8810 Extender 3.1 problem--new report

[The Robman]

I'm not sure exactly what those battery compartment stickers are, I'm guessing some sort of lot number, but I feel pretty confident that if the stickers are the same, the writing inside is going to be the same, so don't bother opening up the remotes if you're prone to doing it the "scratch and dent" way!

Btw, here's a great page on opening remotes...
http://www.hifi-remote.com/jp1/disassemble/

[lisadaveh]

I have three 8810W remotes. 2 remotes work with 3.1 extender, 1 remote crashes with 3.1 but will use 2.4 extender.

I still have 2 cases from purchasing these 3 remotes. The one case I am absolutely POSITIVE came from an 8810W that works with 3.1 extender

The other case I am 80% sure came with the remote that only works with the 2.4 extender. I am only 80% sure because this case was in the closet, and could represent either of the two remaining remotes. One of the two remaining remotes works with 3.1, and the other only works with 2.4 and crashes with 3.1 extender.

I hope that some of the people with 3.1 crashes on their 8810W can pull out thier cases and validate this theory.

Here is the comparison

http://lisadaveh.home.comcast.net/8810W ... emotes.htm

Please let me know if this sheds any light on the problem

Dave Hofstra
lisadaveh@comcast.net

[Mark Pierson]

I hope that some of the people with 3.1 crashes on their 8810W can pull out thier cases and validate this theory.

I doubt anything can be inferred from the packaging that the remotes came in. The key is, as Rob said, to see what's on the PCB.

I just opened my 8810w. On the outside of the battery door is:

URC-8810B00

On the backside of the PCB is:

COMPUTIME LTD
UEIS-10062
DIK8L REV.1
APRIL 12, 2002

As stated before, I have NOT tried Extender 3.1 on this remote, but have been using it with 2.4. If you want to upload your 3.1 configuration file to the Diagnosis area, I'll try uploading it to mine and see what happens.

[Mark Pierson]

If you want to upload your 3.1 configuration file to the Diagnosis area, I'll try uploading it to mine and see what happens.

I just tried the file Nils uploaded (URC8810 ex3_1.txt) on my 8810w and it seems to work fine. I get the 4 blinks (1 long, 3 medium) when pressing Power to activate the extender. I also modified some of the device macros to send commands (instead of just setting the M_, C_, T_ attributes), and they seems to all work as well. I think you're going to have to open yours up and see what's on the PCB.

To do so, after removing the batteries and screws inside the compartment, hold the remote normally and try sliding an old credit card between the 2 halves with a slight downward angle, starting around the transport keys. Once it pops open a little, carefully slide up towards the top to release the latches. Just take your time and go slow... don't force anything and it should open rather easily.

[lisadaveh]

I have opened the remote that crashes with 3.1, but works with 2.4. I have the same info on the circuit board as you list in the previous post. I have not opened my 8810W that works with 3.1 because I am a real hack, and I wanted to keep the two that accept the 3.1 extender in good condition. I am returning the 2.4 remote as soon as we are sure we do not need it anymore for this research.

here are the pics of the PCB

http://lisadaveh.home.comcast.net/8810W ... 2_4pcb.htm

[johnsfine]

Based on your email to Rob, I have a couple theories about what's happening, that we could develop further or rule out with a few more tests.

First, I was wondering about the working of the reset signal in your JP1 cable. Do you use JP1 with batteries in the remote? If so, does the remote double blink at the end of an upload or does it double blink when you disconnect the JP1 cable?

Next, one theory would say certain setup codes will be badly broken. One of those is CBL/0027. Can you try selecting that setup code and sending a few signals. It might just reset or hang the remote and thus be very easy to confirm. I'm not sure. It might just send the wrong thing, in which case you'd need to learn one of the CBL/0027 signals to another JP1 remote and download to IR and see what it decodes as. If I've really misunderstood my own theory, you might need to test TV/017 instead. That won't reset or hang, but the CH+, CH- and power keys may send the wrong command. To see that, also learn to another JP1 remote and download/decode.

My other theory is that it is trashing a byte of eeprom. To find that out:
1) Save an image file hith extender
2) Upload that file to the remote.
3) Get the double blink of initial reset, either as part of upload or when disconnecting the cable (depending on how reset signal is working).
4) Download, save file and compare to (1).
5) Try to activate extender.
6) Download, save file and compare to (1).

[lisadaveh]

Thanks for the reply. I did check some of the things you mentioned, namely, the remote does not reset until I unplug the JP1 cable. Both the above mentioned codes load correctly in this remote and all buttons work consistently, but I did not try to learn the codes yet because, as you will see, I made some progress in the battery area. Rob suggested I try a paperclip in place of the 4th battery, and that DOES cause the remote to reset correctly with the cable plugged in!

I then tried the 3.1 extender on the remote with the paperclip in place of the 4th battery. (I have NEVER got the 3.1 extender to work on this remote without crashing after the first 2 or 3 keypresses). With the paperclip in, the remote correctly ran the 3.1 extender past 30-40 keypresses! I then put the 4th battery in and removed the paperclip, and the remote crashed on the 2nd keypress. I was successful working the 3.1 extender 3 additional times using the paperclip, and the three additional tests with 4 batteries all crashed the remote after the first two keypresses.

I have used these 4 batteries in my other 2 8810W remotes with no problems running the 3.1 extender and they work fine with all 4 batteries. I have tried 4 other batteries in this remote (used and different brand) and this remote will not run the 3.1 extender with those batteries either.

This same remote will run the 2.4 extender perfectly without crashing while all four of these batteries are in.

Hope this helps start clearing some things up... let me know if I can do anything useful for you with this remote before I return it in the next week or two....

PS... My other 2 remotes that operate the 3.1 extender properly do not blink the LED for reset until I unplug the JP1 either (with 4 batteries in)

Dave Hofstra

[johnsfine]

I'm trying to figure out an explanation that fits all the symptoms in this situation:

Mabe I shouldn't be believing all the reported symptoms. Usually I assume symptoms this bazarre result from experimental error.

Best guess is the eeprom sometimes delivers wrong results. There are lots of reasons why that might depend on battery voltage.

The eeprom is heavily used for protocol upgrades, more heavily used for extenders than for upgrades, and more heavily used for some extenders than for others.

The difference between eeprom working and not working could be the part of the eeprom used (maybe the problems are all near the end of the eeprom address range). It could be dependant on the proportion of zero and one bits in the data stream (which would be a very short time scale affect on eeprom power). It could depend on the total amount you read it without a pause to rest it.

I doubt that there is a thermal factor (use it a lot at full voltage and the inner core of the eeprom chip actually warms up to the point that it behaves differently). Maybe one of the hardware experts here has a more informed opinion on that. If it's a plausible theory then cooling the whole remote before starting the test would give better full voltage results (if you try that, be careful to do it in a way that doesn't cause condesation inside the remote. Around here now you could just take it outside for a while at let it adjust slowly for temperature and humidity, then test outside).

If there is a timing factor that isn't thermal, it has to be the capacitor on eeprom power, which would mean something is wrong with the signal that drives eeprom power from a data output of the cpu. Maybe one of the hardware experts has an opinion on how one might investigate that possibility.

BTW, if you have it open or have a REALLY good picture from opening it before, there may be something written on the eeprom chip that would tell a hardware expert something about the timing or voltage conditions under which it would be more marginal than the eeprom in a typical JP1 remote. The values of capacitor and resistor connected to the eeprom might also be a design error or manufacturing mistake that might explain the symptoms.

[lisadaveh]

I have zoomed in on the //?? EEPROM ??// chip and added it to the PCB pictures page I had made:

Here is the address

http://lisadaveh.home.comcast.net/8810W ... 2_4pcb.htm

Also, I am just a newbie, so ignore this if it makes no sense, but with the batteries in could it change the timings a little? Like the person who made the 3.1 extender said he made the macros move faster, could the full voltage change the internal timings just enough to get confused on keypresses? If there was a timing change between 2.4 and 3.1 then that might explain a little. I have seen this remote attempt to excecute a macro with batteries in, and it is definitely stumbling between each key in the macro.

[johnsfine]

I have zoomed in on the //?? EEPROM ??// chip and added it to the PCB pictures page I had made:

Yes that's the eeprom, just as I requested. I don't have the expertise to look up whether that one is less tollerant of voltage or timing differences than a typical JP1 remote's eeprom. I was hoping some hardware expert would join this thread.

Also, I am just a newbie, so ignore this if it makes no sense, but with the batteries in could it change the timings a little?

I doubt that could be a factor. I don't know how battery voltage might affect whatever is used to generate the CPU clock, but I don't think it affects it enough to matter.

Like the person who made the 3.1 extender said he made the macros move faster, could the full voltage change the internal timings just enough to get confused on keypresses?

I think that's one of the extenders that I wrote. I am quite sure this problem is not related to macro timing nor to any timing affect related to keypresses.

If there was a timing change between 2.4 and 3.1 then that might explain a little. I have seen this remote attempt to excecute a macro with batteries in, and it is definitely stumbling between each key in the macro.

It isn't "stumbling" between keypresses. It is intentionally delaying between steps in a macro. Many devices can't take IR commands at full speed. The designers of the UEI remotes decided to slow down ALL macro steps to a speed at which most devices can take sequential commands. I'm sure that decision reduced the number customer complaints they got regarding macros not working.

That macro step speed is annoying slow for users of the large number of devices that don't need the delay and not slow enough for a few devices that need even more delay. I made the extender interfere with the remote's built-in decision to delay between macro steps, so by default the macro runs as fast as possible, and the extender user must figure out when that's too fast and insert extra delay steps in macros.

None of that has ANYTHING to do with the current problem. If it is really a timing or a voltage problem, it is a timing or voltage problem just in the process of reading the eeprom.

BTW, if lower voltage batteries do reliably work around this problem, you might consider using 4 cheap rechargable Nicad batteries rather than 3 disposable alkaline batteries and a paper clip. I can't quite visualize how you replace one battery with a paper clip securely enough to operate the remote.

Pro: 4 Nicad batteries should be less of a physical challenge. 4 Nicad batteries is about the same total voltage of 3 brand new alkaline. Nicad batteries have more stable voltage across events like turning on the backlight and across their discharge period, so you'll be much less likely to have the extender deactivate due to low voltage than you would running with 3 alkaline batteries.

Con: Even cheap Nicad's cost more than Alkalines and if you don't already own a Nicad battery charger, that's a lot more. They also self discharge so they need to be recharged every couple months even if you barely ever use the remote.

[usblipitor]

I can't quite visualize how you replace one battery with a paper clip securely enough to operate the remote.

Me too. This got me to thinking.. instead of using a paperclip, how about a dead battery wrapped in aluminum foil? After that dead battery leaks all over and ruins the remote, how about using a short length of aluminum-foil-wrapped wooden dowel rod (available from Home Depot or Lowes)? Instead of dowel rod, one could use the shaft of a bic pen or a pencil or a soda straw or bundle some Q-tips together and wrap them in foil after cutting to length. Or, I suppose if rolled tightly, aluminum foil all by itself might work. But I wouldn't smoke it.

If extender 2.4 works on 4 batteries, and extender 3.1 works on 3 batteries, by my calculations, if we can just get johnsfine to write extender 5.2, we won't need batteries at all; in fact starting with extender 5.9 the remote could be used to charge other devices

[digitize]

When I had this problem with the extender on the 8810w I opened up three different 8810w and compared the eeproms. They were identical. I wanted three of them to work in different rooms. Today, I have two working with the extender and one not working with an extender (but am using it with a code upgrade). I had to return several back to the store before I got two to work. I suspect it is not the eeprom but maybe a component on the board that is not in spec. Which might explain why varying the voltage is giving positive results. If I had a good digital camera I would post all three remotes photos for comparison. I spent days on this and finally gave up. I do like the remote when it works.

[lisadaveh]

have noticed something new on the extender today. I use one of the advanced codes to control my HTPC through a serial creative PCDVD ir remote control. I use this to browse my music selections and use repeated, very quick button presses to browse my albums and such.

With my advanced code loaded on a virgin (nonextended) remote, I can get very quick, distinct keystrokes sent to the reciever.

When I run the same advanced code using the extender, the keypresses are not sent quite as fast in succession.

I am testing this by looking at the recived IR signal light in girder. 4 quick presses of a button without the extender yields 4 distinct received codes by girder. With the extender loaded, 4 quick presses of the same button will yeild 2 distict recieved codes by girder.

I do not notice any lag with my normal home theater equipment, but then again I am not pressing the buttons to browse through files this quickly. I have looked at the remote in both states using a videocamera, and cannot humanly tell any difference in signal transmission. I am using the 3.1 extender when I notice this, and will try the 2.4 extender on sunday and post my findings.

Is it possible that the extender causes a lag time when sending codes? If so, can i program the remote to disable the extender for 1 device, and keep it for the rest of the devices? Or, maybe, is it possible the extender allows one code to be cut off before it finishes to start another code?

I really love this extender, I am just posting some of my findings here. Just wondering if this is one of the known limitations of the extender.

I have tried the 2.4 extender with the same results ... only about 2 in four fast keystrokes are recognized. I also have done a test using a paperclip as the fourth battery, and it still only correctly sent 2 keystrokes to girder.

I have done a little test with my video camera to make sure the problem is not girder, and this is what I have found:

hitting 4 keystrokes on the remote I actually recieve in girder (typically)

Virgin 8810W - recieve all 4 keystrokes
2.4 extender - consistently recieves 2 keystrokes, sometimes 3
3.1 extender - consistently recieves 2 keystrokes, sometimes 3
Paperclip with 3.1 extender - consistently recieves 2 keystrokes, sometimes 3

I have taken the following mpeg files to show the difference if anybody cares at the following website. YOU WILL HAVE TO RIGHT CLICK THE LINKS AT THIS SITE AND SAVE TO HARD DRIVE TO VIEW THE FILES AT THE PROPER SCIENTIFIC SPEED.

http://lisadaveh.home.comcast.net/8810W ... ATTEST.HTM




Dave Hofstra
lisadaveh@comcast.net

[johnsfine]

To do its job, the extender needs to be in ram for every keystroke. Ram is used for other things, so the extender must trick the remote into reloading it (from eeprom to ram) after each action. That does take some time. Most people don't notice.

It would be quite hard to program the remote to deactivate when a certain device is selected and have a practical way to reactivate for other devices (once the extender is deactivated, the remote wouldn't recognise keymoves or macros on the device keys, so those couldn't reactivate the extender).

[lisadaveh]

Very good, at least I know I am not crazy. The benefit of the extender is such that I can live with the slower keystrokes sequence. The faster macros, macros on device keys, and increased memory is definitely a fair trade. Keep up the good work, I am loving this stuff!

This IR.exe, KM, and Girder have made me stop and say 'WOW'. I haven't been this excited about programs for a long time.

It really boils down to this: These utilities have put the 'Programming' feeling back into the computer. Way back when we all had commodore 64, Apple IIe's, and TRS-80's, computers let us program and customize things. Now, computers hide all the programability from the user and we are just spoon fed everything.

Dave Hofstra