that
is, to act according to the general laws that govern
the operation of all systems. Now the system itself
has to be dealt with.

< _Systemantics_
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:53:42 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 20:28:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:20:03 -0400, mixed nuts
>> <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:
>>
>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus
>>>>>>>>> <tinmimus99@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom
>>>>>>>>>>> <DaVe@MeOw.OrG> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last
>>>>>>>>>>>> few hours on a topological problem that i really want to
>>>>>>>>>>>> forget and relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well.
>>>>>>>>> ive got a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves),
>>>>>>>>> but its not as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>>>>>> programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>>>>>> addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect
>>>>>>>>> up to 31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for
>>>>>>>>> the master to discover whos on its network? keep in mind that
>>>>>>>>> the network physical layer is half-duplex rs485 running at
>>>>>>>>> 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> got any ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10
>>>>>>>> suggestions that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>>>>>> startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>>>>>> space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time
>>>>>> delay derived grom their address.
>>>>>
>>>>> What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses
>>>>> until it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch
>>>>> against input, one presumes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>>>>> ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>>>>
>>>> no rings. strictly chaos.
>>>>
>>>> pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
>>>> will do the same.
>>>>
>>> Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
>>> prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing luck
>>> you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the total
>>> number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves actually
>>> connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve collisions and
>>> it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1. Assuming 5 k bytes/sec
>>> and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k address space, you'll be mapped
>>> in less time than it'll take to boot windows - with or without
>>> tomateos.
>>
>> too bad its a 32 bit address space. though that might not change the
>> time too too much....
>
>Don't you _know_ the damned things' addresses when you hook 'em up,
>allowing for some nice EPROM-array or even text-file-based polling on
>power-up?
>
>Kludgy, but not as kludgy as stepping through four million possible
>addresses-- on a serial line, at that <shudder>-- or wotever . . . .

this is for idiots. asking them to type in a number is too much.

and its over 4 billion.

you see my problem.

my kludge so far is to have a button to push when they hook it in that
will make it announce itself until the master tells it ok, shut up.

but id still love to have full auto-discovery.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 
On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 23:09:36 -0400, mixed nuts
<melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:

>dave hillstrom wrote:
>> On Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:20:03 -0400, mixed nuts
>> <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> wrote:
>>
>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 18:52:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 11 Aug 2008 08:56:00 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 19:50:49 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:11:31 -0400, mixed nuts wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:26:56 -0400, mimus <tinmimus99@hotmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:55:56 -0400, dave hillstrom wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:39:15 -0400, dave hillstrom <DaVe@MeOw.OrG>
>>>>>>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>combinatorics has been running through my noggin for the last few
>>>>>>>>>>>>hours on a topological problem that i really want to forget and
>>>>>>>>>>>>relax from. but it intrudes. feh, i say. feh.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>~n~ ~matrixed~ combinatorics, at that!!!!1!!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Just try to keep one limb on an orthogonal somewhere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>ok, ok. heres a real network problem im up against, as well. ive got
>>>>>>>>>a solution (pushbutton on slaves to announce themselves), but its not
>>>>>>>>>as elegant as i want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>say you have a bunch of units, each with a unique 4 byte address,
>>>>>>>>>programmed in at production time (much like network cards MAC
>>>>>>>>>addresses). say you can define one as master and you can connect up to
>>>>>>>>>31 slaves to it. what is the fastest way on powerup for the master to
>>>>>>>>>discover whos on its network? keep in mind that the network physical
>>>>>>>>>layer is half-duplex rs485 running at 57.6Kbaud.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>got any ideas?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Wait 'til the design review meeting - you'll get at least 10 suggestions
>>>>>>>>that will be much faster than you imagined possible.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Let the slaves check in to the master when they need to.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>according to what schedule? their ALL going to want to check in at
>>>>>>startup if i use an auto discovery scheme. and with that address
>>>>>>space at 57kbaud it would take forever if they use a linear time delay
>>>>>>derived grom their address.
>>>>>
>>>>>What about letting 'em keep PINGing the master with their addresses until
>>>>>it finally answers each? you can lock the master I/O latch against input,
>>>>>one presumes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Can you hook 'em in a ring and pass a sign-up sheet around ("<MASTER
>>>>>ADDRESS:>XXXX<APPEND YOUR ADDRESS TO THIS LIST:>")?
>>>>
>>>>no rings. strictly chaos.
>>>>
>>>>pinging the master at some fixed interval would do no good, as others
>>>>will do the same.
>>>>
>>>Yore stuck walking down a binary tree then. Or up, depending on yore
>>>prespective and how you decide to order the search. With amazing luck
>>>you could complete the mapping in mn cycles (where m is the total
>>>number of addresses possible and n is the number of slaves actually
>>>connected) but most of the time you'll have to resolve collisions and
>>>it will take longer, but not longer than 2^m-1. Assuming 5 k bytes/sec
>>>and 4 bytes/yesno transaction and a 64k address space, you'll be mapped
>>>in less time than it'll take to boot windows - with or without tomateos.
>>
>> too bad its a 32 bit address space. though that might not change the
>> time too too much....
>>
>That's like mapping out the whole internet without the IANA. 64k is a
>smaller problem - which could be solved in a matter of 30 seconds if
>you pay attention to UART (bus) busy and have some form of collision
>detection (like a checksum) and resolution (like everyone but the
>guy(s) who threw the error shuts up for a 1 packet delay plus some
>random n-packet interval if an error packet goes by). Note that in any
>given 1 second interval, the chance that 2 clients drop a start bit at
>the same time (within program resolution) is really small - 1/(baud
>clock) as the upper limit of likelyhood but in reality much less
>because the baud clocks aren't in phase and the processors aren't
>synchronous.
>
>You can have a 32 bit ID - but you'll never need the whole address
>unless there's an alias the lower 16 bits. In any case you only need 5
>bits for actual runtime addressing.

ill have to re-visit this issue later, unfortunately, as a button
announce seems the simplest way to do it right now. hmph.

--
dave hillstrom mhm15x4 zrbj
"i believe that the word "****head" has become so wide spread and
nearly meaningless as to qualify as a metavariable, similar to "foo"
and "bar". and that it should uphold the responsibilities and enjoy
the privileges of the new office. here here!!"
-dave hillstrom
 

Similar threads

D
penis
2
Replies
28
Views
116
dave hillstrom
D
D
im free balling it, baybee!!
Replies
4
Views
99
mimus
M
D
my apartment is clean!!!!
Replies
15
Views
78
mimus
M
D
PING!
Replies
7
Views
68
mimus
M
D
MGAR
Replies
3
Views
71
mimus
M
Back
Top