Yes, hit G and it will upload the correct bootloader. Be aware that this is going to set your fuses for an external clock. So you will need to use an external clock after you disconnect this setup and try to use it on it's own.

There is no support for the ATtiny4313 in avr-gcc 4.3.2.  Which is distributed with the standard Arduino IDE 1.0.4 or 1.5.2.  You will need to update to avr-gccc 4.3.3 which is included in WinAVR 20100110 package.

I tried this before to get it to work.

Good info. BTW, is there a guide to upgrading the AVR toolchain into the Arduino IDE? I know it's pretty much just copying files over, but some of the Arduino files look modified. What should get copied over and what shouldn't?

Eyes though? How on earth do you get glue in your eye?

(Well, maybe you're a girl. Girls put all sorts of weird stuff in their eyes without reading warning labels)

Funny! The only example I can give of someone getting glue in their eye just so happened to be a girl. She was using superglue which was plugged up and after trying to clear the plug, she pointed it at her eye to see if it was coming out and it wasn't so she squeezed it harder. Well, it came out... with a spurt, right into her eye.

 (let's not move this into the gutter....lol)

Using a voltage divider of 1M and 10K, you would reduce 40Kv down to 400V which could be read by most decent meters. Wouldn't this be acceptable, or no?

If you are using Nick's http://gammon.com.au/Arduino/Atmega_Board_Programmer.zip then this sketch is self-contained.  To run it you need open the Serial Monitor window at 115200 baud.

Of course.... I overlooked that part. Using Nick's sketch, he doesn't select a programmer at all. All commands are done via the serial port.

Did the chip detector portion of the tutorial work ok?

Can you post a link to Nick's tutorial and also the exact message you are getting?

Actually, I spoke incorrectly. In the AVR, the BOD does generate a reset. So in the case of the AVR, it would not function as I described. One would have to set the current state to EEPROM, then upon a reset, check that state. Though, you would eventually wear out the eeprom this way.

The way you are planning would work better for the AVR. As a suggestion, use the analog comparator (AIN0 and AIN1) to monitor your voltage which will generate an interrupt when the voltage drops. Otherwise, you have to keep polling the analog pins and hope you catch the drop fast enough before the cap discharges to the point of resetting the AVR.

Using the example in the maniacbug library...

Code:

    if ( radio.available() )

If that tests TRUE, it means it received "something" which you could use by itself to trigger your action. Or if you need to know what 'something' is:

Code:

OK = radio.read( something, len_something);

OK will just be an indactor that read was successful. But len_something number of bytes received will be in variable something.

on the transmit side:

Code:

bool ok = radio.write( something, len_something );

Of course, there is a bit more to it than that, but that is the core of it. You send something on one side, and receive it on the other. Look at the led_remote example in the RF24 library

Your code is riddled with all kinds of logical errors, and not even close to functioning code. But the reason that you are only getting "2" is because this:

Code:

Serial.println(buttonState);

The only thing you are sending over the serial port is the value of buttonstate. And that isn't including the pot values at all.

This is what you probably should be sending:

Code:

char msg[5] = {analogRead(POT1)>>6,analogRead(POT2)>>2,analogRead(POT3)>>2,b1,b2};

But, you are also using the buttonstate variable inconsistently. First you are packing the bits with two different button statuses, but then you are changing it with only button1.

Where do we stop?

Where we start and where we stop is a personal subjective choice we all make for ourselves, lets leave it at that.

Lefty

Fair enough My personal and subjective choice is to give people the information they are asking for and leave it up to them as to what they do with it and not to assume the audience is incapable unless they tell me that they are.

If I give the wrong information, please correct me. I certainly don't know everything and I am not always right. But please don't tell me what information is safe to give or not. Is that fair to ask?

I don't suspect that you will have any problems running this in 1.5 now that it is working.

For the 4313, you should be able to use the same resources meant for the 2313 (the main difference is just 4K of flash versus 2K). The bootloader should work, but you will need to modify the boards.txt file just a bit. The tinycore and variant file meant for the 2313 *should* work. If not, it should only require a few minor changes.

I will look into this, as the 2313 is actually one of my favorite chips to use (I used them a ton before starting to mess with the Arduino) and I have been meaning to dig into getting Arduino running on them. I have about 20 of them sitting right here.

But have you created an instance of it (via the constructor) in your code (no, you haven't)? You must do that before you can try to use it as an object (the narcoleptic.delay part.) Open the narcoleptic code and look at the function called narcoleptic::narcoleptic. That will tell you how to create an instance of that object in your code. That is called a constructor.

And you need to answer AWOLs question about the virtualwire library. That is the majority of your problem.

Awesome! I'm glad it is working for you.

The one thing that I learned from this is that Nick's sketch is an excellent "recovery" tool given the built in programming, bootloader, and outputting of a clock. This could be used to recover 'bricked' chips. I don't see it currently being passed around as such, but I will certainly do so in the future.

I wonder if Nick would either be willing to create a branch of it specific to recovery (or if he would mind if I did so.) I will have to PM him.

I actually modded my usbtinyasp (adafruit) programmer to output the clock in order to use it for recovery purposes.

There may be cases where we tell someone that a triac is the proper route, and they simply go and plug one in without understanding it, but that is unavaoidable (and hopefully the last time they would try that!) A smart person will instead go and look at how a triac works and all the theory behind it, then either experiment SAFELY or come and ask more questions about parts they don't understand. So, to first assume that they wouldn't go and try to learn about the concept would assume they aren't a smart person.

Everybody is a newbie and a novice at some point. Nobody is born knowing how to connect and control a triac. The best time to learn is when you have something you need to apply it to.

While your points have do have some merit, I just feel you are making too many assumptions about what a given person of unknown knowledge and experience may go off and do with such advice.

 Because AC mains powered devices and circuits have large safety considerations for risks of possible injury, death, and/or major property damage, I have tried to adapt the rather arbitrary stance of "if you have to ask you probably shouldn't be messing with it".

 I try not to sound abusive or condensery about it and many time just won't post a response at all. But I do cringe at time at some of the suggestions or advice given out to what appears to be pretty inexperienced people.

 The internet and it's anonymity allows one to give out advice and recommendations with not much personal accountability of what it might lead to even with the best of intentions. I ask that people at least consider that. 

Lefty

That's because I am not anyone's mother. Their safety is THEIR concern. If they do not have concern for their own safety, absolutely nothing I say is going to save them. I think mentioning it may be dangerous is simply good enough and move on. But we are talking here about an example where no matter what, the user is playing with mains voltage. There is risk, period.

It's not as if I am telling him to plug one end of the mains voltage into pin 2 and the other into pin 4. There isn't enough information given to even harm himself because he will need to go research how to hook it up in the first place.

Honestly, I am not making any assumptions at all. I am giving information. They can do with whatever they want, including ignoring it completely. The only assumptions being made are assuming the person has a lack of common sense, skill or intellect, and honestly.... that is just arrogant.

I would completely disagree that just mentioning that a triac is the right tool for the job is dangerous in any way, shape, or form.

We need to really stop trying to be people's mothers around here. I'm sorry, but that really irritates me. It is condencending by its very nature whether that is intentional or not. The offered solution seems to be holding out information to people simply because we *think* they might be stupid enough to just jam a triac into an outlet because some guy on a forum mentioned the word? Seriously... think about it.

Where do we stop? Should we not talk about scissors because people might cut themselves? Maybe we should tell them that they need to hold the plastic end, not the metal end?