I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.

The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
in punch down blocks etc.

What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
that can be used to interface those to the PC.

I also need at least a decent driver that can
be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.

The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.

It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 

Hi 

Would suggest having a look here...
http://www.hobby-boards.com/catalog/main_page.php

HTH
Frank


-- 
Frank Mc Alinden

Frank Mc Alinden <Frank.Mc.Alinden.26emls@no-mx.forums.nospam.com.au> wrote

> Would suggest having a look here...
> http://www.hobby-boards.com/catalog/main_page.php

Yeah, I already had done that before posting. It
wasnt at all clear if their product can do that tho.

And they dont appear to do the software side either.

Did you already take a look to :

http://www.midondesign.com/TEMP08/TEMP08.html

I have no idea of how it works, but seems to be in line with your
expectation.

Hope it helps

Thierry

tparent <tparent@stufly.com> wrote:

> Did you already take a look to :
> http://www.midondesign.com/TEMP08/TEMP08.html

Nope.

> I have no idea of how it works, but seems to be in line with your 
> expectation.

Trouble is that that's serial, I need USB. 

Frank Mc Alinden <Frank.Mc.Alinden.26emls@no-mx.forums.nospam.com.au> wrote

> Would suggest having a look here...
> http://www.hobby-boards.com/catalog/main_page.php

The problem is that
http://www.hobby-boards.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=108
implys that you cant just add a swag of 1820s in parallel to
http://www.hobby-boards.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=1503

In article <4agnheFspmn9U1@individual.net>, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com 
says...
> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
> 
> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
> in punch down blocks etc.
> 
> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
> 
> I also need at least a decent driver that can
> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
> 
> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
> 
> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 
> 

Perhaps it is just that I'm tired, but are you looking for an "I can 
solder" solution or an "I can't solder" solution? (I need more sleep.)

For the first: www.usbmicro.com

No <no@spam.net> wrote:
> In article <4agnheFspmn9U1@individual.net>, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
> says...
>> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>>
>> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>> in punch down blocks etc.
>>
>> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>>
>> I also need at least a decent driver that can
>> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>>
>> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>>
>> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential.

> Perhaps it is just that I'm tired,

Likely.

> but are you looking for an "I can solder" solution or
> an "I can't solder" solution? (I need more sleep.)

I would have thought that was clear
from 'What I want is a fully assembled'

While I can and do solder, I was hoping someone
had designed their USB/1-wire converter/adapter
to provide enough 1-wire power to be able to
handle a decent number of 1820s as supplied.

If I cant find that, it would be no big deal to have
a single extra bit between the converter/adapter
and the 1-wire bus that provides that extra power
and I am happy to solder that up.

> For the first: www.usbmicro.com

Cant see that that is a very viable approach. It makes more
sense to use a standard USB/1-wire converter/adapter
and do something to provide some more 1-wire power. 

In article <4aj23sFt6l5fU2@individual.net>, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com 
says...
> No <no@spam.net> wrote:
> > In article <4agnheFspmn9U1@individual.net>, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com
> > says...
> >> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
> >> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
> >> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
> >> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
> >>
> >> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
> >> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
> >> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
> >> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
> >> in punch down blocks etc.
> >>
> >> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
> >> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
> >>
> >> I also need at least a decent driver that can
> >> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
> >>
> >> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
> >> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
> >>
> >> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
> >> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential.
> 
> > Perhaps it is just that I'm tired,
> 
> Likely.
> 
> > but are you looking for an "I can solder" solution or
> > an "I can't solder" solution? (I need more sleep.)
> 
> I would have thought that was clear
> from 'What I want is a fully assembled'
> 
> While I can and do solder, I was hoping someone
> had designed their USB/1-wire converter/adapter
> to provide enough 1-wire power to be able to
> handle a decent number of 1820s as supplied.
> 
> If I cant find that, it would be no big deal to have
> a single extra bit between the converter/adapter
> and the 1-wire bus that provides that extra power
> and I am happy to solder that up.

Is the "extra power" that you need an increase in voltage, current, or 
both? Or do you mean something else by "extra power", like extra 
connections? Or what?

Are you saying that you need multiple independent 1-wire buses, or 
multiple connections to a single bus?

> 
> > For the first: www.usbmicro.com
> 
> Cant see that that is a very viable approach. It makes more
> sense to use a standard USB/1-wire converter/adapter

Huey <no@spam.net> wrote
> Rod Speed rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com wrote
>> No <no@spam.net> wrote:
>>> Rod Speed rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com wrote

>>>> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>>>> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>>>> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>>>> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.

>>>> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>>>> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>>>> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>>>> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>>>> in punch down blocks etc.

>>>> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>>>> that can be used to interface those to the PC.

>>>> I also need at least a decent driver that can
>>>> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.

>>>> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>>>> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.

>>>> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>>>> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential.

>>> Perhaps it is just that I'm tired,

>> Likely.

>>> but are you looking for an "I can solder" solution or
>>> an "I can't solder" solution? (I need more sleep.)

>> I would have thought that was clear
>> from 'What I want is a fully assembled'

>> While I can and do solder, I was hoping someone
>> had designed their USB/1-wire converter/adapter
>> to provide enough 1-wire power to be able to
>> handle a decent number of 1820s as supplied.

>> If I cant find that, it would be no big deal to have
>> a single extra bit between the converter/adapter
>> and the 1-wire bus that provides that extra power
>> and I am happy to solder that up.

> Is the "extra power" that you need an
> increase in voltage, current, or both?

Its more complicated than that with 1820s.

Pete Anderson appears to do nothing special, using the parasitic
power mode for the 1820s, but he doesnt say that too clearly.

The other possibility is to just have an extra wire in the
4 wire phone leads to the 1820s and provide say 5V
down that if there is a problem with just parasitic power.

> Or do you mean something else by "extra power",
> like extra connections? Or what?

See above.

> Are you saying that you need multiple independent 1-wire buses,

No, I was hoping to avoid that. And it appears from
Pete Anderson's approach that that should be fine.

> or multiple connections to a single bus?

Yes, like I said in my original.

>>> For the first: www.usbmicro.com

>> Cant see that that is a very viable approach. It makes more
>> sense to use a standard USB/1-wire converter/adapter 

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 15:31:02 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in message  <4agnheFspmn9U1@individual.net>:

{snip}

This thread is a good instantiation of the rise to hegemony in usenet of the
lower quartile  ...

To summarize:

1) The four-conductor RJ-11 plugs that the original poster suggests are
conventional and useful for 1-wire installation. However 8-conductor RJ-45
plugs and jacks are ubiquitous so they would seem preferable in many
situations especially considering that dependable whole-house 1-wire
distribution sh/would best consist in multiple channels (see below). A
4-conductor RJ-11 plug fits into a RJ-45 jack, so RJ-45 patch panels,
available for less than $1/jack on eBay, provide a flexible, dependable,
inexpensive solution that is adaptable wiring infrastructure needs other
than 1-wire (audio signals, audio control, RS-232, video, computer network,
and so on).

2) Twisted-pair wiring (eg CAT3, CAT5) is preferred to non-twisted-pair
especially if a whole house is to be wired as the OP proposes. The twisted
pair provides better immunity to noise and more constant impedance than the
("satin") telephone wire suggested by the OP. The use of non-twisted pair
wiring such as what is connected to the telephone cables that the OP
proposes seems to be asking for poor performance if used for 'long'
distances. Also note that some phone cords are stranded and may include
cloth-like fibers making them difficult to solder and durn near impossible
to punch down (and so are potentially unreliable for these reasons). 

3) Best practices for Maxim/Dallas 1-wire does not include multiple channels
(= "strings" = "runs") on a single driver. However the OP perserverates on
this topology, perhaps because he under the mistaken impression that the
only issue is available power for the sensors. T'aint. Others has suggested
that he inform himself by reading the 1-wire documentation, but that doesn't
seem to be his MO.

4) Maxim has a DS2482 IC that is designed to drive multiple channels. Dr
Peter Anderson www.phanderson has developed and sells nifty, inexpensive
PIC-based systems that also drive multiple channels. OP has been repeated
referred to these resources by respondents, but doesn't seem to 'get it'.

5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed include schematics
and explanations for the devices in question. 

6) Despite the OP's imperviousness to the concept that USB, RS-232, 1-wire
and I2C all involve serial communication and that real devices (whether in
one package or not) necessarily involve translation betwixt them, a USB -->
RS-232 converter + PIC--> multi-channel 1-wire solution (such as Dr.
Anderson's) would meet his need. The multi-channel IC offering from
Maxim/Dallas has I2C input and so needs a USB front end to met the OP's
needs.

7) Despite what the OP now claims, reasonable people reading carefully would
conclude that he is looking for a pre-built device that includes software
drivers for about $30 or less. I don't know of any that are multi-channel
and am reluctant to recommend a single channel implementation of what he
proposes. It could be done, of course, by daisy chaining each of the strings
through a hub, ( IN1-->OUT2 -->IN2-->OUT3-->IN3 etc)  but it simply isn't
worth the aggravation of a flakey data acquisition system in my opinion. The
cost difference of $20 or so is small compared even to the price of the
sensors required by the system. When one also considers consequences of
errors and time expended, the cost difference is trivial. Among other
reasons, a single break or poor connection in a daisy chained system takes
down the entire system. Multiple drivers and channels ("strings") isolate
problems, are more robust than a single channel and are easier to
trouble-shoot and generally more reliable.

8) It is generally trivial to adapt an RS-232 device to USB using an
inexpensive adapter. This has been suggested by several respondents, but
apparently rejected by the OP for whatever reason.

9) In the experience and opinion of many (myself included) the most readily
accessible programming interface for 1-wire is an simple ASCII protocol that
the hardware device understands such as those used by Dr. Anderson. This
allows the hardware device to deal with 1-wire timing and electrical issues.
The OP wants a USB "driver" for VBA, Excel etc (whatever he means by that).
Three good, very different approaches/sources for communicating with
1-wire-aware devices are 1) Homeseer with plugs, 2) www.windmill.co.uk and
3) StampPlot www.selmaware.com (I've used them all and can recommend.)

HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

> This thread is a good instantiation of the rise
> to hegemony in usenet of the lower quartile  ...

Wota fucking wanker you are Hult.

> To summarize:

To lie, actually.

> 1) The four-conductor RJ-11 plugs that the original poster
> suggests are conventional and useful for 1-wire installation.

I never ever said anything of the sort. I JUST said
that that was the approach I PLANNED TO USE.

Basically because the wire is more flexible and convenient.

> However 8-conductor RJ-45 plugs and jacks are ubiquitous
> so they would seem preferable in many situations

Not in the PARTICULAR situation I WANT TO USE THEM IN.

> especially considering that dependable whole-house 1-wire
> distribution sh/would best consist in multiple channels (see below).

Separate matter entirely to what I was talking about.

> A 4-conductor RJ-11 plug fits into a RJ-45 jack, so RJ-45
> patch panels, available for less than $1/jack on eBay,

True in spades of RJ-11 panels.

> provide a flexible, dependable, inexpensive solution that is
> adaptable wiring infrastructure needs other than 1-wire (audio
> signals, audio control, RS-232, video, computer network, and so on).

Irrelevant to what I want to do with the temperature sensors.

> 2) Twisted-pair wiring (eg CAT3, CAT5) is
> preferred to non-twisted-pair especially if a
> whole house is to be wired as the OP proposes.

Pity I wasnt even discussing whole house wiring.

> The twisted pair provides better immunity to noise
> and more constant impedance than the ("satin")
> telephone wire suggested by the OP.

I wasnt even discussing satin telephone wire.

> The use of non-twisted pair wiring such as what is connected
> to the telephone cables that the OP proposes seems to be
> asking for poor performance if used for 'long' distances.

Pity I'm not using them for long distances.

> Also note that some phone cords are stranded and may
> include cloth-like fibers making them difficult to solder

Which might be why I choose to avoid using those.

> and durn near impossible to punch down

Dont need to punch those down, I clearly said that I want
to take commercially made RJ11 phone cords, cut them
in half and solder on a 1820 to each of the cut ends.

What I use for the RJ11 sockets those
plug into is an entirely separate matter.

> (and so are potentially unreliable for these reasons).

See above.

> 3) Best practices for Maxim/Dallas 1-wire does not include
> multiple channels (= "strings" = "runs") on a single driver.

I dont give a flying red fuck what is 'best practices'.

I know that strings of 1820s work fine, particularly in the situation
where most of the 1820s are reasonably clumped together.

> However the OP perserverates

That isnt even a word, you posturing fuckwit.

> on this topology, perhaps because he under the mistaken
> impression that the only issue is available power for the sensors.

Nope, because I have enough of a clue to realise that it works fine
for Pete Anderson and its documented in the Dallas datasheets too.

> T'aint. Others has suggested that he inform himself by reading
> the 1-wire documentation, but that doesn't seem to be his MO.

Best get that seems machinery seen to then Hult.

> 4) Maxim has a DS2482 IC that is designed to drive multiple channels.

I dont want multiple channels.

> Dr Peter Anderson www.phanderson has developed and sells nifty,
> inexpensive PIC-based systems that also drive multiple channels.

And clearly advocates the use of strings of 1820s.

> OP has been repeated referred to these resources by respondents,

I was well aware of that before I even posted thanks.

It doesnt happen to be what I want.

> but doesn't seem to 'get it'.

You dont seem to get that strings work fine, Pete Anderson uses them
fine, and so all I need is a USB/1-wire converter/adapter which drives
strings of 1820s the same way that device of Pete's does, or add that
to a commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter myself.

> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.

Yeah, its just rather poorly organised.

> 6) Despite the OP's imperviousness to the concept that USB, RS-232,
> 1-wire and I2C all involve serial communication and that real devices
> (whether in one package or not) necessarily involve translation
> betwixt them, a USB --> RS-232 converter + PIC--> multi-channel
> 1-wire solution (such as Dr. Anderson's) would meet his need.

Not as well as a commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter
which will drive the 1-wire the same way Pete does in his system.

> The multi-channel IC offering from Maxim/Dallas has I2C input
> and so needs a USB front end to met the OP's needs.

I dont need multichannel. Like that or lump it.

> 7) Despite what the OP now claims, reasonable people reading
> carefully would conclude that he is looking for a pre-built device
> that includes software drivers for about $30 or less.

Only fools like you. ALL I said was that since commercial
USB/1-wire converter/adapters are available for less than
$25, one which drives the 1-wire string like Pete's does
power wise shouldnt result in a price more than $30.

I am also considering using a much more expensive
lan/1-wire device. Its got some advantages like being
more convenient to integrate with VBA into Access and
Excel since its a standard http protocol device etc, but
has some potential downsides with other than just
1820 support and is rather less flexible in that area.

> I don't know of any that are multi-channel

I dont want or need multichannel.

> and am reluctant to recommend a single
> channel implementation of what he proposes.

I dont actually give a flying red fuck what
you might or might not recommend.

Clearly Pete Anderson has decided that strings of 1820s work fine.

> It could be done, of course, by daisy chaining each of the strings 
> through
> a hub, ( IN1-->OUT2 -->IN2-->OUT3-->IN3 etc)  but it simply isn't worth
> the aggravation of a flakey data acquisition system in my opinion.

Your opinion is completely irrelevant. Pete Anderson
is clearly of the opinion that strings of 1820s are viable.

> The cost difference of $20 or so is small compared
> even to the price of the sensors required by the
> system. When one also considers consequences of
> errors and time expended, the cost difference is trivial.

There are no cost consequences of errors.
Or time expended either in this case.

> Among other reasons, a single break or poor connection
> in a daisy chained system takes down the entire system.

It isnt daisy chained, the sensors are PARALLELED.

> Multiple drivers and channels ("strings") isolate problems,
> are more robust than a single channel and are easier to
> trouble-shoot and generally more reliable.

Not interested. I'm quite capable of trouble shooting
a break in the paralleled config I plan to use.

Daisy chained aint what I want, basically because that involves
a pair of wires to each sensor location. A star config makes much
more sense given where the sensors will be located, in clusters.

> 8) It is generally trivial to adapt an RS-232 device to USB using an
> inexpensive adapter. This has been suggested by several respondents,
> but apparently rejected by the OP for whatever reason.

Because it makes more sense to do something extra
on the 1-wire side of the USB/1-wire converter/adapter
if it wont drive the string of 1820s adequately.

> 9) In the experience and opinion of many (myself included)
> the most readily accessible programming interface for
> 1-wire is an simple ASCII protocol that the hardware
> device understands such as those used by Dr. Anderson.

I prefer to do it better myself. Essentially because
that give more control with other 1-wire devices later.

> This allows the hardware device to deal
> with 1-wire timing and electrical issues.

Thats what the USB/1-wire converter/adapter does.

> The OP wants a USB "driver" for VBA,

I didnt say that.

> Excel etc (whatever he means by that).

> Three good, very different approaches/sources for communicating with
> 1-wire-aware devices are 1) Homeseer with plugs, 2) www.windmill.co.uk 
> and
> 3) StampPlot www.selmaware.com (I've used them all and can recommend.)

Not what I asked about. I want to be able to control the strings from 
access and excel.

Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote

> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.

Maybe you could post the precise url for the schematic for say
http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128.html 

Here's one of the pertinent Application Notes 
" Guidelines for Reliable 1-Wire Networks" :
http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/an/app148.pdf

It begins: 

"INTRODUCTION
The 1-Wire� protocol was originally designed (many years ago) for
communication with nearby devices on a short connection�a way to add
auxiliary memory on a single microprocessor port pin. Customers soon devised
unique applications that involved extending the bus and moving the slave
devices farther and farther from the master. Problems came up as the bus
lengths exceeded both the capabilities of the bus masters and the limits of
the protocol. 1-Wire device designs responded to the call with added
features and protocols, multidrop (networking) capabilities, durable steel
containers (iButtons�), and mechanisms to assure valid data transfers even
in severely intermittent contact situations.Despite this evolution, 1-Wire
components still perform poorly when bus masters are improperly designed or
implemented, or when masters intended for short line use are pressed into
service with greatly extended buses.

A 1-Wire network is a complex arrangement of devices, wire, and connections.
Every network is different, often in both topology (layout) and hardware.
Various claims have been made about 1-Wire network length and loading
limitations, but the context may have often been unclear. As a result, users
have sometimes been surprised when topologies fail despite the assumption
that they are within specification. Special bus masters have been devised
and tested with a single network design only to find that they are
unsuitable for use in other layouts."

A significant proportion of folks wiring up a whole house full of 1-wire
devices with a single channel will find that they would have saved time,
money and aggravation by reading and understanding the words above and
designing and implementing accordingly.

HTH ... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

I don't use 1-wire myself so am not familiar with its details but the
DS9490R appears to do at least part of what you ask. The datasheet indicates
there are Windows drivers for it.


http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ibutton/products/1wire_adapters.cfm#USB
     http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/DS9490-DS9490R.pdf

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>
>The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>in punch down blocks etc.
>
>What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>
>I also need at least a decent driver that can
>be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>
>The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>
>It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 
>

This CHA thread may also help.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.home.automation/browse_frm/thread/af7fee3ddf369907/fd937ae55549fe90?lnk=st&q=DS9490R+group%3Acomp.home.automation&rnum=2&hl=en#fd937ae55549fe90

nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote:

>I don't use 1-wire myself so am not familiar with its details but the
>DS9490R appears to do at least part of what you ask. The datasheet indicates
>there are Windows drivers for it.
>
>
>http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ibutton/products/1wire_adapters.cfm#USB
>     http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/DS9490-DS9490R.pdf
>
>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>>and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>>it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>>so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>>
>>The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>>leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>>and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>>them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>>in punch down blocks etc.
>>
>>What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>>that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>>
>>I also need at least a decent driver that can
>>be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>>
>>The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>>unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>>
>>It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>>1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 
>>

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:33:06 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in message  <4al116Fsk6ptU1@individual.net>:

>Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
>
>> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
>> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.
>
>Maybe you could post the precise url for the schematic for say
>http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128.html 


Sure:

here's the interconnect diagram:

http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128_config.jpg

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:22:09 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in message  <4al035Ft0pnbU1@individual.net>:

[snip]

There's a limit to the pathology that folks will put up with.
rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com has exceeded my limit.

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote

> Here's one of the pertinent Application Notes
> " Guidelines for Reliable 1-Wire Networks" :
> http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/an/app148.pdf

Read that LONG ago thanks.

> It begins:

> "INTRODUCTION
> The 1-Wire� protocol was originally designed (many years ago) for
> communication with nearby devices on a short connection-a way to add
> auxiliary memory on a single microprocessor port pin. Customers soon
> devised unique applications that involved extending the bus and
> moving the slave devices farther and farther from the master.

> Problems came up as the bus lengths exceeded both the capabilities of
> the bus masters and the limits of the protocol. 1-Wire device designs
> responded to the call with added features and protocols, multidrop
> (networking) capabilities, durable steel containers (iButtons�), and
> mechanisms to assure valid data transfers even in severely
> intermittent contact situations.Despite this evolution, 1-Wire
> components still perform poorly when bus masters are improperly
> designed or implemented, or when masters intended for short line
> use are pressed into service with greatly extended buses.

And that last isnt true with what is used in USB/1-wire 
converters/adapters.

> A 1-Wire network is a complex arrangement of devices, wire, and
> connections. Every network is different, often in both topology
> (layout) and hardware. Various claims have been made about 1-Wire
> network length and loading limitations, but the context may have often
> been unclear. As a result, users have sometimes been surprised when
> topologies fail despite the assumption that they are within 
> specification.

And Pete Anderson and others have found that strings of 1820s
work fine at MUCH greater distances than I am going to use.

> Special bus masters have been devised and tested
> with a single network design only to find that they
> are unsuitable for use in other layouts."

And Pete Anderson has found that strings of 1820s work fine.

> A significant proportion of folks wiring
> up a whole house full of 1-wire devices

Didnt say anything about doing that.

> with a single channel will find that they would have saved
> time, money and aggravation by reading and understanding
> the words above and designing and implementing accordingly.

And anyone with a clue can see that Pete Anderson has found
that the sort of strings of 1820s that I want to use work fine.

I was JUST asking if anyone had any experience with particular
USB/1-wire converters/adapters in that situation because the
devices that Pete Anderson uses the strings of 1820s with
have real downsides in my particular situation.

And I later proposed a different approach when no one was
able to suggest a particular USB/1-wire converter/adapter
which was known to do the job in my situation, doing something
on the 1wire side of the USB/1-wire converter/adapter, like
using one of the spare wires in the RJ11 cable to provide
say 5V power to the 1820s, instead of using parasitic power.

Pete says that parasitic power works fine. The main problem
is that I cant see what he is doing with the strings of 1820s
at the inner end, because I cant find schematics for any of
his devices that use strings of 1820s.

Presumably that sort of thing must be out there on the web
and its just a matter of finding it. Which is why I asked the
question in the first place, given that statement that what
may appear to be fine from the datasheet may not work
out that well in practice. I was essentially asking if anyone
had actually implemented it and found it worked fine.

One other obvious approach is to get one of the cheaper
devices of Pete's that does use strings of 1820s fine,
basically to get the schematic and to use to test the
string of 1820s and then modify the 1-wire side of a
USB/1-wire converter/adapter to do the same thing
electrically. That would provide a much cleaner end result
than using one of Pete's devices with a USB/RS232
converter, for hardly any more money,

Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote

> I don't use 1-wire myself so am not familiar with its details but
> the DS9490R appears to do at least part of what you ask.

Yeah, thats basically what the commercially
available USB/1-wire converters/adapters use.

> The datasheet indicates there are Windows drivers for it.

Yeah, tho I didnt find they are that convenient to use.

I actually have the Elektor USB/1-wire converter/adapter
and have implemented it, with some downsides drivers wise.
Should try the latest tho, its been a while since I did that.

> http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ibutton/products/1wire_adapters.cfm#USB
>     http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/DS9490-DS9490R.pdf


> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>>
>> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>> in punch down blocks etc.
>>
>> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>>
>> I also need at least a decent driver that can
>> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>>
>> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>>
>> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 

Some posturing fuckwit claiming to be
Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
just the puerile shit thats all it can ever manage.

Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote

>>> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
>>> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.

>> Maybe you could post the precise url for the schematic for say
>> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128.html

> Sure:

Nope.

> here's the interconnect diagram:
> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128_config.jpg

Not the schematic, you cant see how he's
powering the 1wire strings from that. 

The Elektor schematic I found shows it to be self-powered. Is that correct?

It appears to use the same Maxim drivers linked in the DS9490R datasheet. Is
this an HID driver? If so, maybe Jan Axelson's page on VB & HID drivers will
help.

     http://www.lvr.com/hidpage.htm

Why don't you like serial for this? I see no advantage to USB given that it
takes 3/4 second to get a reading from a 1-wire device. Is the 18B20 faster
than other 1-wire devices? It seems to me that off-loading this from the PC
to a serial PIC that can report readings from multiple sensors is the best
way to go.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote
>
>> I don't use 1-wire myself so am not familiar with its details but
>> the DS9490R appears to do at least part of what you ask.
>
>Yeah, thats basically what the commercially
>available USB/1-wire converters/adapters use.
>
>> The datasheet indicates there are Windows drivers for it.
>
>Yeah, tho I didnt find they are that convenient to use.
>
>I actually have the Elektor USB/1-wire converter/adapter
>and have implemented it, with some downsides drivers wise.
>Should try the latest tho, its been a while since I did that.
>
>> http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ibutton/products/1wire_adapters.cfm#USB
>>     http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/DS9490-DS9490R.pdf
>
>
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>>> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>>> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>>> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>>>
>>> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>>> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>>> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>>> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>>> in punch down blocks etc.
>>>
>>> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>>> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>>>
>>> I also need at least a decent driver that can
>>> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>>>
>>> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>>> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>>>
>>> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>>> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 
>

Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote

> The Elektor schematic I found shows it to be self-powered.
> Is that correct?

Powered from the USB, yes.

> It appears to use the same Maxim drivers linked
> in the DS9490R datasheet. Is this an HID driver?

Not clear to me what a HID driver is. It definitely uses java.

> If so, maybe Jan Axelson's page on VB & HID drivers will help.

>     http://www.lvr.com/hidpage.htm

Thanks for that.

> Why don't you like serial for this?

Basically because I dont have enough serial ports available,
the only one available is used for the X10 controller,
and USB/serial converters are too much of a kludge.

> I see no advantage to USB given that it takes
> 3/4 second to get a reading from a 1-wire device.

Sure, its not a speed thing.

> Is the 18B20 faster than other 1-wire devices?

Dont think so.

> It seems to me that off-loading this from the PC to a serial PIC that
> can report readings from multiple sensors is the best way to go.

Dunno, I basically have a number of temps that dont need to
be polled that often, every few minutes is fine, and want to
use those to control the X10 stuff, particularly with temp
control etc controlling a portable fan heater that I sit in front
of and other stuff like the heater for the beer brewing.

And other temp sensors that only need to be polled hourly at
most for more basic alarm stuff like the freezer has failed etc.

And some basic logging of temps in the house, hourly would be fine.

Serial is just a bit dinosaury if I can just have the string
of 1820s on a USB/1-wire converter/adapter with at
most say providing 5V to the 1820s on one of the
spare wires instead of parasitic power for the 1820s.

Nice clean simple design.



> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote
>>
>>> I don't use 1-wire myself so am not familiar with its details but
>>> the DS9490R appears to do at least part of what you ask.
>>
>> Yeah, thats basically what the commercially
>> available USB/1-wire converters/adapters use.
>>
>>> The datasheet indicates there are Windows drivers for it.
>>
>> Yeah, tho I didnt find they are that convenient to use.
>>
>> I actually have the Elektor USB/1-wire converter/adapter
>> and have implemented it, with some downsides drivers wise.
>> Should try the latest tho, its been a while since I did that.
>>
>>> http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ibutton/products/1wire_adapters.cfm#USB
>>>     http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/DS9490-DS9490R.pdf
>>
>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>>>> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>>>> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>>>> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>>>>
>>>> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>>>> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>>>> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>>>> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>>>> in punch down blocks etc.
>>>>
>>>> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>>>> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>>>>
>>>> I also need at least a decent driver that can
>>>> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>>>>
>>>> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>>>> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>>>>
>>>> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>>>> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 

Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
> Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote

>> The Elektor schematic I found shows it to be self-powered.
>> Is that correct?

> Powered from the USB, yes.

>> It appears to use the same Maxim drivers linked
>> in the DS9490R datasheet. Is this an HID driver?

No its not.

> Not clear to me what a HID driver is. It definitely uses java.

>> If so, maybe Jan Axelson's page on VB & HID drivers will help.
>
>>     http://www.lvr.com/hidpage.htm
>
> Thanks for that.
>
>> Why don't you like serial for this?
>
> Basically because I dont have enough serial ports available,
> the only one available is used for the X10 controller,
> and USB/serial converters are too much of a kludge.
>
>> I see no advantage to USB given that it takes
>> 3/4 second to get a reading from a 1-wire device.
>
> Sure, its not a speed thing.
>
>> Is the 18B20 faster than other 1-wire devices?
>
> Dont think so.
>
>> It seems to me that off-loading this from the PC to a serial PIC that
>> can report readings from multiple sensors is the best way to go.
>
> Dunno, I basically have a number of temps that dont need to
> be polled that often, every few minutes is fine, and want to
> use those to control the X10 stuff, particularly with temp
> control etc controlling a portable fan heater that I sit in front
> of and other stuff like the heater for the beer brewing.
>
> And other temp sensors that only need to be polled hourly at
> most for more basic alarm stuff like the freezer has failed etc.
>
> And some basic logging of temps in the house, hourly would be fine.
>
> Serial is just a bit dinosaury if I can just have the string
> of 1820s on a USB/1-wire converter/adapter with at
> most say providing 5V to the 1820s on one of the
> spare wires instead of parasitic power for the 1820s.
>
> Nice clean simple design.
>
>
>
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> I don't use 1-wire myself so am not familiar with its details but
>>>> the DS9490R appears to do at least part of what you ask.
>>>
>>> Yeah, thats basically what the commercially
>>> available USB/1-wire converters/adapters use.
>>>
>>>> The datasheet indicates there are Windows drivers for it.
>>>
>>> Yeah, tho I didnt find they are that convenient to use.
>>>
>>> I actually have the Elektor USB/1-wire converter/adapter
>>> and have implemented it, with some downsides drivers wise.
>>> Should try the latest tho, its been a while since I did that.
>>>
>>>> http://www.maxim-ic.com/products/ibutton/products/1wire_adapters.cfm#USB
>>>>     http://pdfserv.maxim-ic.com/en/ds/DS9490-DS9490R.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>>>>> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>>>>> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers
>>>>> etc so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range
>>>>> etc. The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>>>>> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>>>>> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>>>>> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>>>>> in punch down blocks etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>>>>> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>>>>>
>>>>> I also need at least a decent driver that can
>>>>> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>>>>> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>>>>> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote
>
>> The Elektor schematic I found shows it to be self-powered.
>> Is that correct?
>
>Powered from the USB, yes.

I misinterpreted the schematic, thinking the +5V balloon at the top
indicated an external supply. On a closer look, I see it's just a label. 

http://www.bairesrobotics.com.ar/elektor/06-2002%20USB%20Interface%20for%20the%20I-Wire%20Bus.pdf

>> It appears to use the same Maxim drivers linked
>> in the DS9490R datasheet. Is this an HID driver?
>
>Not clear to me what a HID driver is. It definitely uses java.

Right after posting that I had an "Aha!" moment, realizing that if it were
an HID device, it would not need external drivers.
  
>> Why don't you like serial for this?
>
>Basically because I dont have enough serial ports available,
>the only one available is used for the X10 controller,
>and USB/serial converters are too much of a kludge.

If you have a free PCI slot, it's easy and relatively inexpensive to add
oodles of serial ports. I have an 8-port ByteRunner card in one PC and a
4-port card in another.

If I were to design something to do 1-wire, I'd use a PIC to handle the
1-wire network with a $5 Silicon Labs CP2102 USB-serial chip on the PIC end.
It communicates over the USB bus but is seen as a virtual serial port on the
PC end. It's much slower than USB but fast enough for this type of data
acquisition.

Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote
>>
>>> The Elektor schematic I found shows it to be self-powered.
>>> Is that correct?
>>
>> Powered from the USB, yes.
>
> I misinterpreted the schematic, thinking the +5V balloon at the top
> indicated an external supply. On a closer look, I see it's just a
> label.
>
> http://www.bairesrobotics.com.ar/elektor/06-2002%20USB%20Interface%20for%20the%20I-Wire%20Bus.pdf
>
>>> It appears to use the same Maxim drivers linked
>>> in the DS9490R datasheet. Is this an HID driver?
>>
>> Not clear to me what a HID driver is. It definitely uses java.
>
> Right after posting that I had an "Aha!" moment, realizing that if it
> were an HID device, it would not need external drivers.
>
>>> Why don't you like serial for this?
>>
>> Basically because I dont have enough serial ports available,
>> the only one available is used for the X10 controller,
>> and USB/serial converters are too much of a kludge.

> If you have a free PCI slot, it's easy and relatively inexpensive
> to add oodles of serial ports. I have an 8-port ByteRunner
> card in one PC and a 4-port card in another.

Sure, but its much cleaner using USB.

> If I were to design something to do 1-wire, I'd use a PIC to handle
> the 1-wire network with a $5 Silicon Labs CP2102 USB-serial chip
> on the PIC end. It communicates over the USB bus but is seen as
> a virtual serial port on the PC end. It's much slower than USB but
> fast enough for this type of data acquisition.

Sure, but if a basic USB/1-wire converter/adapter will work, its even 
easier. 

>> If you have a free PCI slot, it's easy and relatively inexpensive
>> to add oodles of serial ports. I have an 8-port ByteRunner
>> card in one PC and a 4-port card in another.
> 
> Sure, but its much cleaner using USB.

How so?  No disrespect intended but I'm curious why you feel that USB is cleaner
than serial.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

--

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:08:56 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in message  <4alddoFti0t6U1@individual.net>:

>Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote

>> Why don't you like serial for this?
>
>Basically because I dont have enough serial ports available,
>the only one available is used for the X10 controller,
>and USB/serial converters are too much of a kludge.

Peter Anderson's USB Versions of the IOM #135E and IOM #136 Modules
http://www.phanderson.com/iom13x_usb.html
use the FT232BM USB - RS232 adaptor.

That solves the "I don't have enough serial ports available" (non)problem.

And if the FT232BM is "too much of a kludge", thar's lotsa of kludges out
thar because this chip is in very widespread use.

The schematic for this comes with the board. The RS-232 version I have is a
Olimex PIC-P40-D board with 4.7k series resistors on the data lines and the
MAX232 RX and TX connected to pins 25 and 26  of the PIC16C774
Schematic here:
http://www.olimex.com/dev/images/pic-p40b-sch.gif

Here's the schematic for the USB version:
http://www.olimex.com/dev/images/pic-p40-usb-sch.gif

>> It seems to me that off-loading this from the PC to a serial PIC that
>> can report readings from multiple sensors is the best way to go.

>Dunno, I basically have a number of temps that dont need to
>be polled that often, every few minutes is fine, and want to
>use those to control the X10 stuff, particularly with temp
>control etc controlling a portable fan heater that I sit in front
>of and other stuff like the heater for the beer brewing.

What Dave suggests is exactly what Peter Anderson has implemented. As I
wrote before, rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com ( and sock puppet "Jim P Sharma"
<jps@nospam.com>) don't seem to want to solve the (non)problem. I understand
his needs and problems better now. The tenor of the responses is indeed
consistent with sitting in close proximity to a refrigerator and
beer-brewing equipment.

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:08:24 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote in message  <4al9ruFt6fgiU2@individual.net>:

>Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
>
>>>> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
>>>> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.
>
>>> Maybe you could post the precise url for the schematic for say
>>> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128.html
>
>> Sure:
>
>Nope.
>
>> here's the interconnect diagram:
>> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128_config.jpg
>
>Not the schematic, you cant see how he's
>powering the 1wire strings from that. 

If one connects pin 3 of a  DS18x20 to V+, the chips are powered; if not,
they run in parasitic mode.. 

The diagram shows *clearly* that pin three of the "DS18S20 or DS18B20 or
DS1822" is connected to the wire that interconnects "Pin 1 GND" on the
DS2438 to "Black (GRD) " on the TM # 128. And that position 5 on the #128
connector is "Black ground".

So the two channels are being powered by data lines on pin 2 in parasitic
mode, not by V+ on pin 3. There are also 4.7k resistors in series with the
PIC data lines to protect the PIC. 

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote

>>>>> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
>>>>> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.

>>>> Maybe you could post the precise url for the schematic for say
>>>> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128.html

>>> Sure:

>> Nope.

>>> here's the interconnect diagram:
>>> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128_config.jpg

>> Not the schematic, you cant see how he's
>> powering the 1wire strings from that.

> If one connects pin 3 of a  DS18x20 to V+, the chips
> are powered; if not, they run in parasitic mode..

Duh, thats in the datasheet.

That aint what HE had done 1wire bus master wise.

It isnt even obvious what he is using
as a 1wire busmaster either PIC wise.

So we know that whatever he is doing does drive strings of 1820s
fine, but we dont have much detail on how he is driving them.

> The diagram shows *clearly* that pin three of the "DS18S20 or
> DS18B20 or DS1822" is connected to the wire that interconnects
> "Pin 1 GND" on the DS2438 to "Black (GRD) " on the TM # 128.
> And that position 5 on the #128 connector is "Black ground".

> So the two channels are being powered by data lines on pin 2
> in parasitic mode, not by V+ on pin 3. There are also 4.7k
> resistors in series with the PIC data lines to protect the PIC.

See above.

Robert L Bass <sales@bassburglaralarms.com> wrote:

>>> If you have a free PCI slot, it's easy and relatively inexpensive
>>> to add oodles of serial ports. I have an 8-port ByteRunner
>>> card in one PC and a 4-port card in another.

>> Sure, but its much cleaner using USB.

> How so?  No disrespect intended but I'm curious
> why you feel that USB is cleaner than serial.

Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.

Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor. 

Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote

>>> Why don't you like serial for this?

>> Basically because I dont have enough serial ports available,
>> the only one available is used for the X10 controller,
>> and USB/serial converters are too much of a kludge.

> Peter Anderson's USB Versions of the IOM #135E and IOM #136 Modules
> http://www.phanderson.com/iom13x_usb.html
> use the FT232BM USB - RS232 adaptor.

Still much more clumsy than a bog standard
USB/1wire commercial converter/adapter.

> That solves the "I don't have enough serial ports available" 
> (non)problem.

No it doesnt.

> And if the FT232BM is "too much of a kludge", thar's lotsa
> of kludges out thar because this chip is in very widespread use.

Yes, kludges are quite common. Still makes a lot more sense to
use a bog standard USB/1wire commercial converter/adapter if it
will drive the string of 1820s fine, and it appears that that will be fine.
At worst it might need one of the spare wires on the RJ11 cables
used to drive the 1820s in non parsitic mode and doing that is a
hell of lot simpler than using a IOM #135E or IOM #136 Module
and a FT232BM USB - RS232 adaptor packaging wise alone.

> The schematic for this comes with the board. The RS-232
> version I have is a Olimex PIC-P40-D board with 4.7k series
> resistors on the data lines and the MAX232 RX and TX
> connected to pins 25 and 26  of the PIC16C774
> Schematic here:
> http://www.olimex.com/dev/images/pic-p40b-sch.gif

> Here's the schematic for the USB version:
> http://www.olimex.com/dev/images/pic-p40-usb-sch.gif

Thanks for that.

>>> It seems to me that off-loading this from the
>>> PC to a serial PIC that can report readings
>>> from multiple sensors is the best way to go.

>> Dunno, I basically have a number of temps that dont need to
>> be polled that often, every few minutes is fine, and want to
>> use those to control the X10 stuff, particularly with temp
>> control etc controlling a portable fan heater that I sit in front
>> of and other stuff like the heater for the beer brewing.

> What Dave suggests is exactly what Peter Anderson has implemented.

Duh. And I dont see the need to offload with that low a level of non
time critical 1wire activity if a bog standard USB/1wire commercial
converter/adapter will do the job fine. And it appears it will.

<reams of your puerile shit flushed where it belongs>

> Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
> than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.

On one of my older machines we had need of eight serial ports for a bunch of
terminals and various other I/O devices.  I forget the brand (it was quite a few
years ago that I did this) but I installed a PCI card with an RS485 port.  To
this I connected a port expander with 16 RS232 (convertible to RS485 but I
didn't need that) ports.  The operating system was THEOS though the kit came
with a driver disk for Windows as well.

The entire system was extremely simple to set up and use.  The hardware ran 24/7
for many years without a hitch.  We sold the business and the computer system
with it six years ago.  To the best of my knowledge it's still running today.  I
wish I could say the same for some of my other PC equipment.

> Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
> either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor. 

Anything is easy if you know how.  I don't write code but folks I work with
develop software for industrial PC's and they don't seem to have much of a
problem.  I'm not trying to belittle your skills, friend.  But I think you're
unnecessarily constricting your project by ignoring other possible solutions.

FWIW, some of the alarm system configuration software I regularly use requires a
serial port and will not function at all using a USB-serial converter.  Some of
the other software functions perfectly with either type.  What I'm trying to say
is that nothing is 100% better or worse.

On another note, I haven't followed this thread very closely so forgive me if I
got it wrong but did you indicate you plan to use telco cables (the flat "satin"
stuff) to wire up this system in multiple rooms?  If so, I'd strongly advise you
to reconsider.  That's an area where I have extensive knowledge and hands-on
experience.  You really don't want to try to use that kind of cable for
permanent wiring of any sort.  More importantly, you don't want to run it
through walls (code violation).  It's a royal PITO to splice, does not take well
to being stapled in place and is not robust enough for anything other than it's
intended purpose -- as a flexible cord to plug telephones into nearby wall
jacks.

If that is not your intention, ignore the above paragraph.  :^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

--

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

"Robert L Bass" <sales@bassburglaralarms.com> wrote in message
news:89qb429lpr5ka0deorbb2ogrfil4vbiqbg@4ax.com...

Dude,

You're all clearly unaware that we've received a personal visit from a
legendary internet personality, Rod Speed.

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rod+Speed%22

When I mentioned "RS" to an Aussie mate of mine a few years back, I got the
whole scoop.  I'll add my limited wisdom inline:

>> Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
>> than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.

"USB Only" is obviously a much higher priority requirement for the OP than
most replies have acknowledged.  If there's anything that's typical about
Usenet in this thread, it's that a lot of answers that fall under the
heading: "not *exactly* what that user wanted."  If my mate's read of Speed
is right, we can be sure, if nothing else, that RS knows *exactly* what he
wants.  That's probably pretty clear by now, anyway.

The state of PC and HA wiring is such that it's easy (for me at least, and
especially my wife) to
understand how someone could finally say "not one more f'ing wire!"  I, too,
am struggling with cleanly implementing similar systems and have no serial
ports to spare nor a desire to add additional ports via PCI cards.

> On one of my older machines we had need of eight serial ports for a bunch
of
> terminals and various other I/O devices.  I forget the brand (it was quite
a few
> years ago that I did this) but I installed a PCI card with an RS485 port.
To
> this I connected a port expander with 16 RS232 (convertible to RS485 but I
> didn't need that) ports.  The operating system was THEOS though the kit
came
> with a driver disk for Windows as well.

This sort of approach is fraught with peril, as the cliche goes.  You are
limited to what PC can talk to your net (got have a special board
installed), gotta learn another OS (Theos or some other proprietary OS).  A
machine failure is a crisis.  Rod obviously wants something he can maintain
easily.  Anything that requires a special board in a PC means "maintenance
issues" and I've supported enough of them to know.  USB-based means he can
plug it into a laptop, a Mac, a PDA and lots of other things and *hopefully*
run his sensor net without having to crack open a machine or buy cards or
adapters.  I can see why he's so hard over on demanding that as a
requirement.  It's incredibly important for CPU device "independence."

> The entire system was extremely simple to set up and use.  The hardware
ran 24/7
> for many years without a hitch.

Know why?  You probably never tinkered with it once it was set up and
running.  Those sorts of systems work fine once you've put in the time to
set them up.  But if they fail, you either need an identical spare or lots
of qualified spare parts to really assure 24/7 performance.  I think that's
one thing the OP, Mr. Speed, has in mind.

> We sold the business and the computer system
> with it six years ago.  To the best of my knowledge it's still
> running today.

Compaq, at its zenith, was selling wonderfully overbuilt machines with
connectors rated for 10X what was then "industry standard practice."  I
marvel at the sturdiness of some of the old PC "iron."  It doesn't, however,
have a whole lot to do with the OP's USB requirement.

> I wish I could say the same for some of my other PC equipment.

Still, performance doubles every few years so longevity isn't as big a
factor as it would be in a car.  I would love to see my gas mileage improve
the way PC clock speeds and peripheral throughput has.  I would buy a new
car as often as I bought a new PC if it did.  IMHO, longevity is not a big
requirement of the OP.  I would say his USB requirement is actually a way of
factoring in getting a new PC and being able to use it to control the net
right out of the box, without adding a serial IO card.

> > Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
> > either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.
>
> Anything is easy if you know how.  I don't write code . . .

You should have stopped right there.  I know how to rebuild a VW engine.
That doesn't make it easy in the slightest.  If you don't write code, it's
really a stretch criticize his code-writing ability.  I don't do much
programming, but I know that experience ranges wildly.  If he wants to stick
with standard, easy to understand and probably easy to port IO routines,
well, that's clearly his choice and one I would be likely to make as well.

The OP is really the only one capable of commenting on the mix of factors
that dictate his choice of SW.  He's reiterating how important "standard" is
to him in his design specs.  Still, you're not listening!!!

> but folks I work with develop software for industrial PC's
> and they don't seem to have much of a problem.  I'm not trying to
> belittle your skills, friend.

Perhaps you aren't, but I'm betting he'll take umbrage.  He's explained his
requirements to the point of perseveration. (-:  Disparaging his programming
skills, however "gently" isn't likely to get a positive response.  I'll bet
it contains the "F" word at least.

> But I think you're unnecessarily constricting your project
> by ignoring other possible solutions.

And he should care what you think about his project exactly why?  (-:

I don't want to sound mean, but I see so many newsgroups where the responses
just get farther and farther away from the specs that I feel I have entered
the twilight zone. I hear that "doo doo, doo doo" music right now.  He wants
a USB solution that he can program in VBA in a non-exotic sort of way.
Pretty simple. It may not be realistic, given some other constraints on the
project, but that's what I expect he came here to find out.  There have been
a number of posts that I think have been very helpful, but in the end, he's
the one who gets to decide if they were.

> FWIW, some of the alarm system configuration software I regularly use
requires a
> serial port and will not function at all using a USB-serial converter.

This is probably one of the many reasons the OP demands a straight up USB
solution.

> Some of the other software functions perfectly with either type.
> What I'm trying to say is that nothing is 100% better or worse.

Interestingly enough, from my read of your comment, you're *exactly* backing
up the OP's reasons for NOT wanting anything BUT a USB solution.  The more
intervening HW or SW objects, the more chance that one of them will not
function correctly.  The same is true for any non-standard SW treatment.

> On another note, I haven't followed this thread very closely so forgive me
if I
> got it wrong but did you indicate you plan to use telco cables (the flat
"satin"
> stuff) to wire up this system in multiple rooms?  If so, I'd strongly
advise you
> to reconsider.

This may indeed be an area where the OP should test assumptions before going
much further.  I suspect he may have already done the testing, but my
experience with cutting and soldering those cables has been bad.  Maybe
Ozian RJ11 cables are different or he's got a batch of cables he knows he
can work with.  I suspect by the time he gets this far down, you've already
lost much of your ability to persuade him.  :-)

> That's an area where I have extensive knowledge and hands-on
> experience.  You really don't want to try to use that kind of cable for
> permanent wiring of any sort.  More importantly, you don't want to run it
> through walls (code violation).  It's a royal PITO to splice, does not
take well
> to being stapled in place and is not robust enough for anything other than
it's
> intended purpose -- as a flexible cord to plug telephones into nearby wall
> jacks.
>
> If that is not your intention, ignore the above paragraph.  :^)

I hope he expands on the RJ11 cabling issue.  I can see why he wants to use
the cable - it's pretty unobtrusive as far as cables go, but it may be
harder to work with than he's expecting.  If he's got a solution to what I
have found were to be the most unsolderable wires on earth, I'd like to
learn it.

--
Bobby G.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
>either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor. 

For software on the PC there is absolutely no difference between a serial
port on a PCI card, a virtual serial port (such as those used with
USB-serial or those used with TCP/IP serial servers). They are seen as if
they were serial ports on the motherboard. The advantage is that legacy
software can make use of them. 

One potential glitch is that legacy software may only support COM1-COM4
while the ports may be identified as COM1-COM99 (you can rename them). If
you are writing your own software, it's fairly simple to enumerate all of
the ports and make them available to your software - do a Google search on
"VB enumerate serial ports". You should be able to use the same code in VBA.

Another potential glitch is that USB-serial converters are not all created
equal. Some do not handle the handshaking lines. The only fix is to use one
that does. The CP2102 handles everything. 

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yes, kludges are quite common. Still makes a lot more sense to
>use a bog standard USB/1wire commercial converter/adapter if it
>will drive the string of 1820s fine, and it appears that that will be fine.
>At worst it might need one of the spare wires on the RJ11 cables
>used to drive the 1820s in non parsitic mode and doing that is a
>hell of lot simpler than using a IOM #135E or IOM #136 Module
>and a FT232BM USB - RS232 adaptor packaging wise alone.

The CP2102 is 5mm x 5mm and requires only 2-3 capacitors. It's capable of
very high bus speed and a very high serial baud rate.

I agree that a standard USB/1-wire adapter is simpler but it doesn't appear
there are any that are self-powered. It should be easy enough to modify your
Elektor adapter to use a separate power supply. +5V regulated switching
supplies are readily available. I've posted here about one that I've tested
to be trouble free as far as causing X-10 problems. However, you may have
problems with voltage drops if sending it very far over a wire in a
telephone cable, especially one that passes through a modular connector or
two at each node. 

Robert L Bass <sales@bassburglaralarms.com> wrote

>> Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
>> than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.

> On one of my older machines we had need of eight serial ports
> for a bunch of terminals and various other I/O devices.  I forget
> the brand (it was quite a few years ago that I did this) but I
> installed a PCI card with an RS485 port.  To this I connected
> a port expander with 16 RS232 (convertible to RS485 but I
> didn't need that) ports.  The operating system was THEOS
> though the kit came with a driver disk for Windows as well.

Done that myself in the past.

Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.

And that approach isnt even feasible with a laptop.

> The entire system was extremely simple to set up and use.

Nothing like as simple to setup and use as a commercial
USB/1-wire converter/adapter if that will do the job.

> The hardware ran 24/7 for many years without a hitch.  We
> sold the business and the computer system with it six years
> ago.  To the best of my knowledge it's still running today.  I
> wish I could say the same for some of my other PC equipment.

Likely a commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter
would be just as reliable.

>> Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
>> either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.

> Anything is easy if you know how.

Some things arent.

> I don't write code but folks I work with develop software for
> industrial PC's and they don't seem to have much of a problem.

They likely arent using VBA in access or excel.

> I'm not trying to belittle your skills, friend.  But
> I think you're unnecessarily constricting your
> project by ignoring other possible solutions.

I'm not ignoring them, I considered them and decided that
its clearly a lot simpler and cleaner to use a commercial
USB/1-wire converter/adapter if that will do the job.

And that approach has rather more future too.

> FWIW, some of the alarm system configuration
> software I regularly use requires a serial port and
> will not function at all using a USB-serial converter.

Yep, some systems are notorious for not working well with those.

> Some of the other software functions perfectly with either type.
> What I'm trying to say is that nothing is 100% better or worse.

No news to me. What I care about is whether the simple and clean
approach of using a commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter
would work. No evidence currently that it would not.

> On another note, I haven't followed this thread very closely so
> forgive me if I got it wrong but did you indicate you plan to use
> telco cables (the flat "satin" stuff) to wire up this system in
> multiple rooms?

Nope. I did say that I plan to use RJ11 extension cables
cut in half with an 1820 soldered to the cut ends in a star
configuration, not in multiple rooms, maybe a couple of
clusters. Certainly not the 'satin' type of conductors tho.
I've already checked that the extension cables I can
get cheaply and easily just use normal stranded wire.

> If so, I'd strongly advise you to reconsider. That's an
> area where I have extensive knowledge and hands-on
> experience. You really don't want to try to use that
> kind of cable for permanent wiring of any sort.

It clearly works quite adequately for phone extension cables.

And I have used something similar for the basic phone service,
tho again, not 'satin' wire, just solid wire in a twisted config
in a round cable, usually used for internal phone wiring, but
in my case its on the floor from the point of connection of
the phone service, down thru much of the house, and its
been working fine for decades now. I did that as a quick
and dirty approach when the built in phone wiring failed
and I was too lazy to work out where it had failed with
poor access to the ceiling because its a flat roof.

I've been using that for DSL fine for quite a few years now.

> More importantly, you don't want to
> run it through walls (code violation).

I dont give a damn about codes. I physically built the entire
house, did all the electrical wiring, illegal in my country, and
got a licensed electrician to claim he had done that.

> It's a royal PITO to splice,

Yep, which is why I use the stranded wire form instead.

> does not take well to being stapled in place

I dont ever do that.

> and is not robust enough for anything other than it's intended purpose
> -- as a flexible cord to plug telephones into nearby wall jacks.

> If that is not your intention, ignore the above paragraph.  :^)

Too late |-) 

Robert Green <ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote
> Robert L Bass <sales@bassburglaralarms.com> wrote

> Dude,

> You're all clearly unaware that we've received a personal
> visit from a legendary internet personality, Rod Speed.

You have indeed |-)

> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rod+Speed%22

> When I mentioned "RS" to an Aussie mate of mine a few years
> back, I got the whole scoop.  I'll add my limited wisdom inline:

>>> Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
>>> than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.

> "USB Only" is obviously a much higher priority requirement
> for the OP than most replies have acknowledged.

Yep.

> If there's anything that's typical about Usenet in this thread, it's that
> a lot of answers that fall under the heading: "not *exactly* what that
> user wanted."  If my mate's read of Speed is right, we can be sure,
> if nothing else, that RS knows *exactly* what he wants.

Yep |-)

> That's probably pretty clear by now, anyway.

Dunno, only you appear to have noticed.

> The state of PC and HA wiring is such that it's easy
> (for me at least, and especially my wife) to understand
> how someone could finally say "not one more f'ing wire!"

I dont care about that so much, see below.

> I, too, am struggling with cleanly implementing
> similar systems and have no serial ports to spare
> nor a desire to add additional ports via PCI cards.

>> On one of my older machines we had need of eight serial
>> ports for a bunch of terminals and various other I/O devices.
>> I forget the brand (it was quite a few years ago that I did this)
>> but I installed a PCI card with an RS485 port. To this I connected
>> a port expander with 16 RS232 (convertible to RS485 but I didn't
>> need that) ports. The operating system was THEOS though the
>> kit came with a driver disk for Windows as well.

> This sort of approach is fraught with peril, as the cliche goes.

Yep.

> You are limited to what PC can talk to your net (got have
> a special board installed), gotta learn another OS (Theos
> or some other proprietary OS).  A machine failure is a crisis.

Yep.

> Rod obviously wants something he can maintain easily.

Yep.

> Anything that requires a special board in a PC means "maintenance
> issues" and I've supported enough of them to know.

Yep.

> USB-based means he can plug it into a laptop, a Mac, a PDA
> and lots of other things and *hopefully* run his sensor net without
> having to crack open a machine or buy cards or adapters.

And use the laptop which doesnt have any serial
ports at all for convenient debugging etc too.

And the PVR doesnt have any free PCI slots, basically because
its got 4 digital TV capture cards and a lan card and a decent dual
head video card because I use that to play the captured video on.

I might well decide to do the logging and control on
that PC since its got plenty of spare cpu resources
when when capturing digital TV 4 channels at once
and playing one too. Basically because that will be
on the UPS and nothing else really needs to be.

> I can see why he's so hard over on demanding that as a requirement.
> It's incredibly important for CPU device "independence."

Yep, makes life SO much more convenient if something
dies, and for convenient debugging using the laptop etc.

>> The entire system was extremely simple to set up and use.
> The hardware ran 24/7 for many years without a hitch.

> Know why?  You probably never tinkered with it once it was set up
> and running.  Those sorts of systems work fine once you've put in
> the time to set them up.  But if they fail, you either need an identical
> spare or lots of qualified spare parts to really assure 24/7
> performance.  I think that's one thing the OP, Mr. Speed, has in mind.

Yep.

>> We sold the business and the computer system with it six
>> years ago.  To the best of my knowledge it's still running today.

> Compaq, at its zenith, was selling wonderfully overbuilt machines with
> connectors rated for 10X what was then "industry standard practice."
> I marvel at the sturdiness of some of the old PC "iron."  It doesn't,
> however, have a whole lot to do with the OP's USB requirement.

>> I wish I could say the same for some of my other PC equipment.

> Still, performance doubles every few years so longevity isn't as big a
> factor as it would be in a car.  I would love to see my gas mileage
> improve the way PC clock speeds and peripheral throughput has.  I
> would buy a new car as often as I bought a new PC if it did.  IMHO,
> longevity is not a big requirement of the OP.  I would say his USB
> requirement is actually a way of factoring in getting a new PC and
> being able to use it to control the net right out of the box, without
> adding a serial IO card.

More being able to use it on any of the available PCs trivially.

>>> Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
>>> either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.

>> Anything is easy if you know how.  I don't write code . . .

> You should have stopped right there.  I know how to rebuild a
> VW engine. That doesn't make it easy in the slightest.  If you
> don't write code, it's really a stretch criticize his code-writing
> ability. I don't do much programming, but I know that experience
> ranges wildly.  If he wants to stick with standard, easy to
> understand and probably easy to port IO routines, well, that's
> clearly his choice and one I would be likely to make as well.

Yep, a decent modern ActiveX control is by far the
most convenient thing to use in Access and Excel.

> The OP is really the only one capable of commenting
> on the mix of factors that dictate his choice of SW.
> He's reiterating how important "standard" is to him
> in his design specs.  Still, you're not listening!!!

>> but folks I work with develop software for industrial
>> PC's and they don't seem to have much of a problem.
>> I'm not trying to belittle your skills, friend.

> Perhaps you aren't, but I'm betting he'll take umbrage.  He's
> explained his requirements to the point of perseveration. (-:
> Disparaging his programming skills, however "gently" isn't likely
> to get a positive response.  I'll bet it contains the "F" word at least.

It didnt actually, came close tho |-)

And my programming skills are fine, I just prefer to save
time with a decent ActiveX control if one is available.

I did in fact in the past put the effort into a special purpose serial
port and a driver of my own used from Access to load data into
a digital watch which has a serial port. That was in the days
when there was no real alternative. Nowdays I have a much
more fancy system using a java cellphone with IR and bluetooth
and load the data into that using a much more salubrious approach
than a serial port and get the big advantage of no farting around
with a physical connection at all anymore.

Its just not practical with multiple temperature sensors if you
want them to be as cheap as possible so you can have them
wherever you might want a temperature at some time.

>> But I think you're unnecessarily constricting your
>> project by ignoring other possible solutions.

> And he should care what you think about his project exactly why?  (-:

> I don't want to sound mean, but I see so many newsgroups where
> the responses just get farther and farther away from the specs that
> I feel I have entered the twilight zone. I hear that "doo doo, doo doo"
> music right now.  He wants a USB solution that he can program in
> VBA in a non-exotic sort of way. Pretty simple. It may not be realistic,
> given some other constraints on the project, but that's what I expect
> he came here to find out.

Precisely.

> There have been a number of posts that I think have been very
> helpful, but in the end, he's the one who gets to decide if they were.

They did help me to decide that a commercial USB/1-wire
converter/adapter should work fine, and at most may need
something a little more fancy added on the 1-wire side to say
provide 5V to the 1820s instead of using parasitic power.

>> FWIW, some of the alarm system configuration software
>> I regularly use requires a serial port and will not function
>> at all using a USB-serial converter.

> This is probably one of the many reasons the
> OP demands a straight up USB solution.

Yep.

>> Some of the other software functions perfectly with either type.
>> What I'm trying to say is that nothing is 100% better or worse.

> Interestingly enough, from my read of your comment, you're
> *exactly* backing up the OP's reasons for NOT wanting
> anything BUT a USB solution.  The more intervening HW
> or SW objects, the more chance that one of them will not function
> correctly.  The same is true for any non-standard SW treatment.

And more hassle getting it working too.

>> On another note, I haven't followed this thread very closely so
>> forgive me if I got it wrong but did you indicate you plan to use
>> telco cables (the flat "satin" stuff) to wire up this system in
>> multiple rooms?  If so, I'd strongly advise you to reconsider.

> This may indeed be an area where the OP should
> test assumptions before going much further.  I
> suspect he may have already done the testing,

Yep. Works fine with the RJ11 cables I can get for peanuts.

> but my experience with cutting and soldering those cables
> has been bad.  Maybe Ozian RJ11 cables are different

The 'satin' style is seen, but it isnt all that common and
you can usually work out which those are just from the
physical appearance and feel of the wire used.

> or he's got a batch of cables he knows he can work with.

Yep.

> I suspect by the time he gets this far down, you've
> already lost much of your ability to persuade him.  :-)

Yep.

>> That's an area where I have extensive knowledge and hands-on
>> experience.  You really don't want to try to use that kind of cable
>> for permanent wiring of any sort.  More importantly, you don't want
>> to run it through walls (code violation).  It's a royal PITO to
>> splice, does not take well to being stapled in place and is not
>> robust enough for anything other than it's intended purpose -- 
>> as a flexible cord to plug telephones into nearby wall jacks.

>> If that is not your intention, ignore the above paragraph.  :^)

> I hope he expands on the RJ11 cabling issue.  I can see why he
> wants to use the cable - it's pretty unobtrusive as far as cables go,

And is quite convenient for stuff like the fridges
and freezers, it'll go past the door seals fine.

I do that already with those indoor outdoor LCD temperature
boxes from china, just run the outdoor wire thru the door seal.

I had previously done quite a bit of temperature logging in
a professional situation by soldering LM335 sensors to
what we call figure 8 two wire power cord. I used that
basically because its so robust you can drive vehicles
over it repeatedly without any problems.

> but it may be harder to work with than he's expecting.

Nope.

> If he's got a solution to what I have found were to be
> the most unsolderable wires on earth, I'd like to learn it.

Just use the RJ11 cords that have stranded wire in them.

If that isnt available, just use solid wire telco internal
cabling with crimped on RJ11 connectors.

The commercial leads are better because they are
stranded and its less work to cut them in half and
solder an 1820 on each cut end. 

Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
>> either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.

> For software on the PC there is absolutely no difference between
> a serial port on a PCI card, a virtual serial port (such as those
> used with USB-serial or those used with TCP/IP serial servers).

There is however a real difference between the
standard com ports and the other ones from VBA.

> They are seen as if they were serial ports on the motherboard.

Its more complicated than that in practice,
most obviously with the IRQs etc.

> The advantage is that legacy software can make use of them.

> One potential glitch is that legacy software may only
> support COM1-COM4 while the ports may be identified
> as COM1-COM99 (you can rename them).

Precisely and thats the problem with VBA.

I did in fact write my own driver for a special serial port
that I kludged up using an ISA card with no IRQ at all,
because it was a special purpose serial port that was
only ever used for output only to a datawatch, but I
dont want to go the serial port route because it would
be convenient to be able to use the laptop which has
no serial ports at all for debugging, and the PVR which
I may well end up with the logging on because its on
the UPS, doesnt even have any free PCI slots left,
because its got 4 digital TV cards, a lan card and
a decent dual head video card using all the slots.

> If you are writing your own software, it's fairly simple to
> enumerate all of the ports and make them available to your
> software - do a Google search on "VB enumerate serial
> ports". You should be able to use the same code in VBA.

It isnt in fact quite that simple from VBA.

> Another potential glitch is that USB-serial converters are not all
> created equal. Some do not handle the handshaking lines. The
> only fix is to use one that does. The CP2102 handles everything.

Or dont bother with serial at all, just use a pure USB approach instead.

Cant see the point in bothering with serial at all if a standard
commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter will do the job fine,
and I havent seen any evidence that it wont.

Going that route allows me to use the laptop for debugging,
use the PVR for the long haul, and is a lot simpler and more
elegant than any serial prot approach will ever be. With a
lot more future too as serial ports sink beneath the waves. 

Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> Yes, kludges are quite common. Still makes a lot more sense to
>> use a bog standard USB/1wire commercial converter/adapter if it
>> will drive the string of 1820s fine, and it appears that that will
>> be fine. At worst it might need one of the spare wires on the RJ11
>> cables used to drive the 1820s in non parsitic mode and doing that
>> is a hell of lot simpler than using a IOM #135E or IOM #136 Module
>> and a FT232BM USB - RS232 adaptor packaging wise alone.

> The CP2102 is 5mm x 5mm and requires only 2-3 capacitors. It's
> capable of very high bus speed and a very high serial baud rate.

> I agree that a standard USB/1-wire adapter is simpler
> but it doesn't appear there are any that are self-powered.

They are all powered from the USB. No reason why
not, plenty of 5V power available on the USB port.

And parasitic power of the 1820s should work fine, thats
what Pete Anderson uses with his strings of 1820s.

> It should be easy enough to modify your Elektor adapter to use a separate
> power supply. +5V regulated switching supplies are readily available.

Yep, but a commercial USB/1-wire converter/adapter
is a lot cleaner on packaging alone.

> I've posted here about one that I've tested to be trouble free as far as
> causing X-10 problems. However, you may have problems with voltage
> drops if sending it very far over a wire in a telephone cable, especially
> one that passes through a modular connector or two at each node.

Cant see why, the 1820 doesnt take much and
I'd doing them in a star config, not a daisychain.

Happy to use CAT5 cable to the stack of RJ11 sockets for each cluster of 
1820s. 

Ahh! I see you've made my killfile in a previous incarnation. Had I
recognized the name I would not have wasted my time.

Turning once again to your initial post...

1. You asked for "a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter". The DS9490R meets
your criteria.

2. You asked for "a decent driver that can be used from VBA from Access or
Excel etc." Maxim has two 1-wire APIs that are copiously documented at...


http://files.dalsemi.com/auto_id/softdev/owdocs/Docs/1-Wire_SDK_Help.html

Whether or not they will run afoul of the FCC's anti-indecency crusade, I
can't say. I don't do 1-wire so am not interested in delving deeper into the
nuts and bolts. The COM version can be used from VB Script so it should be
usable from VBA.

There's a link on the above cited page to a "developers list" which is
probably where you should be spending your time rather than wasting the time
of others here. If you're unable to make use of the APIs yourself, maybe you
can find a reference to an Active-X control or find someone willing to
create one via the developers list.

Now to add this new identity to my killfile.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>
>The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>in punch down blocks etc.
>
>What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>
>I also need at least a decent driver that can
>be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>
>The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>
>It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 
>

While not cheap, here's another approach.

     http://embeddeddatasystems.com/page/EDS/PROD/HA/HA7Net

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 06:22:06 -0400, "Robert Green"
<ROBERT_GREEN1963@YAH00.COM> wrote in message
<57GdnZ9ytN4wjdvZnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@rcn.net>:
>
>You're all clearly unaware that we've received a personal visit from a
>legendary internet personality, Rod Speed.

Actually, IIRC, Rod_Speed, his other puppets and I 'conversed' in
comp.home.automation before. He dug himself a hole and made it so slippery
with his own corporal ejecta that he had to wait until he and the hole dried
up enough for him to crawl out and away. 

I just returned from 3 weeks in the Middle East including the West Bank
where the reality that anybody can choose to become somebody by being
disruptive is heavy in the air. 

Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

> And is quite convenient for stuff like the fridges
> and freezers, it'll go past the door seals fine.

There's actually some flat wire (really flat) that does this even better.  It
has the added advantage of being adhesive-backed, obviating the need for staples
and the risk of injuring your wire with them.  The stuff is primarily intended
for use with stereo systems being installed in existing homes without attic /
basement access.  It's kind of pricey but it works very well and if you paint
over it the stuff disappears.  I don't sell it but if you're interested I'd be
glad to locate a source for you.

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

--

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

> You're all clearly unaware that we've received a personal
> visit from a legendary internet personality, Rod Speed.

Oh.

> "USB Only" is obviously a much higher priority requirement
> for the OP than most replies have acknowledged.  If there's
> anything that's typical about Usenet in this thread, it's that
> a lot of answers that fall under the heading: "not *exactly*
> what that user wanted."

It would seem so.

> If my mate's read of Speed is right, we can be sure, if
> nothing else, that RS knows *exactly* what he wants.
> That's probably pretty clear by now, anyway.

That can be either a good or bad thing.

> The state of PC and HA wiring is such that it's easy (for me
> at least, and especially my wife) to understand how someone
> could finally say "not one more f'ing wire!"  I, too, am
> struggling with cleanly implementing similar systems and
> have no serial ports to spare nor a desire to add additional
> ports via PCI cards.

I'm not trying to argue that serial ports are better than USB -- only that they
may be a viable option.

> This sort of approach is fraught with peril, as the cliche goes.
> You are limited to what PC can talk to your net (got have a
> special board installed), gotta learn another OS (Theos or
> some other proprietary OS).

Actually, the THEOS operating system was a requirement of the central monitoring
station automation software we were running.  At the time there were no USB
ports (or at least none that I was aware of).  We were running a package called
BOLD which automated the handling of incoming security signals on a multi-line
alarm receiver.

> A machine failure is a crisis...

Due to the critical nature of central alarm monitoring, everything in the office
had a backup.  We set it up so that I could throw a few switched, swap a few
cables and be up and running after a total meltdown in less than 10 minutes.
Our central station receiver, printers, terminals and computer system were all
redundant.  We even had two 4KW UPS units and two gensets though the backup
genset was smaller and simpler than the primary unit.

> Rod obviously wants something he can maintain easily.
> Anything that requires a special board in a PC means
> "maintenance issues" and I've supported enough of
> them to know.  USB-based means he can plug it into a
> laptop, a Mac, a PDA and lots of other things and *hopefully*
> run his sensor net without having to crack open a machine
> or buy cards or adapters.  I can see why he's so hard over
> on demanding that as a requirement.  It's incredibly
> important for CPU device "independence."

That makes a lot of sense.

>> The entire system was extremely simple to set up and use.
>> The hardware ran 24/7 for many years without a hitch.
> 
> Know why?  You probably never tinkered with it once it was
> set up and running.  Those sorts of systems work fine once
> you've put in the time to set them up.  But if they fail, you
> either need an identical spare or lots of qualified spare parts
> to really assure 24/7 performance.  I think that's one thing
> the OP, Mr. Speed, has in mind.

In my business identical spares are pretty much the industry standard.  Not only
that but they have to be capable of being turned on immediately -- no time to
swap cards inside the PC, etc.  A lot can happen in a few minutes when you're
down.  Larger, better financed central stations take this a step farther.  Their
backup systems are kept running 24/7.  In the event of a breakdown the system
has to give an alarm and "fail over" to the backup without skipping a beat.

>> We sold the business and the computer system
>> with it six years ago.  To the best of my knowledge it's still
>> running today.
> 
> Compaq, at its zenith, was selling wonderfully overbuilt machines
> with connectors rated for 10X what was then "industry standard
> practice."  I marvel at the sturdiness of some of the old PC "iron."
> It doesn't, however, have a whole lot to do with the OP's USB
> requirement.

Agreed.  I can see the validity of what you're saying.

>> I wish I could say the same for some of my other PC
>> equipment.
> 
> Still, performance doubles every few years so longevity isn't
> as big a factor as it would be in a car.  I would love to see
> my gas mileage improve the way PC clock speeds and
> peripheral throughput has.  I would buy a new car as often
> as I bought a new PC if it did...

Oh, you don't?  Hmm.  :^)

> IMHO, longevity is not a big requirement of the OP.  I
> would say his USB requirement is actually a way of
> factoring in getting a new PC and being able to use it
> to control the net right out of the box, without adding
> a serial IO card.
> 
>>> Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
>>> either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.
>>
>> Anything is easy if you know how.  I don't write code . . .
> 
> You should have stopped right there.  I know how to rebuild a VW engine.
> That doesn't make it easy in the slightest.  If you don't write code, it's
> really a stretch criticize his code-writing ability...

I didn't mean to criticize him at all.  In fact, I specifically said that was
not the point.  I was only trying to say that "easy" and "hard" are relative.

> The OP is really the only one capable of commenting on the mix of factors
> that dictate his choice of SW.  He's reiterating how important "standard" is
> to him in his design specs.  Still, you're not listening!!!

I'm listening.  You've explained this point clearly and as I said above it makes
sense.

>> but folks I work with develop software for industrial PC's
>> and they don't seem to have much of a problem.  I'm not
>> trying to belittle your skills, friend.
> 
> Perhaps you aren't, but I'm betting he'll take umbrage.

One sage poster includes in his sig line the statement, "Umbrage is free.  Take
all you want".  Usenet has something in common with driving a car.  Participants
often feel anonymous.  That lends ease to expressing anger at lesser slights
than "normal" folks do in other social situations.  We've seen that in the
visits of certain folks from another newsgroup.

> He's explained his requirements to the point of perseveration.
> (-:  Disparaging his programming skills, however "gently"
> isn't likely to get a positive response.  I'll bet it contains the
> "F" word at least.

There was no disparagement.  For me it's probably easier to maintain a wiring
system than for you (even assuming your skills in that area are above average)
because that's what I did for a living for so many years.  That does not mean
that your skills are inferior.  It only means that what is easy varies from
person to person.  What I really hate doing is integrating and maintaining PC
hardware.  :^)

>> But I think you're unnecessarily constricting your project
>> by ignoring other possible solutions.
> 
> And he should care what you think about his project
> exactly why?  (-:

He doesn't have to give a rat's derriere about my opinion.  Nor do you.  I
shared an idea as have you.  After reading your comments I can see why he's
adamant about USB.  No problem.  This isn't a race to see who gains the most
points.  It's an open discussion forum where people with varying backgrounds,
skills and opinions can share what they know/think/whatever.  IMO (which doesn't
have to matter to you either), this is a good thing.

> I don't want to sound mean, but I see so many newsgroups
> where the responses just get farther and farther away from
> the specs that I feel I have entered the twilight zone. I hear
> that "doo doo, doo doo" music right now.  He wants a USB
> solution that he can program in VBA in a non-exotic sort of
> way.  Pretty simple.  It may not be realistic, given some other
> constraints on the project, but that's what I expect he came
> here to find out.  There have been a number of posts that I
> think have been very helpful, but in the end, he's the one
> who gets to decide if they were.

Well, yes.  But threads have a way of morphing, not so much because of Rod
Serling's influence but because that is how conversation works.  Unless there's
a strict moderator tapping his podium with a ruler, most conversations tend to
wander all over the place.  As long as the subject matter is related to HA, I
don't see that as a bad thing.

> [snip because the point has already been made]

No argument here.

>> On another note, I haven't followed this thread very closely
>> so forgive me if I got it wrong but did you indicate you plan
>> to use telco cables (the flat "satin" stuff) to wire up this system
>> in multiple rooms?  If so, I'd strongly advise you to reconsider.
> 
> This may indeed be an area where the OP should test
> assumptions before going much further.  I suspect he
> may have already done the testing, but my experience
> with cutting and soldering those cables has been bad...

Same here.  The design of the cable is intended to enhance tensile strength and
flexibility with little or no thought given to compression, extension
(soldering, punch down, whatever).  They also are not expected to live very
long.  Many of them et replaced long before the phones to which they are
connected die.

> Maybe Ozian RJ11 cables are different or he's got a batch
> of cables he knows he can work with.  I suspect by the time
> he gets this far down, you've already lost much of your ability
> to persuade him.  :-)

I made it clear enough that my comments were not intended as a slight.  If he's
so sensitive that he can't accept that, he loses.  I'm not trying to gain
anything.  He is.  I prefer not to assume the gentleman is as easily offended as
you say.  If I'm wrong, that's unfortunate but for his sake it would be good for
him to take my (and your) advice about running wire.

>> That's an area where I have extensive knowledge and hands-on
>> experience.  You really don't want to try to use that kind of cable for
>> permanent wiring of any sort.  More importantly, you don't want to
>> run it through walls (code violation).  It's a royal PITO to splice, does
>> not take well to being stapled in place and is not robust enough for
>> anything other than it's intended purpose -- as a flexible cord to plug
>> telephones into nearby wall jacks.
>>
>> If that is not your intention, ignore the above paragraph.  :^)
> 
> If he's got a solution to what I have found were to be the most
> unsolderable wires on earth, I'd like to learn it.

I rarely curse but when once I broke out one of those cables and tried to solder
it to a broken, cheap-o telephone I made an exception.  :^)

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

--

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

> Done that myself in the past.
> 
> Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
> than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.
> 
> And that approach isnt even feasible with a laptop.

Bob Green elaborated on your requirements and reasoning somewhat.  I can see why
you've chosen this approach.  The only thing I'd try to steer you clear of is
using flat phone cables.  Regardless what you use, when you get the whole system
up I'd enjoy reading about it.

Allow me to reiterate what I said earlier.  My comments about what is easy were
not intended as a slight.  We all have different experience sets.  'Nuff said?

--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

--

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

> I just returned from 3 weeks in the Middle East including the West Bank
> where the reality that anybody can choose to become somebody by being
> disruptive is heavy in the air.

Not knowing Rod I won't comment about him, but the above sure says a lot about
certain visitors from another newsgroup we all know.  :^)


--

Regards,
Robert L Bass

Bass Burglar Alarms
The Online DIY Store
http://www.BassBurglarAlarms.com

--

Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 13:06:39 GMT, nobody@whocares.com (Dave Houston) wrote
in message  <44463584.194072640@nntp.fuse.net>:

>While not cheap, here's another approach.
>
>     http://embeddeddatasystems.com/page/EDS/PROD/HA/HA7Net

The HA7net turnkey etherent device looks very handy indeed, especially if
Embedded Data Systems continue to add capabilities. The idea of modifying
Linksys WRT54G's and other Linux based ethernet routers (topic in a
different recent thread) to handle 1-wire and especially other I/O intrigues
me too. 

Some of their devices are quite pricey. Their 0-10vdc output at $100 a pop
makes the 72-channel, 0-10vdc DMX512 interfaces I got from eBay for ~$100
'worth' $7200 each ;-) 

This Kentucky company also sells the HA7E - ASCII 1-Wire Host Adapter. It is
the only device supported by the 'free' Homeseer plug-in I mentioned earlier
in this thread. For a $100, shipping included, one can purchase from them
the HA7E and 15 (fifteen) DS18S20 temperature sensors.  If one has installed
conventional Cat-5 ethernet in a home, it is likely that there are extra
pairs that could be pressed into service for a comprehensive temperature
monitoring network using 1-wire. Calibrate all 15 at once and add correction
via the data base (see paragraphs below). 

The 'free' 1-wire HomeSeer plug-in by Ultrajones (Randall Jones) provides
for logging the data to Microsoft Access 2003 (database included), Microsoft
SQL 2000 and Microsoft SQL 2005.

Because the data from the 1-wire devices end up in a relational data base,
it should be straight-forward to merge other data from other sources and
sensors, including other 1-wire channels (="strings"= "runs") from other
1-wire interfaces/bus masters.

This neatyl solves the problem that most HA controllers -- however good they
may be at responding to event-based rules -- are not well suited for logging
purposes.


.... Marc 
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

Robert L Bass <sales@bassburglaralarms.com> wrote

>> And is quite convenient for stuff like the fridges
>> and freezers, it'll go past the door seals fine.

> There's actually some flat wire (really flat) that does this even
> better.  It has the added advantage of being adhesive-backed,
> obviating the need for staples and the risk of injuring your wire
> with them.  The stuff is primarily intended for use with stereo
> systems being installed in existing homes without attic / basement
> access.  It's kind of pricey but it works very well and if you paint
> over it the stuff disappears.  I don't sell it but if you're
> interested I'd be glad to locate a source for you.

Thanks Bob, a url of an operation that exports will be fine. 

Robert L Bass <sales@bassburglaralarms.com> wrote

>> Done that myself in the past.

>> Its clearly a lot cleaner to use one of the existing USB ports
>> than to need to add another PCI card to support serial ports.

>> And that approach isnt even feasible with a laptop.

> Bob Green elaborated on your requirements and reasoning
> somewhat.  I can see why you've chosen this approach.  The
> only thing I'd try to steer you clear of is using flat phone cables.

Yeah, that's why I actually got some of those RJ11 extension
cords and checked that I can easily get those which use
stranded wire and not that satin stuff which can indeed be
a complete pain in the arse to do anything with.

Once you realise the problem, it isnt that hard to work out from
the appearance and the feel whether its that satin stuff or not.

> Regardless what you use, when you get the
> whole system up I'd enjoy reading about it.

Yeah, I always try to do that with more than trivial
questions, post the washup once I have got there.

The obvious approach is to make up the clusters of 1820s
on those RJ11 cables, see if it will work with one of the
commercial USB/1-wire converters/adapters. Best to wire
the 1820s up with 3 wires so I can use parasitic power or
a separate Vdd line. If for some reason it doesnt work,
because of the way the 1-wire bus is driven, I can alway
cut to the chase with a
http://www.phanderson.com/iom13x_usb.html and either
use that or work out why it drives the 1-wire better.

On physical packaging alone the commercial USB/1-wire
converter/adapter is rather more convenient, even if I do
end up doing something between the commercial USB/1-wire
converter/adapter and the 1-wire bus power wise.

> Allow me to reiterate what I said earlier.  My comments
> about what is easy were not intended as a slight.  We
> all have different experience sets.  'Nuff said?

Sure, your comments were welcome. I should have said
something about that satin phone wire in my original too.
I was well aware of the problem and should have said that. 

Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote:

> Turning once again to your initial post...

> 1. You asked for "a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter".
> The DS9490R meets your criteria.

Yeah, tho I was essentially asking if there was more than
just one flavor of those, particularly on how they drive the
1-wire bus, which might make a difference when driving
a string of 1820s. Its clear from Pete Anderson's site and
others that strings of 1820s do work fine, the only real
question was whether the DS9490R will drive them as
effectively as Pete Anderson's design which is known to work.

> 2. You asked for "a decent driver that can be used
> from VBA from Access or Excel etc." Maxim has two
> 1-wire APIs that are copiously documented at...

> http://files.dalsemi.com/auto_id/softdev/owdocs/Docs/1-Wire_SDK_Help.html

Yeah, tho I should have said more clearly that a decent
ActiveX control is rather more convenient to use with VBA.

I was hoping that someone flogging those DS9490Rs
like www.hobby-boards.com would have a link to one.
Havent found one yet tho.

> Whether or not they will run afoul of the FCC's anti-indecency
> crusade, I can't say. I don't do 1-wire so am not interested in
> delving deeper into the nuts and bolts. The COM version can
> be used from VB Script so it should be usable from VBA.

It should indeed.

> There's a link on the above cited page to a "developers list" which
> is probably where you should be spending your time rather than
> wasting the time of others here. If you're unable to make use of
> the APIs yourself, maybe you can find a reference to an Active-X
> control or find someone willing to create one via the developers list.

> Now to add this new identity to my killfile.

It isnt a new identity, I've been using it for decades now.

And I dont actually give a flying red fuck
what you do or do not choose to read.


> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I want to have a number of 1-wire 1820 sensors thruout the house,
>> and want to minimise the cost of those so I can use them wherever
>> it makes sense to have one like in all the fridges and freezers etc
>> so I can do basic stuff like alarm on out of acceptable range etc.
>>
>> The obvious way to do those physically is to use phone extension
>> leads with RJ11 connectors on each end. Just cut them in half
>> and solder a 1820 on the bare end of each half. Then just connect
>> them all in parallel using standard RJ11 sockets on vero etc or
>> in punch down blocks etc.
>>
>> What I want is a fully assembled USB/1-wire converter
>> that can be used to interface those to the PC.
>>
>> I also need at least a decent driver that can
>> be used from VBA from Access or Excel etc.
>>
>> The stuff thats obvious on the web mostly dont use such
>> unpackaged sensors. Cant see any reason why its not possible tho.
>>
>> It would be desirable to be able to use any standard
>> 1-wire sensor ics too, but not absolutely essential. 

Dave Houston <nobody@whocares.com> wrote:

> While not cheap, here's another approach.

>     http://embeddeddatasystems.com/page/EDS/PROD/HA/HA7Net

Yeah, thats the one I mentioned in a previous post.

The main downside with that is that its not as
flexible, I am to a considerable extent locked
into what they choose to do with the firmware.

Completely trivial to use from VBA tho. 

"Robert L Bass" <sales@bassburglaralarms.com> wrote in message
news:tdbc42dte26l2kd3chaqjrcpa7gvuhtk9o@4ax.com...
> > You're all clearly unaware that we've received a personal
> > visit from a legendary internet personality, Rod Speed.
>
> Oh.

I suppose that's not impressive to someone that's a internet personality
themselves.  :-0

> > "USB Only" is obviously a much higher priority requirement
> > for the OP than most replies have acknowledged.  If there's
> > anything that's typical about Usenet in this thread, it's that
> > a lot of answers that fall under the heading: "not *exactly*
> > what that user wanted."
>
> It would seem so.

I've done a lot of requirements analyses in my life.  It's always been
incredible to me how wildly systems requirements morph as the design
evolves.  Unfortunately, it's often not in a good way!  Usenet at times
reflects the worst part of the process by inducing the "Telephone Game"
effect in a very predictable way.  As soon as someone makes a twist,
everyone else twists that way.  If we're talking flying red ducks and
someone says flying red chickens, suddenly, there's lots of chicken talk.
It immediately puts the OP in a contentious posture.  He has to say,
forcefully, I don't LIKE chicken (for whatever reason).

Now we're drifting from the OP's initial requirements in two directions.
One along the lines of chickens and not ducks and the other about why the OP
would even WANT to do whatever it is he wants to do.  Neither have much to
do with flying red ducks.

> > If my mate's read of Speed is right, we can be sure, if
> > nothing else, that RS knows *exactly* what he wants.
> > That's probably pretty clear by now, anyway.
>
> That can be either a good or bad thing.

If it's a bad thing, you can issue the standard warnings (don't tie neutrals
to ground, don't run LV parallel to HV wiring, etc) and let it lie.  A
'good' example of a 'good' thing was a short while back when I asked about
text on TV for my Dad.  I received a number of very good suggestions to
implement exactly what I had in mind.  I also got some posts with some
excellent alternatives to my entire design.  Lewis G's comments about how he
solved a similar problem, as well as the great input from Dave, Bill, you,
BF and a few others caused me to completely change course and implement a
different solution.  That was based on confronting the cost, complexity and
effectiveness of my initial solution compared to what evolved.

That's what truly great about CHA and Usenet.  It offers other perspectives.
On the other hand, I think a lot of that was going on in this thread was the
old "phone game" where a kid whispers something to the next kid in line so
that when you get to the end "Flying Red Duck" becomes "Crying Dred Locks"
or something like it.

> > The state of PC and HA wiring is such that it's easy (for me
> > at least, and especially my wife) to understand how someone
> > could finally say "not one more f'ing wire!"  I, too, am
> > struggling with cleanly implementing similar systems and
> > have no serial ports to spare nor a desire to add additional
> > ports via PCI cards.
>
> I'm not trying to argue that serial ports are better than USB
> -- only that they may be a viable option.

It seemed pretty clear to me that USB was the only viable option for RS.
I'll have to look again to see why I felt this was an "accept no
substitutes" item with the OP but I did feel that very strongly.  Of course,
I had the benefit of knowing about the OP from somewhere else, so I assumed
that he knew what he wanted from the get go.

> > This sort of approach is fraught with peril, as the cliche goes.
> > You are limited to what PC can talk to your net (got have a
> > special board installed), gotta learn another OS (Theos or
> > some other proprietary OS).
>
> Actually, the THEOS operating system was a requirement of the central
monitoring
> station automation software we were running.  At the time there were no
USB
> ports (or at least none that I was aware of).  We were running a package
called
> BOLD which automated the handling of incoming security signals on a
multi-line
> alarm receiver.

I've maintained large BBS's using slave cards (entire PC's on single ISA
cards) and banks of modems.  I know this sort of HW and SW more intimately
than I ever wanted to know.  The further away you step from the industry
standards, the more collateral problems you're going to face.  I think the
OP knows this on a deeply personal level.

> > A machine failure is a crisis...
>
> Due to the critical nature of central alarm monitoring, everything in the
office
> had a backup.  We set it up so that I could throw a few switched, swap a
few
> cables and be up and running after a total meltdown in less than 10
minutes.
> Our central station receiver, printers, terminals and computer system were
all
> redundant.  We even had two 4KW UPS units and two gensets though the
backup
> genset was smaller and simpler than the primary unit.

No argument there.  I would expect, though, that Rod wants a solution that
he can hook up in ten seconds or less.  :-)  Once you require a special card
in a PC you've gone from the 10 second swap to the 10 minute one.  And if
the swap card blows, it could be 10 days.  And if the manufacturer is out of
business it might take 10 weeks to find another card or implement a
replacement solution.

> > Rod obviously wants something he can maintain easily.
> > Anything that requires a special board in a PC means
> > "maintenance issues" and I've supported enough of
> > them to know.  USB-based means he can plug it into a
> > laptop, a Mac, a PDA and lots of other things and *hopefully*
> > run his sensor net without having to crack open a machine
> > or buy cards or adapters.  I can see why he's so hard over
> > on demanding that as a requirement.  It's incredibly
> > important for CPU device "independence."
>
> That makes a lot of sense.

And it's something he's confirmed repeatedly.  For example, I used to use
the RAID HW that came with most new motherboards until one profound failure
taught me that it's far better to have a RAID PCI card that you can take
with your drive array to a new PC and restore it from there.  Why?  Because
motherboard based RAID often requires an exactly identical motherboard to
read the array correctly.  A blown RAID chip on a three-year old server can
quickly become a panic hunt for an identical motherboard on Ebay.  A $20
RAID card means I can take the array to any other machine to restore it.  It
also means I can afford to buy a spare (the MB's cost $150+ so it's not
practical to keep entire motherboards in reserve).

> >> The entire system was extremely simple to set up and use.
> >> The hardware ran 24/7 for many years without a hitch.
> >
> > Know why?  You probably never tinkered with it once it was
> > set up and running.  Those sorts of systems work fine once
> > you've put in the time to set them up.  But if they fail, you
> > either need an identical spare or lots of qualified spare parts
> > to really assure 24/7 performance.  I think that's one thing
> > the OP, Mr. Speed, has in mind.
>
> In my business identical spares are pretty much the industry standard.
Not only
> that but they have to be capable of being turned on immediately -- no time
to
> swap cards inside the PC, etc.  A lot can happen in a few minutes when
you're
> down.  Larger, better financed central stations take this a step farther.
Their
> backup systems are kept running 24/7.  In the event of a breakdown the
system
> has to give an alarm and "fail over" to the backup without skipping a
beat.

Again, we're drifting from the OP's topic because it's just so easy to do.
:-)  But the point is made that less complicated means easier to repair or
replace.  I got the very strong feeling Rod wanted less complicated.

> >> We sold the business and the computer system
> >> with it six years ago.  To the best of my knowledge it's still
> >> running today.
> >
> > Compaq, at its zenith, was selling wonderfully overbuilt machines
> > with connectors rated for 10X what was then "industry standard
> > practice."  I marvel at the sturdiness of some of the old PC "iron."
> > It doesn't, however, have a whole lot to do with the OP's USB
> > requirement.
>
> Agreed.  I can see the validity of what you're saying.

Now convince my wife!  She doesn't understand my love for my old Compaq
SLT286 that's about 20 years old and still runs my Ratshack PC multimeter
software just fine.

> >> I wish I could say the same for some of my other PC
> >> equipment.
> >
> > Still, performance doubles every few years so longevity isn't
> > as big a factor as it would be in a car.  I would love to see
> > my gas mileage improve the way PC clock speeds and
> > peripheral throughput has.  I would buy a new car as often
> > as I bought a new PC if it did...
>
> Oh, you don't?  Hmm.  :^)

If I bought new cars at the rate I build PC's I'd need a used car lot.

> > IMHO, longevity is not a big requirement of the OP.  I
> > would say his USB requirement is actually a way of
> > factoring in getting a new PC and being able to use it
> > to control the net right out of the box, without adding
> > a serial IO card.
> >
> >>> Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
> >>> either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.
> >>
> >> Anything is easy if you know how.  I don't write code . . .
> >
> > You should have stopped right there.  I know how to rebuild a VW engine.
> > That doesn't make it easy in the slightest.  If you don't write code,
it's
> > really a stretch criticize his code-writing ability...
>
> I didn't mean to criticize him at all.  In fact, I specifically said that
was
> not the point.  I was only trying to say that "easy" and "hard" are
relative.

I know what you were trying to say.  I just wanted to point out that
criticizing someone, no matter how gently, for not being able to do
something you can't do yourself is never going to come off sincerely, I'm
afraid.  That's at least my NSHO.

> > The OP is really the only one capable of commenting on the mix of
factors
> > that dictate his choice of SW.  He's reiterating how important
"standard" is
> > to him in his design specs.  Still, you're not listening!!!
>
> I'm listening.  You've explained this point clearly and as I said above it
makes
> sense.

I'm perserverating ah, um _perseverating_ (damn if that word doesn't want to
come out of my fingers wrong every time I try typing it!) again.

> >> but folks I work with develop software for industrial PC's
> >> and they don't seem to have much of a problem.  I'm not
> >> trying to belittle your skills, friend.
> >
> > Perhaps you aren't, but I'm betting he'll take umbrage.
>
> One sage poster includes in his sig line the statement, "Umbrage is free.
Take
> all you want".  Usenet has something in common with driving a car.
Participants
> often feel anonymous.  That lends ease to expressing anger at lesser
slights
> than "normal" folks do in other social situations.  We've seen that in the
> visits of certain folks from another newsgroup.

Agreed.  That's why I try, whenever possible, to try to lock it down before
it becomes an overwhelming issue.

> > He's explained his requirements to the point of perseveration.
> > (-:  Disparaging his programming skills, however "gently"
> > isn't likely to get a positive response.  I'll bet it contains the
> > "F" word at least.
>
> There was no disparagement.  For me it's probably easier to maintain a
wiring
> system than for you (even assuming your skills in that area are above
average)
> because that's what I did for a living for so many years.  That does not
mean
> that your skills are inferior.  It only means that what is easy varies
from
> person to person.  What I really hate doing is integrating and maintaining
PC
> hardware.  :^)

See?  I hate pulling cable and love solving PC HW problems.  Different
strokes.  I just wanted to point out that RS was probably equally determined
to stick to his SW choice as he was his USB choice.

> >> But I think you're unnecessarily constricting your project
> >> by ignoring other possible solutions.
> >
> > And he should care what you think about his project
> > exactly why?  (-:
>
> He doesn't have to give a rat's derriere about my opinion.  Nor do you.  I
> shared an idea as have you.  After reading your comments I can see why
he's
> adamant about USB.  No problem.  This isn't a race to see who gains the
most
> points.  It's an open discussion forum where people with varying
backgrounds,
> skills and opinions can share what they know/think/whatever.  IMO (which
doesn't
> have to matter to you either), this is a good thing.

I was just being sarcastic.  Most people respond to posts for some personal
reason.  Whether it's to share knowledge, bust chops or get "attaboys"
there's always a personal element to a response.

> > I don't want to sound mean, but I see so many newsgroups
> > where the responses just get farther and farther away from
> > the specs that I feel I have entered the twilight zone. I hear
> > that "doo doo, doo doo" music right now.  He wants a USB
> > solution that he can program in VBA in a non-exotic sort of
> > way.  Pretty simple.  It may not be realistic, given some other
> > constraints on the project, but that's what I expect he came
> > here to find out.  There have been a number of posts that I
> > think have been very helpful, but in the end, he's the one
> > who gets to decide if they were.
>
> Well, yes.  But threads have a way of morphing, not so much because of Rod
> Serling's influence but because that is how conversation works.
Unless there's
> a strict moderator tapping his podium with a ruler, most conversations
tend to
> wander all over the place.

That's true and it can be both good and bad (is there an echo in here?).

The good part is that you get lots of brainstorming and get to look at ideas
you may not have considered.  The bad part is that the thread can wander so
far away from the original post that the replies are basically worthless.
The pile-on effect from discussion of frying red chickens may have some
value, but in the long run, it's probably a good idea to answer the original
questions somewhere during the meander.  Say, how did we get here from
"1-wire to USB converter that can use 1820s directly?"  :-)

> As long as the subject matter is related to HA, I
> don't see that as a bad thing.

It's not bad as long as it doesn't become contentious and people start
talking past each other and everyone starts slipping on all the umbrage
that's spilled everywhere.

<stuff snipped>

> Same here.  The design of the cable is intended to enhance tensile
strength and
> flexibility with little or no thought given to compression, extension
> (soldering, punch down, whatever).  They also are not expected to live
very
> long.  Many of them et replaced long before the phones to which they are
> connected die.
>
> > Maybe Ozian RJ11 cables are different or he's got a batch
> > of cables he knows he can work with.  I suspect by the time
> > he gets this far down, you've already lost much of your ability
> > to persuade him.  :-)
>
> I made it clear enough that my comments were not intended as a slight.  If
he's
> so sensitive that he can't accept that, he loses.  I'm not trying to gain
> anything.  He is.  I prefer not to assume the gentleman is as easily
offended as
> you say.  If I'm wrong, that's unfortunate but for his sake it would be
good for
> him to take my (and your) advice about running wire.

I just wanted to make the point that we're talking to someone from another
country, so our assumptions about Aussie "telco cords" could be way off base
(as it seems).  Pushing the issue can really be read as calling the OP
stupid.  I know it's not your intent, but we know what they've paved the
road to Hell with.  It's a balancing act, I agree.  I should have said:
"Gee, Rod, here in the Americas the telco cable with RJ11 is unsolderable.
No amount of tinning or unwrapping the copper from the other fibers gives a
good solder joint.  What's different about your telco cord?"

> >> That's an area where I have extensive knowledge and hands-on
> >> experience.

American experience, anyway.

> >>You really don't want to try to use that kind of cable for
> >> permanent wiring of any sort.  More importantly, you don't want to
> >> run it through walls (code violation).  It's a royal PITO to splice,
does
> >> not take well to being stapled in place and is not robust enough for
> >> anything other than it's intended purpose -- as a flexible cord to plug
> >> telephones into nearby wall jacks.
> >>
> >> If that is not your intention, ignore the above paragraph.  :^)
> >
> > If he's got a solution to what I have found were to be the most
> > unsolderable wires on earth, I'd like to learn it.
>
> I rarely curse but when once I broke out one of those cables and tried to
solder
> it to a broken, cheap-o telephone I made an exception.  :^)

Apparently, it's not an issue for the cables he intends to use.  To me, it's
just another part of the learning experience of Usenet.  The telco cords
I've worked with were remarkably unsolderable.  They also would break the
seal on the freezer door, so ours must be different from his.  The
difference could easily be the lack of insulating fibers that probably make
our cords thicker and sturdier but harder to solder.

--
Bobby G.

Robert Green wrote:

> 
> I suppose that's not impressive to someone that's a internet personality
> themselves.  :-0

More like "infamous" internet personality


>>>>>Serial ports done that way arent that easy to support in VBA
>>>>>either, support for non standard serial ports is pretty poor.
>>>>
>>>>Anything is easy if you know how.  I don't write code . . .
>>>
>>>You should have stopped right there.  I know how to rebuild a VW engine.
>>>That doesn't make it easy in the slightest.  If you don't write code,
> 
> it's
> 
>>>really a stretch criticize his code-writing ability...
>>
>>I didn't mean to criticize him at all.  In fact, I specifically said that
> 
> was
> 
>>not the point.  I was only trying to say that "easy" and "hard" are
> 
> relative.
> 
> I know what you were trying to say.  I just wanted to point out that
> criticizing someone, no matter how gently, for not being able to do
> something you can't do yourself is never going to come off sincerely, I'm
> afraid.  That's at least my NSHO.


Nice way of saying rlb's full of shit.  something certain visitors from 
another newsgroup we all know have found out.  :^)


> It's not bad as long as it doesn't become contentious and people start
> talking past each other and everyone starts slipping on all the umbrage
> that's spilled everywhere.
> 
> <stuff snipped>
> 

Robass wrote:
>>I just returned from 3 weeks in the Middle East including the West Bank
>>where the reality that anybody can choose to become somebody by being
>>disruptive is heavy in the air.
> 
> 
> Not knowing Rod I won't comment about him, but the above sure says a lot about
> certain visitors from another newsgroup we all know.  :^)
> 


Why not tell them to stuff electrical cabinets with paper like you did 
in another newsgroup we all know about just before you flooded the GROUP 
with millions of KB of nonsense.

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message

<stuff snipped>

> > "USB Only" is obviously a much higher priority requirement
> > for the OP than most replies have acknowledged.
>
> Yep.
>
> > If there's anything that's typical about Usenet in this thread, it's
that
> > a lot of answers that fall under the heading: "not *exactly* what that
> > user wanted."  If my mate's read of Speed is right, we can be sure,
> > if nothing else, that RS knows *exactly* what he wants.
>
> Yep |-)
>
> > That's probably pretty clear by now, anyway.
>
> Dunno, only you appear to have noticed.

That's probably because I am dumb and can't address the technical issues as
well as others.  That leaves me more time to re-read the project specs.  It
also frees me from thinking along the lines of traditional solutions to the
problem, which in this case, seem mostly to be serial port-based.

> >> On one of my older machines we had need of eight serial
> >> ports for a bunch of terminals and various other I/O devices.

<stuff snipped>

> > This sort of approach is fraught with peril, as the cliche goes.
>
> Yep.
>
> > You are limited to what PC can talk to your net (got have
> > a special board installed), gotta learn another OS (Theos
> > or some other proprietary OS).  A machine failure is a crisis.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Rod obviously wants something he can maintain easily.
>
> Yep.
>
> > Anything that requires a special board in a PC means "maintenance
> > issues" and I've supported enough of them to know.
>
> Yep.
>
> > USB-based means he can plug it into a laptop, a Mac, a PDA
> > and lots of other things and *hopefully* run his sensor net without
> > having to crack open a machine or buy cards or adapters.
>
> And use the laptop which doesnt have any serial
> ports at all for convenient debugging etc too.
>
> And the PVR doesnt have any free PCI slots, basically because
> its got 4 digital TV capture cards and a lan card and a decent dual
> head video card because I use that to play the captured video on.
>
> I might well decide to do the logging and control on
> that PC since its got plenty of spare cpu resources
> when when capturing digital TV 4 channels at once
> and playing one too. Basically because that will be
> on the UPS and nothing else really needs to be.

Yep. (-:

--
Bobby G.

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 03:29:50 GMT, Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com>
wrote in message  <ebbb42tef1lcu4jfm6ldm1a9qpenqso0ac@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 09:08:24 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>wrote in message  <4al9ruFt6fgiU2@individual.net>:
>
>>Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Marc F Hult <MFHult@nothydrologistnot.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> 5) Despite what OP writes, Dr Anderson's site does indeed
>>>>> include schematics and explanations for the devices in question.
>>
>>>> Maybe you could post the precise url for the schematic for say
>>>> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128.html
>>
>>> Sure:
>>
>>Nope.
>>
>>> here's the interconnect diagram:
>>> http://www.phanderson.com/tm128/tm128_config.jpg
>>
>>Not the schematic, you cant see how he's
>>powering the 1wire strings from that. 
>
>If one connects pin 3 of a  DS18x20 to V+, the chips are powered; if not,
>they run in parasitic mode.. 
>
>The diagram shows *clearly* that pin three of the "DS18S20 or DS18B20 or
>DS1822" is connected to the wire that interconnects "Pin 1 GND" on the
>DS2438 to "Black (GRD) " on the TM # 128. And that position 5 on the #128
>connector is "Black ground".
>
>So the two channels are being powered by data lines on pin 2 in parasitic
>mode, not by V+ on pin 3. There are also 4.7k resistors in series with the
>PIC data lines to protect the PIC. 
>

Not sure why my fingers wrote the last sentence. The 4.7k resistors are
pullups to V+ (from the output to 5vdc).

.... Marc
Marc_F_Hult
www.ECOntrol.org

another approach: www.rfxcom.com
If you install an USB RFXCOM receiver then you can also use the
wireless RFXSensor Type-3 unit to connect up to 7 external wired
DS18B20 or DS2438 sensors. And a receiver can receive up to 8 RFXSensor
units

another approach: www.rfxcom.com
If you install an USB RFXCOM receiver then you can also use the
wireless RFXSensor Type-3 unit to connect up to 7 external wired
DS18B20 or DS2438 sensors. And a receiver can receive up to 8 RFXSensor

units

another approach: www.rfxcom.com
If you install an USB RFXCOM receiver then you can also use the
wireless RFXSensor Type-3 unit to connect up to 7 external wired
DS18B20 or DS2438 sensors. And a receiver can receive up to 8 RFXSensor

units