- Joined
- Jan 22, 2008
- Messages
- 53,132
- Helped
- 14,792
- Reputation
- 29,871
- Reaction score
- 14,293
- Trophy points
- 1,393
- Location
- Bochum, Germany
- Activity points
- 301,165
It has been claimed, sending data bits followed by it's complement isn't TRUE manchester code. Why? I think, it's exactly the same.
P.S.:
O.K., reviewing the contributions, I understand, that the difference is in using an UART. In this case, I would like to place an additional comment.
The presented method is almost equivalent to manchester encoding on send, as long as a continuous data stream is emitted by the UART. But it's not fully equivalent on receive, because it misses the ability of synchronizing on a bit level. I don't doubt, that it can work anyway, but the requirements for the receiver bit detector are tighter. If you don't manage to sync on the start bit, the complete packet is lost.
In my opinion, it's rather easy to realize a software deserializer/manchester decoder at the transmission speeds involved with usual SRD systems. It's able to synchronize on a bit level without any compromise.
P.S.:
O.K., reviewing the contributions, I understand, that the difference is in using an UART. In this case, I would like to place an additional comment.
The presented method is almost equivalent to manchester encoding on send, as long as a continuous data stream is emitted by the UART. But it's not fully equivalent on receive, because it misses the ability of synchronizing on a bit level. I don't doubt, that it can work anyway, but the requirements for the receiver bit detector are tighter. If you don't manage to sync on the start bit, the complete packet is lost.
In my opinion, it's rather easy to realize a software deserializer/manchester decoder at the transmission speeds involved with usual SRD systems. It's able to synchronize on a bit level without any compromise.