Jump to content

Dual Band PLM Communicating Poorly with Older (I1) Devices


Recommended Posts

I began investigating communications failures between my dual band (2413S) PLM and my older I1 devices some months ago. I have not completed this investigation. I do not yet understand the root cause of the communication failures. As a result, I cannot say that this same problem will exhibit itself in other systems (I suspect it will). I’ve decided to post my in-process results after reading what I believe are similar problems on the forum.

 

I have eliminated a number of possible causes for the communication faults and have listed them below. At this point I’ve pretty much stalled out and am looking for help from the ISY community on how to proceed. I am hoping that others with dual band PLM’s and older devices can add their observations on their system performance.

 

Since many will not be interested in the gory details, I am posting in “reverse orderâ€. I have far too much data to put into a single post. I’ll be adding data in subsequent posts as time allows.

 

Conclusion

 

Changes to the dual band PLM (2413S and UH) firmware and/or hardware have degraded its ability to receive 3 Hop messages from older I1 devices (manufactured prior to 2009). After issuing a Direct Message with Max Hops set to 3, dual band PLM’s appear to have intermittent problems receiving responses from older I1 devices. This appears to be a receive problem, not a transmit problem (the devices do attempt to respond to the PLM). The receive problems can last for extended periods of time (minutes) and affect many, if not all, I1 devices on the network. Reducing the Max Hops to 1 appears to resolve the issue.

 

Communication with I2 devices is not affected during the I1 communication disruption.

 

The older “standard†PLM (2412S) does not exhibit this communication difficulty.

 

System Impact

 

This is not an easy failure to detect. Scenes initiated by the ISY appear to operate normally (they don’t require a response), and I typically to not receive errors during the 3:00 AM system query.

The problem will intermittently exhibit itself during link table reads and/or device programming. Both of these operations require a good deal of time and use a Max HOP count of 3. When the problem does exhibit itself, multiple I1 modules are affected, both near and far, and on both phases. Most if not all of my I1 devices will go offline while communications with I2 devices remains intact.

 

Examples of Device Direct messages affected include:

 

  • [*:2z3wyw0p]Device Link table reads
    [*:2z3wyw0p]Device programming (Initial or restore functions)
    [*:2z3wyw0p]Device Queries
    [*:2z3wyw0p]Backlight programming

 

Root Cause

 

This is where I could use some help. The problem is extremely intermittent. I have not yet identified the root cause, and therefore cannot predict when communication problems will surface. My system can run for many hours without a communication fault and then suddenly experience repeated faults that can last for minutes. There does not appear to be any correlation with the on/off status of appliances/devices within my home or the time of day.

 

While I can’t identify the cause, I can say what is not causing the failures:

  • [*:2z3wyw0p]Noise/Absorption is not a cause. The dual band PLM’s can reliably receive messages from I1 devices when max Hops are set to 0. They do experience problems when Max Hops are set to 3.
    [*:2z3wyw0p]RF Interference is not a cause. I have performed tests with the RF function on the PLM disabled.
    [*:2z3wyw0p]Module interaction (collisions) is not a cause. I have performed tests with all I2 devices disabled as well as isolated tests (filtered circuit).
    [*:2z3wyw0p]Transient noise (heavy appliance start-up) is not a cause. I have performed tests with all appliances disabled.

 

Observations

 

PLM’s Tested

 

  • 1. 2412S PLM Rev 2.75; D.C. 0748; Firmware 0x63
    2. 2413S Dual Band PLM V 1.0; D.C. 0931; Firmware 0x92
    3. 2413UH Dual Band PLM V1.5; D.C. 1123; Firmware 0x98

 

Dual Band PLM Communications (2413S and 2413UH)

 

  • 1. Communications with newer I2 devices (manufactured after 1/09) are nearly flawless at all times.
    2. Scene tests performed on new and old devices are flawless (scene tests use 1 hop).
    3. Direct command/response communications using 3 HOPs intermittently fail when communicating with older I1 devices (manufactured prior to 2009).
    4. Direct command/response communications using 3 HOPs will fail simultaneously on multiple I1 devices (common mode failure).
    5. Direct command/response communications using 0 or 1 HOP have a far higher success rate when communicating with older I1 devices.

 

Standard PLM Communications (2412S)

 

  • 1. Communications with newer I2 devices (manufactured after 1/09) are nearly flawless at all times.
    2. Scene tests performed on new and old devices are flawless (scene tests use 1 hop).
    3. Direct command/response communications using 3 HOPs have a much higher success rate than the Dual Band PLM when communicating with older I1 devices (manufactured prior to 2009).
    4. No evidence of common mode failures when using direct commands to communicate with I1 devices.
    5. Direct command/response communications using 0 or 1 HOP are essentially the same as those for the Dual Band PLM.

 

 

So much for the "brief" synopsis... Next up - Houselinc 2 diagnostics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After determining that my dual band (2413S) PLM was having problems communicating with my I1 devices, I purchased Houselinc and a 2413UH PLM for troubleshooting purposes. HouseLinc provides a nice “signal diagnostics†capability that allows you to repeatedly “ping†modules for responses. It tabulates the responses in terms of “max hop counts†and “hop counts remaining†for each response. It also allows for “round robin†polling (sequential polling) of multiple devices.

 

Using the HouseLinc package, I confirmed the 3 HOP communication difficulties between the 2413UH PLM and my I1 devices. The data that I will be presenting below used the circuit configuration below and three Insteon Modules:

 

Master Bedroom Circuit – Phase A; 80 Feet from PLM

  • a. I1 2486D KPL (Incandescent Load)
    b. I2 2486D KPL (no load)

Mud Room Circuit – Phase B; 120 Feet from PLM

  • a. I1 2486D KPL (Incandescent Load)
     
    PLM_Test_Schem.png

 

0 Hop Communications

 

The HouseLinc 0 Hop communication results are shown in the graphic below. HouseLinc was set to perform 2000 pings on each of the three subject units sequentially. Testing was performed over a period of roughly 47 minutes and showed 1 communication failure on the Mud Room and Master Table devices.

 

The top table of the HouseLinc graphic presents the devices tested, success %, and a breakdown of the message Hops remaining (labeled SD Hops). The “SD Hops†result deserves a bit more explanation. It’s important to realize that even though the message is being sent with “Max Hops = 0â€, the PLM will retry failed communication up to 5 times. On each retry, the Max Hops will be incremented by 1 until a maximum of 3 hops is reached.

Using the Master Overhead result (1935-0-0-0 61-0-0-0 0-4-0-0 0-0-0-0) things break down as follows and as shown in the following table. I’ve “grayed out†responses that shouldn’t be possible based on the Start Hop count of 0.


  • [*:2q1jc8wj]0 Hop Max (1935-0-0-0): 1935 responses were received with a max hop count of zero, and a Hops remaining of 0. Since the Max Hop count was not incremented, no PLM retries were required. In other words, the PLM was able to hear the module with no simulcasting help from any other module in the system (optimal).
    [*:2q1jc8wj]1 Hop Max (61-0-0-0): 61 responses were received with a max hop count of one, and a Hops remaining of 0. Since the Max Hop count was incremented by one, a PLM retry was required to receive the response.
    [*:2q1jc8wj]2 Hop Max (0-4-0-0): 4 responses were received with a max hop count of two, and a Hops remaining count of 1. The Max Hop count was incremented by two indicating that two PLM retries were required.
    [*:2q1jc8wj]3 Hop Max (0-0-0-0): No responses were received with a max hop count of three.

Response Breakdown

 

0Hop_table.jpg

 

 

The lower section of the HouseLinc results table gives a graphical representation of when failures occurred during the testing. Each “-“ indicates a successful communication response. Failed communications are tagged with a “F†(two failures total out of 6000 communications).

 

HL2_0Hop.png

 

1 Hop Communications

The following is a similar test performed using a Max Hop count of 1. Since the Max Hop count was started at one, the test required slightly more time to complete (54 minutes).

 

As indicated by the Houselinc table, 100% of the responses were successful. Furthermore, most of the responses were received with no PLM retries required:

 

1Hop_table.jpg

 

HL2_1Hop.png

 

3 Hop Communications

The following is typical of 3 Hop communications during “problem periodsâ€. As I indicated, they do not occur often. When they do occur, they are severe and lengthy. In the absence of failures, this test would require roughly 62 minutes to complete. HL2 has been set to wait for 2.3 seconds prior to declaring a communication timeout (failure) – The sheer number of failures caused this to run for a long time.

 

Things to note –

  • 1) The I1 devices (Master Overhead and Mud Room) are failing repeatedly and simultaneously even though they are widely separated and on opposite phases.
    2) The I2 Device (Master table) has no communication failures even though it is on the same circuit as the I1 (Master Overhead) device.
    3) The repeated failures occurred over a span of over 6 minutes. This is not a “transient†problem.
    4) Since the Max Hops was initially set to 3, we cannot determine the number of retries performed.

 

3Hop_Table.jpg

 

HL2_3Hop.png

 

Conclusion

While Houselinc was effective in confirming that my 2413UH was having problems communicating with I1 devices, it has not provided a solution to the problem. I have tried all methods of filtering, isolating, phase bridging, and simply shutting off circuits. When this problem arises, the only thing that appears to be effective is using a reduced Hop count (or switching to a 2412S PLM).

 

Next up – 2412S and 2413S PLM comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IM,

 

I have a silly question for you if you don't mind. :oops: Have you considered that the root cause is due to traffic collisions? :?: I ask, because my personal observations of performing very similar 3 hop tests resulted in repeated failures.

 

What did not correlate for me is that all of the devices had no problem firing off (on/off) at any point in time. But, performing the same tests you have conducted resulted in failures which in my view appeared to be over flow in traffic data packets.

 

I am simply guessing at this point in time and have no real point of reference. Simply offering my observations based on a limited amount of testing using the HL2 software diagnostic tools.

 

Insight . . .

 

Teken . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tekken,

 

Not a silly question by any means - I did consider traffic collisions. It's one of the reasons that it has taken me months to get to this point. I believe I have eliminated the following factors:

 

1) I2 device interaction with I1 devices - eliminated by disabling all I2 hardware (including my single accesspoint).

2) RF data corruption - eliminated by disabling the PLM RF transmit/receive function.

3) I1 unit collisions - eliminated by demonstrating that the standard PLM does not encounter the repeated failures.

 

#3 was the tough one. To verify this, I wrote my own serial interface application patterned after the HL2 diagnostics. I used this on both my 2412S and 2413S. The 2413S encounters communication faults similar to that of the HL2 2413UH PLM. The 2412S PLM runs clean with the I1 devices.

 

The above is data that I have not presented as yet...

 

I would be very interested in your test results as well.

 

IM,

 

I have a silly question for you if you don't mind. :oops: Have you considered that the root cause is due to traffic collisions? :?: I ask, because my personal observations of performing very similar 3 hop tests resulted in repeated failures.

 

What did not correlate for me is that all of the devices had no problem firing off (on/off) at any point in time. But, performing the same tests you have conducted resulted in failures which in my view appeared to be over flow in traffic data packets.

 

I am simply guessing at this point in time and have no real point of reference. Simply offering my observations based on a limited amount of testing using the HL2 software diagnostic tools.

 

Insight . . .

 

Teken . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tekken,

 

Not a silly question by any means - I did consider traffic collisions. It's one of the reasons that it has taken me months to get to this point. I believe I have eliminated the following factors:

 

1) I2 device interaction with I1 devices - eliminated by disabling all I2 hardware (including my single accesspoint).

2) RF data corruption - eliminated by disabling the PLM RF transmit/receive function.

3) I1 unit collisions - eliminated by demonstrating that the standard PLM does not encounter the repeated failures.

 

#3 was the tough one. To verify this, I wrote my own serial interface application patterned after the HL2 diagnostics. I used this on both my 2412S and 2413S. The 2413S encounters communication faults similar to that of the HL2 2413UH PLM. The 2412S PLM runs clean with the I1 devices.

 

The above is data that I have not presented as yet...

 

I would be very interested in your test results as well.

 

IM,

 

I have a silly question for you if you don't mind. :oops: Have you considered that the root cause is due to traffic collisions? :?: I ask, because my personal observations of performing very similar 3 hop tests resulted in repeated failures.

 

What did not correlate for me is that all of the devices had no problem firing off (on/off) at any point in time. But, performing the same tests you have conducted resulted in failures which in my view appeared to be over flow in traffic data packets.

 

I am simply guessing at this point in time and have no real point of reference. Simply offering my observations based on a limited amount of testing using the HL2 software diagnostic tools.

 

Insight . . .

 

Teken . . .

 

 

IM,

 

I am hoping to have the entire home to my self this week-end. My plan is to run similar tests such as yours to garner a base line, as well as a point of reference. Once I receive anything meaningful I shall reach out to you, and the collective for some feed back and opinions on the data provided. :mrgreen:

 

For me, performing this task is to have some level of confidence in what I see physically, opposed to what is being recorded by the various testing tools I have on hand.

 

I am still in a holding pattern with respect to my AP tests, and phase bridging that I and ELA have started in various stages.

 

Regards

 

Teken . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tekken,

 

You're quite a bit more considerate of your family than I. I've been running scans throughout the day with the family home. For the most part, the device to device communications still work during testing. Of course the ISY is unplugged, so no programs are active. I think my family regards this as a type of illness that time will cure...

 

You mentioned phase coupling - I experimented with this as well:

 

1) Passive in phase (best)

2) Passive out of phase (inconclusive)

3) Multiple RF couples - no effect.

 

I would be very interested in the date code/rev levels of the devices you are having problems with as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Lee,

 

As luck would have it, I found a box containing a V.99 PLM while shoveling the 8" of snow off my porch this morning. I've been cautiously drying it out over the course of the day.

 

I'm currently running a scan of my three subject units. It's too early to tell for sure, but initial results do not look promising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi IndyMike,

Kinda makes a person sorry that they decided to take a closer look ... huh :shock:

 

Your results seem consistent with what I found with my i1 keypadlinc that I got rid of.

At this point I do not believe I have any more i1 devices.

 

I would not be surprised if there is an incompatibility between older i1 devices and newer firmware releases.

 

In looking at your data I had a question since I do not own a copy of houselinc.

 

q1) Does houselinc automatically set the "Reply Timeout" value? I noticed that in your first two screen shots it was 2.3 sec. and in the third it was not shown. The "Ping" msg has two replies ( one direct and one broadcast). I wonder if Houselinc takes this into consideration and applies a separate timeout to each reply?

I would have expected the timeout value to increase when changing the number of hops used unless they consider 2.3sec and absolute worst case? I calculated roughly that number as a worst case for 3 hops, using a ping msg, with 3 retries.

I doubt it would make a difference but it would seem that the timeout value might be set a bit longer when using 3 hops ( plus retries).

 

I am a quite discouraged with Smarthome's lack of disclosure. When new firmware releases are made how are we to decide whether or not we want/need them? The fact they have released a v99 PLM already is very suspect in my mind. I was surprised at seeing the v98.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello ELA,

 

As far as taking a closer look... I've come to the realization that much of my testing/experience was based on the 2412S PLM. This device still performs well in my system.

 

When I upgraded to the 2413S, I did not perform extensive testing. Still, I find it hard to believe that I would not have spotted some of the communication problems that I am encountering now. I have a sneaking suspicion that things have gotten progressively worse. In my mind, that implies an external stimulus. I'm just having a really hard time pinning it down.

 

In answer to your question, I believe the 2.3 second timeout is the default for HL2. I have played with this to no obvious benefit. I am currently running at 4 seconds and getting the same failures on the I1 devices (I2 device is solid).

 

I'm not sure what you meant by the Ping response containing two transmissions. The command document that I have lists only a "ACK" response to the 0X0F ping command. The HL2 log shows only a flag 0x2B response (ACK with 2 hops remaining. Assuming 3 Hops and 5 retries, I've calculated a timeout on the order of 2.125 seconds. I've padded this a bit since I don't know how quickly the PLM times out on a response.

 

The following is my HL2 log showing the Ping response from the I2 device. Also shows the I1 devices failing with the 4 second timeout.

 

1/3/2012 12:41:58 PM DEBUG Waiting for 300 before sending next message

1/3/2012 12:41:58 PM DEBUG Rx: Std Ack, From: 11.1F.DB, To: 19.77.65, Flag: 2B (Hops: 2/3), C1: 0F, C2: 00

1/3/2012 12:41:58 PM DEBUG Rx: PLM Ack, 02 62 11 1F DB 0F 0F 00 06

1/3/2012 12:41:57 PM DEBUG Tx: Std Msg, To: 11.1F.DB, Flag: 0F (Hops: 3/3), C1: 0F (Ping), C2: 00

1/3/2012 12:41:57 PM WARN Message expired From:09.8C.CD, To:09.8C.CD, Flag:0F, C1:0F, C2:00

1/3/2012 12:41:53 PM DEBUG Rx: PLM Ack, 02 62 09 8C CD 0F 0F 00 06

1/3/2012 12:41:53 PM DEBUG Tx: Std Msg, To: 09.8C.CD, Flag: 0F (Hops: 3/3), C1: 0F (Ping), C2: 00

1/3/2012 12:41:53 PM WARN Message expired From:0A.DB.0B, To:0A.DB.0B, Flag:0F, C1:0F, C2:00

1/3/2012 12:41:49 PM DEBUG Rx: PLM Ack, 02 62 0A DB 0B 0F 0F 00 06

1/3/2012 12:41:49 PM DEBUG Tx: Std Msg, To: 0A.DB.0B, Flag: 0F (Hops: 3/3), C1: 0F (Ping), C2: 00

 

For my Home brew software I'm using a Peek command to simulate the operation of the ISY during a link table read. I'm also using the 2.3 second timeout. Results are consistent with HL2 on the 2413's (repeated failures of the I1 devices). The 2412S shows widely separated single point failures (10 out of 6000 communications) that could easily be attributed to transient noise.

 

As far as SH's disclosure is concerned - it's all in how you view things. I'm happy to see that they are continuously improving their product. In this particular instance, they may have improved the dual band communications with newer I2 modules and unknowingly sacrificed reliability with the older I1 units under certain conditions. I say "under certain conditions" because I don't believe that my particular problem is widespread.

 

In most situations, if I verify a problem with one of their products they will exchange it (I haven't tried with this issue). I would not expect SH to inform us of every firmware modification. I would expect them to issue a statement if a particular revision had a serious flaw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IndyMike,

 

I reviewed the communications documents and it appears there is a discrepancy between " INSTEON Command Tables, 20070927a" and the "EZBridge Reference Manual, 2/27/07".

I originally got my description from the EZBridge reference that came with my 2412S.

 

The EZBridge Reference Manual lists the PING command as: 0x10

and states this:

Receiving device first returns an ACK message, then it sends

a Device Identification Broadcast.

 

The INSTEON Command Tables, lists the ping as you said, 0x0F and lists the 0x10 command as an ID request. Seeing that the EZbridge manual is older perhaps they made a command change, or it was just in error.

 

As far as; "It is all in how you view things" ...

I view Smarthome as keeping us in the dark. Are they improving things?

I do not trust them. If you should prove that incompatibilities are causing older i1 devices to be unreliable I am sure that they will alert the media, and agree to exchange all the i1 devices out there. :roll:

 

What I expect is the manner in which ISY presents their code upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rolled up my numbers for the new V.99 PLM. The first 3 PLM's were run with my home brew software and a timeout of 2.3 seconds. Per ELA's suggestion I ran HouseLinc using a 4 second timeout (2413UH PLM). That took a long time.

 

I'll let the numbers do the talking:

 

Overall_Table.jpg

 

The Line charts for the 2413S V.99 and 2412S follow. I should also note that the "failures" are PLM timeouts. Depending on the ISY setup, it will retry the transmission (default is 2 retries). If I had been performing a link table read with the ISY on the 2412S PLM, it would have performed the full 6000 reads without an error. The 2413 would have failed miserably.

 

2413S V.99 PLM

Mud Room KPL (I1)

Comm%: 85.6 Tries: 2000 Rcnt:288 MaxH0:0-0-0-0 MaxH1: 0-0-0-0 MaxH2: 0-0-0-0 MaxH3: 117-174-1421-0

FFFFFFFFFFFF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬FFFFFF¬F¬¬FFF¬FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF¬¬¬FF¬FFFFF¬FFF¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FF¬FFF¬FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF¬FFFF¬FFF¬¬¬F¬FF¬¬FFFFF¬FFF¬FFFFFFFFFFFF¬FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FFFFFF¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬FF¬¬FFFFFFF¬FFFFFFFFFFF¬F

FFFFFFFFFFF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FFFFFF¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬F¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FFFF¬FFFFFFFFFFF¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬FFF¬¬FF¬F¬FFFFFFFFFFFFFF¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬F¬F¬F¬F¬¬¬F

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF¬¬FFF¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Master Table (I2)

Comm%: 100 Tries: 2000 Rcnt:0 MaxH0:0-0-0-0 MaxH1: 0-0-0-0 MaxH2: 0-0-0-0 MaxH3: 0-4-1996-0

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Master OverHead (I1)

Comm%: 94.1 Tries: 2000 Rcnt:118 MaxH0:0-0-0-0 MaxH1: 0-0-0-0 MaxH2: 0-0-0-0 MaxH3: 50-113-1719-0

¬¬FF¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬FFF¬¬¬¬FF¬F¬FFF¬F¬FF¬¬F¬F¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬F¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FFFFFFFFF¬FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF¬¬F¬FFF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬FFF¬FF¬F¬¬F¬¬FF¬FFFFFFFFF¬¬¬¬FFFF¬¬¬¬¬F¬FFFFFFF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬F¬¬¬FF¬FF¬¬FF

FFF¬¬¬FFFF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬FF¬¬FFF¬F¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

 

2412S PLM

Mud Room KPL (I1)

Comm%: 99.8 Tries: 2000 Rcnt:4 MaxH0:0-0-0-0 MaxH1: 0-0-0-0 MaxH2: 0-0-0-0 MaxH3: 66-153-1777-0

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬FF¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Master Table KPL (I2)

Comm%: 99.9 Tries: 2000 Rcnt:2 MaxH0:0-0-0-0 MaxH1: 0-0-0-0 MaxH2: 0-0-0-0 MaxH3: 1-0-1997-0

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Master Overhead KPL (I1)

Comm%: 99.8 Tries: 2000 Rcnt:4 MaxH0:0-0-0-0 MaxH1: 0-0-0-0 MaxH2: 0-0-0-0 MaxH3: 77-158-1760-0

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬F¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬¬

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi IndyMike,

In an attempt to help better understand your results I wanted to ask a few more questions:

 

q1) Did you also test the Mud closet and Mud overhead devices? The reason I ask is the Mud room stood out as a bad performer (if I interpreted the data correctly). The mud room also has a longer distance for signals to travel. To exclude signal amplitude (attenuation) I would want to compare results with those two other devices. Please forgive me if I missed that information as it is a lot to review.

 

q2) Did you measure the relative transmit output levels of the two 2413 PLMs against the 2412 PLM? I ask for two reasons. One being to exclude a difference in transmitter strengths. The other is because I have been wanting to hear from someone else who has measured a 2412 signal strength. My (three) 2413s were all stronger than my (one) 2412 and I was curious if that was normal or an anomaly in my one device.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello ELA,

 

I believe you're at the point I was a few months ago - trying to explain the results based on signal level/noise. In my opinion, neither are involved. The mere fact that the devices respond reliably with 0 hops tends to rule this out.

 

Specific answers:

1) To answer your direct question, yes I have tested the two I2 devices on the same circuit as the "Mud Room" KPL. Being I2, they normally return 100%. The Mud Room KPL is on the opposite phase from the PLM. It typically runs a couple of % worse than the Master Overhead (Phase A) KPL.

 

The following are tests I performed with HL2 some time back. They involve more units that are widely spread across the house. Of particular interest is the "test KPL" which is plugged in next to the PLM. These runs are a little different from the previous as I have disabled the PLM retries. From what I have seen, the retries help the 1 Hop reception. They do not help the 3 hop reception significantly.

 

One Hop Results (255 Trials) - PLM Retry OFF

1Hop_TestKPL.jpg

3 Hop Results (255 Trials) - PLM Retry OFF

3Hop_TestKPL.jpg

 

3 Hop Line graphs (in order presented above) I'm trying to show the time relationship of the failures (synchronous). The variation in the character font width is making my life difficult.

-------------------FFF-FFFF-FFF-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------F-F-F-F----F--F------------------------------------------------

---------F-------F--FFFFFF-FFF-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------F----------F-----F--FFF-F----------FF-F-----------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------FF-FFFF-F---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------FF--FFFFFF---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------F-FFFFFF-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------F-------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

The fact that the "Test KPL" is next to the PLM, but still fails at the same time as the other remote devices, again rules out noise/absorption.

 

2) I believe I agree that the signal level of the 2412S is lower than that of the 2413's. I'll have to get back with you on numbers. I'm having trouble finding data where I've tested with a defined load.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello ELA,

 

I believe you're at the point I was a few months ago - trying to explain the results based on signal level/noise. In my opinion, neither are involved. The mere fact that the devices respond reliably with 0 hops tends to rule this out.

 

Specific answers:

1) To answer your direct question, yes I have tested the two I2 devices on the same circuit as the "Mud Room" KPL. Being I2, they normally return 100%.

 

Hi IndyMike,

I am not at any point, simply looking for the complete data. You showed two other devices in the Mud room and I did not see them in your data, that is all.

You are saying they normally return 100%.

What was of interest is what they return during the same time that the mud room KPL was failing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Illusion,

 

You were one of the people I was thinking of when I started this adventure. I first encountered this when we were trading link table read results.

 

My home brew software is performing a Peek command (used during link table reads/writes). Performance when using 3 Hops and the 2413S is spotty at times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi IndyMike,

I am not at any point, simply looking for the complete data. You showed two other devices in the Mud room and I did not see them in your data, that is all.

You are saying they normally return 100%.

What was of interest is what they return during the same time that the mud room KPL was failing.

 

ELA,

 

Those test results were intended to be representative. Two widely spread I1 devices failing while an I2 device (on the same circuit passed). I did not test the two I2 devices on the mud room circuit. In my mind there was no point. I have tested them previously and they perform similar to the Master Table I2 device (at or near 100%).

 

Some time ago I performed a scan of most of the devices in my home. The following details failures by device type (I1 vs I2). Failures on the I1 devices occurred during the same point in time. The two I2 Mud room units you are questioning were at 100%

 

House_Summary.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks IndyMike,

 

You know how when you are the one doing the testing, that you are focused on certain ideas/concepts/theories. I understand that you excluded the need to test those other two. From an outsiders perspective, when you presented your data what stood out to me was a need to see those two other devices results.

 

So what is your next step?

 

If it were me I would want to test those suspect i1 devices in a pristine test environment. Of course that would require replacing one of them so you could remove it to bench test it.

You can then determine if it is the i1 device itself or if the test environment plays into it.

 

That is what I did with my suspect i1 keypadlinc and it failed on the test bench setup as well. The newly installed i2 device gave 100% in the home environment.

 

Best of luck with whatever is next. Thanks for sharing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IM

 

One of the things that happens when max hops 2 or 3 is specified in the outbound command, the responder must wait longer to send the ACK even if it receives the command on the first try. Do you have the ability to accurately determine the AC cycle that starts the ACK message. I'm wondering if the I1 and I2 devices send the ACK at a slightly different point (start on a different AC cycle). That should not matter but the required delay in sending the ACK when max hop 2/3 is the only thing I can think of that max hops 2/3 is affecting.

 

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ELA,

 

The Q&A is a good process for vetting the data (even if I get impatient at times).

 

To date I've experienced failures in all of the following configurations

1) Tested the "Test KPL" (previously failed next to the PLM) on a filterlinc isolated strip.

2) Disabled the PLM RF function and repeated the above.

3) Drug home a Sola Isolation transformer (saturation mode) from work and repeated the above.

 

On the flip side, this is an intermittent problem. Yesterday the house was quiet - no one home and nothing running. Communications to the I1 devices were horrible.

 

Today I have the house full of people, well running, playstations, TV's etc. I've been scanning for two hours with 1 single failure. I'm thinking this has to be a power quality issue affecting the 60Hz synchronization. Really wish I could figure out a way to prove it.

 

IM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lee,

 

If I understand you correctly - you are asking that I monitor the I1 VS I2 responses to see if they are occurring at different 60 Hz zero crossing relative to the initial command. That I should be able to do.

 

My problem will be trying to capture a "failed" response to see if it is different than a good response.

 

I'm guessing that the theory here is that the I1 devices "sometimes" skip a 60 Hz crossing and generate a timeout at the PLM? I could understand this with a single device, but I've seen 18 I1 devices all begin to fail at the same point in time.

 

Nonetheless, it's not something that I've looked for - I'll give it a try.

 

Thanks,

IM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IM

 

Yes, where the ACK occurs in time relative to the original command. Except I put the issue with the PLM rather than the device. Something that is perfectly normal for older I1 devices which the newer I2 devices never do. Or maybe the reverse. The newer devices always do something the older devices do not adhere to.

 

I agree it is not a communications issue in the normal sense. Not noise or signal attenuation from outside sources. Standing on the outside looking in that leaves the timing of the network. Max Hops clearly affects the timing of the ACK response, both for the responder who is waiting to send the ACK and the Controller who is waiting for the ACK to arrive. Even when the responder receives the message with minimum hops it has to wait on the possibility another message might arrive later due to more hops allowed. The old throughput charts show a distinct drop off in network data rate the greater the max hop count.

 

Perhaps the newer I2 devices are better optimized to achieve higher data throughput rates. Something the older devices do not play well at. I don't think this is an I1 device failure as much as the newer PLM works better, faster with the newer devices and fails to handle as well the way the older devices work.

 

I really hate this. Trying to deduce a cause when most of the information is hidden. We would run into this in the field at times working with other OEMs. They considered their products black boxes, confidential to all except their own employees or representatives. Yet the customer expected us to identify which black box was as fault. I understand why SmartLabs keeps this information to themselves but it is so frustration working in the dark.

 

I could be all wet with this timing idea. May have nothing to do with it but I cannot think of anything else max hops could be affecting.

 

Understand the challenge of catching a failure. It may not be possible without access to the PLM firmware where I think the issue is. You've done a great job of documenting the problem. SmartLabs should hire you for problem analysis. It may not be possible to take it to the next level with the information available or the lack of it.

 

Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...