Slow-to-wake garage door opener

Since I don't use the garage for a car, I don't need to open it very often. But when I do, I have to push the button on the remote anywhere up to a dozen times before the door opens. Once it's open, it will close and open first time every time. Until I close the door and leave it alone for a few days. Then it's back to the same old tricks.

I've checked the battery, resoldered everything that looked even slightly suspect (along with some that looked fine, just because) and replaced the PCB-located switch. I also did a reset on the codes and started over (it's a "learning" device, not the kind with a bunch of little switches).

Sadly, I do not have any RF test gear to see if the remote is actually transmitting.

Other than via the overhead door, access to the garage is through a rental unit, so being inside when I try the thing "fresh" is not an option.

Suggestions?

Isaac

Reply to
isw
Loading thread data ...

Most systems use a rolling code that moves through a predetermined pseudo-random sequence, where the sequence is determined by the secret key. The receiver remembers recent codes used, and can detect whether the code just received is correct in any sequence for the known remotes. After it has received the neighbour's remotes or other in-band signals with incorrect codes, it takes more repetitions of correct code sequences before it's willing to unlock.

Clifford Heath.

Reply to
Clifford Heath

I barely understood your post or the reply, but what happens if you push the remote once (or maybe twice) and wait the same length of time that it would take you to push the button those dozen times?

IOW, is it responding to the first push but taking forever to do it, or to the last push?

Reply to
Micky

I never realised it was that straightforward. Never having researched it, I'd thought is was some impenetrable immensly complex , uC software, pseudo-random number sequencing and varying the seeds for different makes and individual matched send/rec combinations.

Reply to
N_Cook

Remote systems which use a "rolling code" can fall out of synchronization (the receiver expects a different code than the remote is sending) for any of a number of reasons:

- You accidentally push the button on the remote while "out of range" of the receiver. This can happen pretty easily if the remote is in your pocket... sort of like "butt-dialing" a phone.

- There's another door opener of the same brand and type located close to your home, and your receiver "hears" transmissions meant for your neighbor's remote.

In both of these cases, when you try to access the door, the "rolling code" part of the transmission it makes is in a different part of the sequence than the receiver expects to hear.

The receiver will typically treat this as either a brute-force attempt to open the door, or a "replay attack" (somebody recorded your transmission and is playing it back).

The systems often have a "resynchronization" feature, in which transmitting a long series of correct codes in the proper sequence will "convince" the receiver that the remote is the right one and is properly paired. The receiver then resets its sequence to match that of the remote.

The "up to a dozen times" sounds reasonable for a resynchronization.

Check the manual for your door opener - if it has this sort of rolling-code/resynchronization architecture the manual will probably say so.

If that's your problem... you'll probably have to live with it... but maybe keep the remote control in a place where its button isn't likely to be pushed by accident.

Reply to
Dave Platt

Yup, my Jeep has the same problem.. Sometimes when I am parked in a lot with many of cars, the hand grab auto unlock will not work, unless I stand there for a few seconds then it works and it'll work just fine repeatively.

Jamie

Reply to
M Philbrook

There's a possibility that the remote isn't the issue. The door might simply be stuck and repeated button pushes finally 'pry' it loose.

Reply to
Bennett

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.